Forum:What goes on a main subject page

(moved from [Talk:Rinja] ) Re: Kidneys -- That one's a bit of a stretch. Could we remove that? --mnenyver 21:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.
 * I've been thinking, though: we could use "speculation" pages that mirror the actual content pages for many of the articles. That one might be over the top even for a speculation page, but maybe not.  Something like Rinja/Speculation and the obvious parallels on other pages? -- that old bearded guy 21:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a GREAT idea. Maybe I could even set up a namespace for that -- i.e. Spec:Rinja --mnenyver 02:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, I admit it's a stretch to think that Foglios consciously named Rinja "Renal". If she was consciously named after something, it might well have been this person: Rinja. If I thought about it, I could probably (remembering that great scene from Roxanne) come up with (not 50, say, but how about six) wilder theories. On the other, I stand by its possible relevance, if nothing else, for mnemonic value. To my mind it is a fact that "Rinja" sounds like "renal", and it is someone else that pointed out that Rinja had a pivotal role as Agatha's first Mechanicsburger minion.

The gripping hand is, I think you guys are a bit too uptight. I'm all for separating facts from assumptions, and I'm willing to concede that "the canon", a source of distinguished facts, can be well defined, and (for simplicity, if nothing else) the main writeups should generally be limited to them — even if I think the value of such a definition is questionable otherwise. And if there was actually a danger of one of Possibly Relevant Outside Information or Questions and Theories (or the yet-to-be seen List of Fan Works) overwhelming the main writeup on a page, then certainly it would make sense to move it to its own page, because clearly it merits it. But I really like learning about, e.g., Olaf Tryggvason and some of the others which I did not come up with, and I think this kind of thing (Borzoi is a breed of dogs, Haldane said God must love Beetles, etc.) really does belong at the bottom of the page, and not sequestered where another page load is required to retrieve it.

I'm not going to participate in an edit war, but I ask you to please reconsider. — Zarchne 06:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, Z. It's not really about "being uptight", it's just a different philosophical approach to wiki editing. Even though this wiki is "just" about a webcomic, I feel we need to be clear about when something is an obvious inspiration, homage, or in-joke, and when it's just "Hey, I noticed something interesting". (This is especially true with this comic, since it's full of these kinds of things.) References to Olaf Tryggvassen and "God must love beetles" definitely belong in the main article -- the connection is clear. Something like "Rinja sounds a little bit like 'renal'" would fall under the latter. A separate page for speculation would just be an easy place to put all these little "something interesting" odds and ends, that's all. (Ideally, I'd like a fourth tab at the top, next to Talk. Though now I'm thinking a clever link to a subheading under talk might work just as well... hmm.) --mnenyver 12:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. One thing to keep in mind is that, while it's lots of fun to write this stuff, the real service of a wiki is to those who read it.  IMO we do best by sticking to the facts in the main article (which is not to say it has to be dull -- it doesn't), because the reader who comes here for the first time will need some factual information about what's going on in the story.  The "advanced" reader can benefit from analyses like yours, Z, and that's a good reason to have them here somewhere, but the KISS principle applies when it comes to conveying the key information. -- that old bearded guy 19:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm having a really hard time wrapping my head around it, but I'm also someone who fails to understand the appeal of splash screens, over having the computer actually tell you what it's doing (and there are many other examples of the limited bounds of my marketing demographic). To my mind, it is a mistake to disconnect a brilliant description/analysis of how Jaegers resemble beagles from the page about Jaegers, and the Discussion/Talk: pages are supposed to be about the page, not the subject.  That is, I should be able to get full benefit from the wiki from the links in the pages without going into metadiscussion about the wiki itself, or other disorganized rambling. It just occurred to me to look at the Jaeger talk page and was rather appalled at how interesting the stuff there is and what a mess it's in.  I guess another namespace would solve the problem, though, especially if it was linked-to from the main subject page (like I am suggesting more or less specific forum topics be). — Zarchne 21:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)