Talk:World War II, air war, Allied offensive counter-air campaign
Reason for not using subpages
Chris, you can see that here, as well as Vietnam War, a good deal of my focus was to break an unmanageably long article into sub-articles that both flowed better and lent themselves to more detailed fact-checking. By and large, I regarded the subarticle titles largely as placeholders, given some of the objections to Jensen's comma style. It had been my hope that a naming consensus might emerge and the metadata could go in for a more generally accepted title structure.
Unfortunately, a consensus on structure has not merged. Some of these titles are ugly, ugly, ugly. I still have mixed feelings; it does help to have the Related Articles page, but "definition" is quite difficult when still struggling with the division of huge-content into subarticles.
Thoughts?
Howard C. Berkowitz 18:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, the reason I added the metadata was because the subpages tag on the article was causing the error check template to kick in. How many articles are we talking about? Is there any chance you can write all their titles on one page in a grand hierarchy, as you did for intelligence related articles? It might be easier to come up with a sensible naming scheme is we see how all the articles are related. Chris Day 18:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)