# Wikipedia talk:Subpages

Wikipedia Help Project (Rated NA-class, Low-importance)
This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Low  This page has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

## Archived materials

Archived discussion about subpage is located at the following subpage (naturally enough):

/Archive

Other old talk can be found at Wikipedia talk:Do not use subpages.

## Special dispensation for mathematical proofs

In mathematics, there appears to be an occasional need to provide supporting evidence, documentation and derivations for certain complex mathematical statements. In many cases, providing such derivations directly within the article would clutter the article and make it harder to read, if not just plain uglier. Thus the suggestion is to put these proofs out-of-line, on their own pages. Proofs would be a semi-formal half-way house between the anarchy of talk pages and the formality of article pages; they need not adhere to the "higher standard" of articles, while still providing a coherent, verifiable "audit trail" of the correctness of certain mathematical claims.

The exact need, utility and mechanism for this is discussed at length in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs. Currently, the concept of article proofs for math pages is somewhat experimental; but in order to support the future growth of the math pages, some sort of policy on derivations and proofs will need to be arrived at.

Mechanically, we can place proofs for "Topic" at "Topic article proofs". The idea is to have a consistent naming convention so that the associated proofs for an article can always be found. It was then suggested that a better way of uniformizing the location of proofs is to put them at "Topic/Proofs".

Since all such proofs will always be located in the exact same uniform location, this use of subdirectories seems to evade the technical reasons stated for the ban on article sub-pages. In fact, using a uniform, common naming scheme such as this will make it easier, not harder, to find article proofs.

Thus, a formal request is herewith made to get a special dispensation to use the /Proofs subdirectory for mathematical articles. linas 16:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Suggestion

the draft link redirects to this same page, i think it should go to the wiktonary for an explination of what a draft is. Cherylb 05:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

## Fictional Universes

I think that sub-topics pertaining to specific fictional universes or works ought to be another recognized exception. Pages about fictional places or characters, or pages discussign a fictional work in more detail than can fit on a single page, but that have not achieved general notariety outside of the context of the paeticualr fictional work involved, could well be accomodated at a subpage of the primary page on the fictional work, series, or universe involved. This case seems to me to avoid all the objections to subpages that involve content belonging to multiple hierarchies. DES (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• I don't really like the idea. Articles cannot generally be put in a neat tree of dependencies, and it makes finding articles (and hotlinking to them) harder - and thus it would also encourage (re)creation of articles by the wrong title. If a name is ambiguous, we can always use "Foo (Bar character)" rather than "Foo". Radiant_>|< 07:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
One could also argue that articles that would merit being in sub pages for the reasons you give are by definition not noteworthy enough to be in Wikipedia. Pimlottc 16:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

## Finding subpages

Is there any way to list all the subpages of a specific page? Thanks, Bovlb 01:30:49, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

To find all subpages of Manifold, for instance, go to Special:Allpages and type "manifold/" in the box labelled "Display all pages starting with:" (I learned this trick from R. Koot) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. A useful trick, but I was really looking for some way to include such a list on the page. Maybe it could be done with an extension. Thanks, Bovlb 14:47:08, 2005-08-10 (UTC)
You can. Embed that special page in your page, adding the string you want to filter
```{{Special:PrefixIndex/manifold/}}
```
Or as I do in all my pages, use the magic word to list all subpages for the current page
``` {{Special:PrefixIndex/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/}}
```
--83.80.25.121 (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

## OS/2

is the artcile OS/2 really the article 2, a subpage of OS. Should it be changed? --Commander Keane 04:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

it is not, as subpages are not enabled in mainspace: see WP:TITLESLASH. —  crh 23  (Talk) 09:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

## AC/DC

The rock band AC/DC is another example where making it a sub-page of, in this case, AC seems crazy OZ_Rhett 09:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

it is not a subpage, as subpages are not enabled in mainspace: see WP:TITLESLASH. The talk page technically is, but this is not a problem: you just get a link at the top to the parent page. —  crh 23  (Talk) 09:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

## Embedded Tables

I found myself discussing this with a fellow editor, so I might as well ask the experts: is it OK to use the subpage format for embedded sections, such as charts? Mareino 02:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

