CZ:Proposals/Should we allow article specific subpages?

This proposal has not yet been assigned to any decisionmaking group or decisionmaker(s).
The Proposals Manager will do so soon if and when the proposal or issue is "well formed" (including having a driver).
For now, the proposal record can be found in the new proposals queue.

Driver: Chris Day

Complete explanation

At present only subpages from a generic list of subpages can be created. The core of this proposal is to allow some subpages that are article-specific subpages. Since such a subpage would not be available as a choice in the list of unused subpages, it has to be designated in the metadata for a specific article.

To add an article-specific subpage to a cluster the "tab1 = " (or tab2, or tab3, as the case may be) field in the metadata page for the article needs to be edited to contain the name. Up to three different article-specific subpages can be designated at the moment.

CZ:Isotopes is an experimental article-specific subpage type currently being tested on Oxygen, Iron and Hydrogen. It is designed to be a tab-navigable subpage used on articles about elements that have a lot of specific isotope data.

Reasoning

Generic subpages such as "Catalogs" can be useful for storing data related to the article but the tab name for the subpage is not very specific for the kind of data available. The ability to create up to three specific subpage types will increase the usability of the article for casual readers who are not familiar with the articles structure. For example, chemistry students will be immediately be aware that one of the subpages has information relating to different isotopes if the tab is actually named Isotopes rather than Catalogs.

But why not make Isotopes a generic subpage?

Certainly this is possible but there are three reasons for not having all subpages hardwired as generic subpages. First, there is a timelag for authors to get new subpage titles approved this can be frustrating for authors. Second, by allowing authors to experiment with up to three unique subpages for an article we are fostering an environment that encourages creativity with respect to subpages. Third, the list of unused subpages that we currently have on the talk page could become massive if filled with rarely used but useful subpage types.

If any Article specific subpages starts to become popular it can always be upgraded to generic subpage status.

Implementation

This proposal has already been implemented for testing. The MSDS and Isotopes subpages are examples of two types of Article Specific Subpage that are currently being tested.

Discussion

A discussion section, to which anyone may contribute.

Proposals System Navigation (advanced users only)

Help/policy New proposals List of all proposals Driverless proposals: proposals that lack a champion Discarded proposals: poorly formed proposals Templates: {{Proposal}} | {{Proposal assignment}} | {{Proposals navigation}}

Proposal lists (some planned pages are still blank): Editorial Council: Active | Finished | Declined Approval and Feedback: Active | Finished | Declined Eduzendium: Active | Finished | Declined Recruitment: Active | Finished | Declined Constabulary: Active | Finished | Declined Executive: Active | Finished | Declined Technical: Active | Finished | Declined PR: Active | Finished | Declined Ad hoc management: Active | Finished | Declined

Speaking as a newbie, I'm especially glad that this came up. My initial reading of subpages was that, indeed, article-specific ones were possible. Until I read this proposal, I was uncertain that they were not.

This is a question as much as an observation, since I may be thinking of a concept of "hierarchy" -- I've also seen reference to "cluster" -- that may or may not be consistent with the idea of an article-specific subpage. In some cases, article-specific subpages, not necessarily replacing linked pages, may be a kindler and gentler way to edit.

For example, while randomly looking through pages, I came across "Pearl Harbor", which was a bit ambiguous to start in that it referred both to the place, and to the battle of December 1941. That ambiguity should be resolved, since the first is part of the geographical topic of the Hawaiian Islands and the latter variously part of World War II, or the "Pacific War", or various other historical terms.

Rather than reverting, since I don't have a good sense of rules and custom in doing so, I put some content concerns on the article talk page. IMHO, it really doesn't give proper historic perspective to say, as the article did, that the attack led to the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Had article-specific subpages been possible, I would have created, and then started on, at least:

• Pearl Harbor: Warning of the Attack of December 7, 1941. This would tie in with MAGIC, SIGINT (signals intelligence) and/or the subset COMINT (communications intelligence, Intelligence (information gathering)/Indications and Warning, and so forth.
• Pearl Harbor: Why did the Japanese choose this target? Might be more alternative to have a higher-level article about Japanese strategy for expanding the Pacific War out of China
• Pearl Harbor: Immediate military consequences and roughly concurrent attacks (e.g., Clark Field_
• --something about the next period of the war, including the Doolittle Raid, Battle of the Coral Sea, Battle of Midway, and Guadalcanal/Operation WATCHTOWER.

Do I have something completely different in mind that what this proposal conceived? Should some or all of what I described simply be independent pages hyperlinked to the main article? Howard C. Berkowitz 07:57, 2 May 2008 (CDT)