Tim Chambers tbchambers@yahoo.com writes:
Television (band), Nirvana (band) and Catatonia (band) are all better page titles.
Why are they better? Are they even demonstrably different besides being (a) harder to type (b) Unimplemented
[[Baseball/History]] (especially from [[Baseball/World Series]]...)
[[History of Baseball]]
as is [[Baseball History]]
and [[Baseball World Series]] are synonymous.
Similarly /Talk pages are great...
But the separate talk: namespace is even better.
I must admit I haven't been following this. What would replace [[World War II/Talk]] ?
I think the concept of subpages is flawed in an encyclopedia. Why limit ourselves to a primitive hierarchical structure?
Why limit ourselves to a flat non-structure?
Eliminating subpages paves the way for the implementation of even better navigation features.
I don't see how subpages affect this one way or the other.
any page with "baseball" in the title would get a link to the [[Baseball]] article, and the [[Baseball]] article would list links to all the other baseball articles.
I don't think this is dependent on the elimination of subpages one way or the other...
On 7 Nov 2001, Gareth Owen wrote:
Tim Chambers tbchambers@yahoo.com writes:
Television (band), Nirvana (band) and Catatonia (band) are all better page titles.
Why are they better? Are they even demonstrably different besides being (a) harder to type (b) Unimplemented
Not particularly harder to type, but maybe a little. The question doesn't turn on any single issue, here, certainly not on whether we have to type () versus /. Of course they're unimplemented--that's because we haven't implemented them yet. It's kind of like saying that it's a disadvantage of drug legalization that drugs are, in fact, still illegal. Yeah. That's why we want 'em legal! :-)
I think the concept of subpages is flawed in an encyclopedia. Why limit ourselves to a primitive hierarchical structure?
Why limit ourselves to a flat non-structure?
For reasons listed on http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Wikipedia_subpages_pros_and_cons
One of those reasons was inadequately stated. I'm going to include here the new statement:
* '''Single-level hierarchy is unjustified:''' subpages allow us to impose some conceptual structure or hierarchy on topics--but only one level of hierarchy. This is conceptually unappealing. Shouldn't it be either all or none? Look at it this way: suppose we create <nowiki>[[Foo/Bar]]</nowiki> and we're writing on the <nowiki>[[/Bar]]</nowiki> subpage. Then we discover a subsubtopic we want to create. What do we do then--just create a brand new top level page, apparently, for the subsubtopic. But then why do we have <nowiki>[[/Bar]]</nowiki> on a subpage in the first place? Doesn't make sense. This sort of thing could very easily happen in any area of human knowledge that is highly structured and "hierarchical," such as math, philosophy, and even history (there are many historical details of historical details).
Eliminating subpages paves the way for the implementation of even better navigation features.
I don't see how subpages affect this one way or the other.
Lee's proposal is just one example. It would be *way* too complicated to have both subpages *and* Lee's proposal.
Larry
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org