## One line summary

There being a need for concise one line summaries of guidelines, I offer this version. Please feel free to change it as necessary, and update the template Template:Guideline one liner to suit your taste. If the summary is inaccurate, please improve it rather than removing the template. Comments and opinions welcome! Stevage 13:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see the "need" for such one-line summaries. So far in the few cases I have examined, they have been misleading if not dead wrong. DES (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
In this particular case I'm not sure you're right. Your summary says that guideline allows subpages. However, the wording I used "subpages of articles" is correct - the guideline only recommends subpages for pages which are not articles (ie, wikiprojects, user pages, talk pages etc). But anyway. Stevage 01:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes in this case the summery was technically correct, but IMO misleading. DES (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
How could it be made better? Stevage 01:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I frankly don't think it can, within one line. Perhaps "Subpages are apporved for only certian particular uses." Of course that doesn't expalin what they are, or how to make them, but what do you want in one line. I fear that one-line summeries will all too often over-simplify and induce readers to ignore important detals that don't fit into one line. DES (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The summary is obviously meant to contain the gist of the guideline. As for the details, well, that's what the article is there for :) In any case, anything along the lines of "don't create subpages of main articles" is accurate. There are no circumstances listed for which creating subpages in the main article namespace is recommended. Even if there were *some*, it would not be a bad mis-statement, but a necessary simplification. Anyway, please discuss the merits of the project itself at template talk:guideline one liner if you like. Stevage 01:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

## Root pages

Note that some users are trying to resurrect subpage functionality. See Wikipedia:Root pageOmegatron 00:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

## Part of wikipedia or not ?

Could I be allowed to write about my own fantasy fiction universe as individual pages or as subpages to my userpage ? Or is such a thing not allowed here ? And it will not be a promotional campaign or anything similar since my work will probably be licensed under the GNU GPL or some similar CreativeCommons license. --Tyriel 11:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. Even user subpages are expected to serve the purposes of Wikipedia, not one's personal vocations or hobbies. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Its not a blog or webspace and it has nothing to do with my social life, its my literary works and fictional universe. Or do I need to be a published author first for this to apply? --Tyriel 20:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
wrong page Tyriel
You could always do it at other wikis that aren't so anal about rules, such as s23 wiki, Encyclopædia Dramatica, and a hundred other wikis. JarlaxleArtemis 22:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Post it on a blog. Plus if you post it here it might get stolen-ah I forgot the word now-it's something like pla...pliag...never mind. But anyway don't post it here. Some vandals mightcome around and ruin the whole thing.--Faizaguo (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Tyriel: I'm pretty sure that Jeff Q specifically meant the "web host" portion.
You may want to put it up on Google Pages, unless you specifically wanted it to be editable by other users. In that case, you could either pay for a webhost where you can run the MediaWiki software yourself, or upload it to an existing site. Since Wikisource also won't take "Original writings by a contributor to the project" it's possible that Wikilivres may take it. They say "You are welcome to publish texts here if they cannot be accepted in Wikisource." (Note: Wikilivres operates in Canada, following Canadian copyright law, which means they can host works that are not in the public domain in the USA, but are in the public domain in Canada, like The Little Prince {here}. Also, they aren't affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation.)
[BEGIN RANT]
Faizaguo: the word you're thinking of is "Plagiarize." Plagiarism is what happens when someone claims to be the author of something they didn't write, and is a strict subset of Lying For Personal Glory. Infringing copyright (despite what the media wants us to think) is entirely unrelated.
'Stealing' is also a terrible metaphor: stealing is generally wrong because if Bob steals Alice's bicycle, Alice no longer has a bicycle. If Alice publishes a story, Carol buys the book and Xeroxes it and gives the copy to Bob, noone is being deprived of anything--Copying is not Theft. Alice may say that if Carol hadn't copied the book and given it to Bob, he must have bought it from her, but that's wrong. He may simply have borrowed Carol's book, or one from the local library, or gotten it from a used bookstore. Also, the law isn't God: the law does not dictate morality. Sharing a work online with someone who can't get access to it otherwise is better than obeying copyright laws which prohibit online sharing, and people should pressure their legislators to allow (at the very least) verbatim noncommercial copying of everything. Everyone everywhere (especially legislators) should read these three essays: Misinterpreting Copyright: A Series of Errors(by rms,) Did You Say Intellectual Property? It's a Seductive Mirage(by rms,) The Surprising History of Copyright and the Promise of a Post-Copyright World(by Karl Fogel)
[END RANT] 207.65.109.10 (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Are numbered lists a good format of this page? As I understand it, usually a less "law-like" format of guideline pages is preferred. // Habj 10:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no information about how links in subpages are interpretted. That is, are they resolved at the top level of their namespace or only within the sub page? For example, does a link to "foo" on the page "Main:Bar/Whatever" go to "Main:Foo" or "Main:Bar/Foo"? This should be addressed in the article. Pimlottc 16:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This is explained at meta:Help:Links#Subpage_feature (copy at Help:Links#Subpage_feature) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

