On 13/06/05, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote: ie - whatever page "Hide and Q" ends up at, have a redirect page at Hide and Q (TNG episode). This means that if you're writing an article and want to link to it you don't have to go and check if it's listed as "Hide and Q", or "Hide and Q (episode)", or "Hide and Q (Star Trek episode)"... which is often one of the reasons to use standard page titles, for linking simplicity.

Timwi wrote: I've recently come across a couple of examples of something like this this too, on Wikiproject Cricket. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cricket_subcategories> directly contains all subcategories of Category:Cricket in it, for use by wikiproject members who want a list of categories to search when categorizing new aticles. My attempts to either replace this with a plain old list page or to move the category tags into talk pages (in accordance with the category guidelines suggesting that "meta" categories should go on talk pages) were vigorously opposed by Wikiproject members. I let the issue lie for a few months since it didn't seem in any way urgent and monitoring the category's usage over that time has been useful. More recently, there's been a bunch of arguing over the usage of transclusion in articles relating to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2005_English_cricket_season>, in this case articles on individual cricket matches are being transcluded into larger articles that group them on various different criteria. I've been arguing that instead of transclusions they should be ordinary links, since this is the practice with other similar groups of articles on Wikipedia (and other reasons I won't go into here. I raised the issue at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29#Unusual_transclusion_issue_not_covered_by_policy> and was told there was also previous discussion at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace#transcluding_prose>). I'm more worried about this one because subst:ing the transcluded article text could result in a very difficult situation to reverse if it turns out to be a bad approach. Wikiprojects are excellent for bringing standardized style and organization to subject areas, but I find it trouble when this starts going in a different direction from the style and organization of Wikipedia as a whole. Wikipedia is supposed to be a general reference work, people will be reading it for all manner of different subject areas and if each subject area is organized differently it'll make it harder to follow (as well as looking more like a hodgepodge). I'm not sure that there needs to be a policy specifically about this, though; in theory it should be enough that Wikipedia's general style guide applies to all articles. In practice, it can be difficult to go against the desires of organized voting blocks like this because by definition they're more interested in these particular articles than other editors are. Not sure how to balance these things out. Perhaps we could start some sort of "WikiProject Wikipedia" dedicated to improving consistency and organization throughout the project as a whole? Seems kind of redundant, somehow. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

an invaluable tool for participants in the Cricket Wikiproject <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket>.

However, I do in general disagree that policy (or at least guideline) couldn't be bypassed when it is for the best for the encyclopdia as a whole. That should be our target, not slaveishly following guidelines for their own sake.

If you need a helping hand, I'll help, because I agree with you. By letting Calsicol revert you and by walking away from it, you are letting them win. :)

I think making it VERY explicit -- i.e. in the title of an article -- that a given description of events is a work of imagination rather than some sort of factual account is always a good idea.

I thought categories were for rational organization?

at least in the Monobook skin, they are at the BOTTOM of the page

Well, I disagree with this, for informational as well as aesthetic purposes, and think it in any event it is a separate discussion from the point I am trying to make. I think labeling something as fiction is of a higher level of importance than labeling all of the other various sets it could fall into, and the purpose of doing so would be quite different from the purpose of categories.

Phil Boswell wrote: But in those cases wouldn't it be more appropriate to actually have an article about the common phrase? That way the normal disambiguation state kicks in and a parenthetical is warranted. Other episodes with titles that aren't common phrases wouldn't be disambiguated, but they also wouldn't be astonishing so they wouldn't need a special rule like this.