Tim Chambers <tbchambers(a)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)