## Subpages in mainspace—On or Off?

The "History of Subpages" section states that creation of subpages in the main namespace is disallowed. If this is true, then how is allowed use #1 done? I have no plans to create an article subpage; I'm just trying to make sure that things make sense. Ardric47 05:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This article says that the creation of subpages in mainspace is disabled, but Triaria/De claris mulieribus was created today. I'm going to AfD it (since it is disallowed anyway), but I thought this couldn't happen? Fram 09:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
These are not subpages, just ordinary pages that have a slash in the title. That subpages are disabled in the main namespace means that the slash is not a special character in mainspace article titles. Kusma (討論) 09:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
According to this link it is allowed, well it tells you how to do set up sub-pages so I assume its allowed, I was going to ask once you have followed those steps can you delete the link to the sub-page (I would use mine for testing stuff, most of the time it would me empty) pjb007 11:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

## wp:sp

When I type WP:SP into the "search" box, I get the "sock puppetry" article. When I click on a link to WP:SP, I get "subpages." Both pages say "WP:SP redirects here." I assume you have to be an administrator to fix this; maybe someone could take care of it? Thanks. Theleek 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Done some time ago. —  crh 23  (Talk) 09:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

## From WikiProject Films talk

This is related to a current project discussion (Long synopses & Extended plot sub articles). Sometimes in a film article we have a well writen short synopsis (which is not so easy to achieve) which then starts growing to either become a mess, or something worth keeping for those who want it, but definitely no longer "synopsis". For some users such an extended plot is distracting (in the course of the main film article). We have tried to set length limits, but even there a well writen 2-3 paragraph synopsis is different from an equally well written 4-5 paragraph plot. So the question is, should we create lose main namespace articles like '''[[Extended plot (Film title)]]''' and forget completely the subpage idea? Hoverfish Talk 19:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

## Subpage template created

Template:Usersubpage

I don't know whether I should put it in the article or not. -- Arriva436 11:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

## How can you tell if another user has created a subpage?

For example, if some other user creates User:Dzubint/RANDOMSTUFF, is there some indication of this creation on my main userpage? Dzubint 15:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems not, though if you want to look for subpages of your main userpage manually there's a comment above about that. Cogburnd02 (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

## "Disallowed" section

I changed the style of the "disallowed" section to match the "allowed" one, removing the bolded "do not" and "do not even consider". We are not supposed to WP:BITE the newcomers, and I felt the tone of this section was too "bitey" for comfort. Barking orders at people who intend to edit in good faith is not very helpful, and those who want to make bad faith edits will just go ahead and do it anyway. AdorableRuffian 09:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote an article several months ago that got deleted. I want to create a subpage under my user page to post that article (I saved the code) so I can show friends what got deleted. Is this allowed? -Fez2005 21:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Userfication
Garrie 23:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

## Moving subpages to mainspace

A lot of editors throw together random bits on a subpage until it gets to a point where it wouldn't be prodded in article space. I am suprised to see that the process of moving a user subpage to article space isn't specifically mentioned and covered here (a link to an article that discusses it more fully isn't even provided in an obvious way). Garrie 23:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

## All draft articles belong in Talk?

The guideline currently says that "Writing drafts of major article revisions, e.g Example Article/Temp [is prohibited]in the main namespace, as you can get there accidentally using special:randompage -- write these in the talk namespace, e.g. Talk:Example Article/Temp." The requirement to do so in the Talk namespace is both news to me and contrary to what appears to be the wide-employed practice of writing drafts in User_talk namespace. Should the guideline be updated or tweaked or am I missing something? --ElKevbo 04:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

## Type of subpage not assessed on project page

Please see Fitchburg Line/Authors. Is this a valid type of page on Wikipedia, and in this namespace? Comments welcome. Thank you. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 02:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

## Limit??

Is there a limit on the number of subpages a user can create under his name?  Noah¢s (Talk) 21:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, limits are (for instance) imposed by WP:NOT#BLOG. But maybe you were asking for an exact number. After an individual assessment the number of user subpages you are allowed to have can be calculated. For instance, based on your behaviour the number of subpages allowed to you is one and a half. (Sorry, only the first sentence of my reply is no joking, just couldn't resist). --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops (serious again), aren't you overdoing it a bit?
I bluelinked a few to see what they were about. Well, I see at least some of them as WP:MfD candidates. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

