Talk:Al Gore's views/subpage discussion

This kind of page is out of the norm - I can surmise that since the page is protected, you wanted to work on some part of it. The general way to to do that is to make a subpage like Al Gore/Draft for whole article rewrite) or Al Gore/Views for your section here. -SV(talk) 20:15, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why did you move this page? I thought Wikipedia:Do_not_use_subpages. --AaronSw 20:21, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That rule applies only to encyclopedic content - for drafts, for metapages in your own user namespace, like User:AaronSw/Links, then its fine. Its important to distinguish between a rough work-page and something thats part of the encyclopedia. Thats the only reason why subpages are still in use. For other reasons, they need to be made into normal articles. Its a little open to interp, but if you want to ask other people, go here WP:VP and bring it up as an issue. -SV(talk) 20:25, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, I want this to be a real page, since it's too long and uninteresting to most casual readers to go on Al Gore. (Also, it's the subject of a dispute.) Precedent: See List of Homestar Runner characters, the many divisions of cryptography, etc. --AaronSw 20:24, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

First of all - an example from a fictional subject doesnt really carry over to real world topics. We tend to let the fiction people go on all they want to. Also, an edit war is the last reason to go splitting thigs off. You may "want" something to be one way, but this is an open and collaborative project - anyone can edit it (which is why you are here) and therefore, there are some general principles we need to go by. These are always changing, and you are welcome to discuss these principles - alter and change them with others if you like - but you cant just go doing thigs all willy nilly. For John Kerry, for example, I recently split off the page into a subsection for his Vietnam experience - this was rejected by others. The reason for that was that it was too big (still is, kind of) and therefore needed to be split. We later found consensus to do the split by history/campaign, and that was then carried over to GWB article. So, Relax. Enjoy wikilife. -SV(talk) 20:39, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

(I don't mean to sound agitated, I just write tersely.) I'm not sure what your point is. Are you objecting to the split off or are you suggesting I shouldn't because others may object? If you feel I'm violating a principle, can you tell me where this principle is written down? --AaronSw 20:46, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok - 1. if you are acting outside of consensus, then yes that is one objection. 2. if this is done in the context of an edit war - thats an other. 3. if you are making a new page with redundant material .... 4. if its a split not done with feedback/consensus 5. if the split is improper (could be better made) 6. It the real meaning of the page is to make a working draft, while the page is in protection, then the policy is to make a draft (a subpage that sooner or later will be weeded out, unless its a user subpage) Those are the various objective objections. :) Apology/explanation appreciated - when people are new, and are quick, reactionary or terse, the tendncy is to think that theres an axe to grind, youre very young, or that you just arent familiar with the pace of wikipedia and the informal rules, etc. PS : I probably cant find the link for that 'polic' even though I may have wrote it a year or two ago ;) No - subpages are temporary - thats the rule. -SV(talk) 20:50, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, however none of your "If ..." clauses are true. --AaronSw

Then explain, rather than assume I'm a mindreader. :) -SV(talk) 20:56, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's no idea to create subpages in the article namespace, because they aren't subpages. Subpages in userspace get suppage navigation inserted etc., while in the article namespace the slash is interpreted as a part of the name. Put drafts in subpages in the user namespace in any fashion you want. In the article namespace, however, there is no reason not to put the draft in the place where the "finished article" will reside. (Wikipedia articles are all drafts of some sort, they are never done). — Sverdrup 21:00, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That may all be well and good, but its incorrect. The page in question is protected. If someone wants to edit the whole, page, one makes a temp subpage to chew on while its protected. The changes/ideas are then added to the article. See Terrorism for an example. The article should be worked on holistically, (or wholistically) especially in dispute cases, where nobody outside the discussion is going to have a clue about the petty particulars. --SV(talk) 21:10, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

SV, what would you like me to explain? --AaronSw 21:03, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)