lsanger@nupedia.com writes:
But no one has explicitly said the latter. In fact, it looks like the discussion is neither--it just looks like you're arguing about whether we should have subpages
I'm not arguing anything :) I'm just stating that I like subpages, and will continue creating them, and organising my input with them, up until the exact moment that the software stops me.
As soon as we move to Magnus' software, the obvious solution will be [[Nirvana (rock band)]], etc.
And [[Nirvana (grunge band)]], [[Nirvana (band)]], [[Nirvana (60s band)]]
Well, it might be easier for somebody to remember [[Baseball/History]] if he created or worked on that page, but if he had created [[history of baseball]], he'd no doubt find *that* easy to remember
I guess what I'm arguing is this. At the moment 'pedia contains the following articles
[[History of the United States]] [[Chinese history]] [[Baseball/History]] [[Film history]] [[History of the internet]]
Now I don't *really* mind which it is, but [0]
Similarly, I could forsee (since hypotheticals seem more important than actualities these days) it having: [[Battle of Stalingrad]] [[Siege of Leningrad]] [[Normandy landings]]
But if I'm writing [[World War II/Stalingrad]] and want to link to Leningrad, I think I'm gonna be able to figure out [[/Leningrad]], rather than [[Battle of Leningrad]] or [[Siege of Leningrad]]. I think that *is* easier to link, if not accidentally, but with minimum thought and effort on my behalf.
The fact is that having subpages doesn't make pagenames any easier to remember.
It doesn't make known pagenames easier to remember, it makes the unknown ones easy to deduce.
Right, I've said my piece, so I'll go and libel [[Bud Selig]] a bit more.
[0] I mind anything, to be honest. I'm just stating my case.
On 7 Nov 2001, Gareth Owen wrote:
As soon as we move to Magnus' software, the obvious solution will be [[Nirvana (rock band)]], etc.
And [[Nirvana (grunge band)]], [[Nirvana (band)]], [[Nirvana (60s band)]]
Your point is? The subpages could just as easily be [[Nirvana/grunge, band, 80s band, etc.]].
Well, it might be easier for somebody to remember [[Baseball/History]] if he created or worked on that page, but if he had created [[history of baseball]], he'd no doubt find *that* easy to remember
I guess what I'm arguing is this. At the moment 'pedia contains the following articles
[[History of the United States]] [[Chinese history]] [[Baseball/History]] [[Film history]] [[History of the internet]]
Now I don't *really* mind which it is, but [0]
Since we're going to have to look up the title, I don't think it matters that much either. Which means the question whether or not to have subpages doesn't turn on this. (It turns on other issues.)
Similarly, I could forsee (since hypotheticals seem more important than actualities these days) it having: [[Battle of Stalingrad]] [[Siege of Leningrad]] [[Normandy landings]]
But if I'm writing [[World War II/Stalingrad]] and want to link to Leningrad, I think I'm gonna be able to figure out [[/Leningrad]], rather than [[Battle of Leningrad]] or [[Siege of Leningrad]]. I think that *is* easier to link, if not accidentally, but with minimum thought and effort on my behalf.
I really doubt that's what you'd do. You'd use the search engine. I hope you would, anyway.
The fact is that having subpages doesn't make pagenames any easier to remember.
It doesn't make known pagenames easier to remember, it makes the unknown ones easy to deduce.
Well, *any* convention makes known names easy to deduce.
Right, I've said my piece, so I'll go and libel [[Bud Selig]] a bit more.
[0] I mind anything, to be honest. I'm just stating my case.
Yep, sounds good.
For the record, I don't care that much either. I'm just trying to make an improvement, and I've encountered considerable resistance. ;-)
Larry
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org