There are all sorts of good arguments against deep hierarchical classifications, but subpages do no such thing -- they only ever go one level deep. Meanwhile, pages like SunirShah are becoming massive tomes one must scroll down to in order to see new changes. Changes made in the middle are hopelessly lost. It's ironic that in the modern age, we're moving back to bulky scrolls to put our text on. Using a homepage might not be the best example -- it's Sunir's prerogative how he wants to keep his page after all -- but others who want to keep large amounts of text readable to others are forced to come up with bigger and more cumbersome WikiNames for the pages, creating lots of sprawl and stretching something that was reasonably elegant into a clumsy kludge.
We were against SubPages because of usability issues as well as a desire to keep the namespace uniform to build a consistent PatternLanguage. Those decisions are open to questioning. My homepage is indeed a mess. Hmm.. -- SunirShah
That's an edifying quote from Ward, but SisterSites are orthogonal to the organization of a single page within a single wiki. As well, this is not WardsWiki; I wasn't asking about subpages on C2, but on Meatball. Presumably Ward does not do the thinking or deciding on all things Wiki-related. -- ChuckAdams
I find the use of subpages make linking much more difficult. I have experience with two wikis that used subpages: KnowHowWiki and WikiPedia (in the early days). For KnowHowWiki, I found it almost impossible to link pages together (was that [[Learn about the Internet/Use a search engine]] or [[Learn about the Internet/Use search engines]]?), and I gave up on it quickly. For Wikipedia, subpage usage was so wildly inconsistent that it produced similiar problems. They were generally used to segregate fantasy world topics from the rest of the encyclopedia, which wasn't too bad, but individuals would carve up topics into subpages seemingly following no conventions whatsoever.
I think the ProWiki engine is most developed with respect to subpages (WikiFractality, WikiContextuality, AutoLinkStrategies) and a lot of its projects use it, one way or the other. There is increasing good use. It makes wikis more orderly but also more complicated to use (you have more options). There are situations with a clear benefit (projects within a wiki, collaborative story writing, extended homepage space) but also such without (straight encyclopedias). Anyway, it's not enough to have subpages, you need supporting features (various link support, list, search, page creation, ...). This is where experience only slowly builds.
I think that Meatball can do without subpages but it wouldn't hurt either. Consider http://www.wikiservice.at/dse/wiki.cgi?MarkusRechberger and his extended user space (b***sh*t, he is now at 93 personal pages!). At the end of his homepage there is a LRU subpage listing that is automatically generated by a CDML command. Looks like something that Sunir might come to like. At GründerWiki we have an experimental "article subspace" thats organized in a similar way - maybe that's a development that we will see at Meatball and that would run smoother with technology that supports it. -- HelmutLeitner
Keeping discussions with the document is good if refactoring is part of the game. If you discuss an article (science publishing) it makes little sense. PeerReview seems more logical on subpages. Discussion may also grow out of bounds.
There are more twists. I think ChrisPurcell had subpages display as sections. What does that mean? For example you publish articles like an online newpaper. You need a frontpage displaying the intros of today's (or most recently written) articles. Where do they come from? From a category? From current articles subpages? -- How do you get at the intros? First subsection of article page? -- Where are the articles prepared and peer reviewed before publication? If you need meta data for a page, where do you keep it? Voting data? How do you control visibility and user rights? User rights management down to subsections? -- HelmutLeitner
Could you elaborate on this a bit more? And try to avoid a patronizing tone this time? -- ChuckAdams
Chuck, you've been talking aggressively. You have said "this is an extremely egoful wiki," and claimed that BarnRaising is WordMagic and PhilosoBabble--which, by the way, is a needlessly negative, unhelpful page. I'm sorry that I was patronizing. I was offended by your claim that we were 'extremely egoful' comment. I don't think we are more egoful or more full of ourselves than most places on the 'Net, so I don't see how we could be extremely egotistic. SlashDot is way more into themselves than we are into ourselves, for instance.
I didn't mean to be offensive, but I was offended, and so struck back. My apologies. Let's chalk this exchange to experience, and try to settle into a better rhythm.
Our goal is to build a high quality resource. I want to do this constructively, positively, and by helping each other. This is never going to be perfect, and as volunteers we do not often do work that is not fun, but it doesn't mean we're purposefully trying to be obstinate. However, we don't need to be put on a defensive, since we are not obligated, and have a good working attitude besides.
Also, iconoclasm is fine if you are an outsider, but you aren't (and no one else is) an 'outsider' within this space. I prefer people spend their time here teaching each other. Teaching begins with listening, though. Understanding the current frame of mind of the student, makes it possible to identify areas that are in need of development. We may have a good reason for doing something, or we may not but we may just like it. We can change our minds as a culture, but obviously only will do so when someone within our culture takes the lead. Setting yourself up as an iconoclast puts you outside.
As for this page, it's not a Pattern or Concept, and thus should be on SubPages, which is the Pattern in question, as a simple matter of information organization. Keep related information together. In relation to WikiNow, if we implement SubPages as a result of the discussion, this page will become obsolete. But if it were on SubPages, the page remains relevant (as it has no temporal context), and the discussion becomes at the very least an archive of how we made the decision locally. -- SunirShah
Backlinks aren't as strong as forward links since they are so. Note that SubPages has oodles of backlinks.
I only meant to say that since I was offended by the term 'extremely egoful', I was snarky in response. It wasn't an excuse or attack. Just a connection of what might have seemed like a non-sequitor. re: egos, let's concentrate that on its own page. cf. AttachedEgo. -- SunirShah