[Wikipedia-l] No subpages. Is that your final answer?

[Gareth Owen]

Tim Chambers <tbchambers at 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... 
-- 
Gareth Owen
"Wikipedia does rock.  By the count on the "brilliant prose" page, there
are 14 not-bad articles so far" -- Larry Sanger (12/1/01)