## Re. Articles do not have sub-pages -- wrong

The assertion "the main (article) namespace does not have this feature turned on" is wrong. I just did it today here, works fine. Before you start ranting, read this. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the subpage feature *is* turned off in en wikipedia for main namespace. See m:Link#Subpage feature or mw:Manual:\$wgNamespacesWithSubpages
What you have (Indoor bonsai/lead) is a main namespace article that fails about every rule (to name only a few: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Subpages, Wikipedia:Content forking#Accidental duplicate articles,...), and could be speedied I suppose (e.g. CSD G2).
The designated namespace for transcluded content is Template namespace.
Wikipedia:Transclusion#Transcluding a page section instead of a whole page seems particularily outdated (or written by someone inventing stuff [1]), while *partial* transclusion is possible, see m:Help:Template#Noinclude, includeonly, and onlyinclude, and the second example is indeed explained with a main namespace example. Shows the weaknesses of overusing transclusion: the actual content is somewhere tucked away, incorrect content added to multiple pages keeps longer to detect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Francis, let me introduce myself, I am the one who wrote that section of the Wikipedia:Transclusion article, and I wrote it yesterday.
Now that this is cleared up, let's talk about the real problem, which is the purely arbitrary interdiction on article subpages. Your reasoning is very weak. When a text is transcluded to several pages, it is read and edited by more editors. Thus, mistakes are more difficult to hide, the opposite of what you seem to believe.
Here, I call for the cancellation of the arbitrary interdiction of creating main article subpages. I bring as an example of legitimate use of a subpage the transclusion of a portion of text into several different pages, which currently requires the use of subpages.
To illustrate this, I created today an example using Indoor bonsai but I cannot show it. User:Discospinster bluntly deleted within minutes the subpage Indoor bonsai/lead, judged to be a "test page". There was no warning and she did not discuss it in my talk page. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I deleted it because it was a test page. You say so yourself, calling it an "example". ... discospinster talk 18:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Discospinter, did you read the discussion above? What do you think? Emmanuelm (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall seeing text of mainspace articles transcluded in that way. Seems like something that could be discussed. I can see how it would be useful, but at the same time there must be a good reason that it has not been used. So I'm neutral. ... discospinster talk 19:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The example given (Wikipedia:Transclusion#Transcluding a page section instead of a whole page) is a transclusion of a subpage in Wikipedia space, where subpages are fine. Subpages are disabled in the main space: relationships between articles are indicated uses links and categories, not subpages. Geometry guy 19:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I just recreated (then deleted) Indoor bonsai/lead to see what it looked like. It seems like you can create a mainspace article with "/" in the title, but it's not a proper subpage because it does not have a breadcrumb (a link at the top that takes you to the parent page). But if the name of the article itself happens to have "/" (e.g. FutureSex/LoveSounds) it does not prevent you from creating the page. ... discospinster talk 19:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It is just an article which happens to have a forward slash in its title. Such articles can and do exist, but they are not subarticles. Geometry guy 20:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
So far, none of you gave a convincing justification for this interdiction. The spirit of Wikipedia is not to ban mindlessly, it is to allow and monitor. If you are afraid that subpages will be abused to create separate articles, just write a guideline about it; editors will do the rest. If you trust us to resolve complex issues like NPOV or RS, you can trust us with this. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
A bit of history: main space subpages were disabled at around the same time as the category system was introduced. The decision was taken after much discussion and argument to establish consensus. One of the main arguments against subarticles is that this is not a good way to organise the hierarchy of knowledge, because articles can be "main articles" of more than one other article (e.g. History of biology can be viewed as a spinout of Biology or a spinout of History of science), so which is it a subarticle of? Categories and links provide much more flexible relationships between articles. Another argument is that some article titles have a forward slash in them, and could be confused with subpages.
I appreciate that you want to use subpages in a different way, but the first concern applies precisely when you want to transclude the same information onto several different pages: which page is it a subpage of? Personally, I'd be in favour of enabling main space subpages to store metadata associated with the article (such as the information which goes into infoboxes), but this data would be strongly connected with a single parent page.
However, I think it would be virtually impossible to reverse the decision to disable subpages. If you want to try, you would need to refine and elaborate your arguments, and present them calmly and clearly (no bold font :-) !) at the Village Pump proposals page. It would still be an uphill struggle I think. Geometry guy 15:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
GeometryGuy, thanks for the info. First, you should call a cat a cat: main article subpages are not "disabled" (try it, they work fine until an admin deletes it), they are "forbidden". Second, you just mentioned above a second use of an article subpage -- metadata. This makes two legitimate uses; I trust there will be more. In brief, a tool is never all bad; an arbitrary interdiction is.
As suggested, I brought this discussion to the proposal talk page. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I say it like it is: main space subpages are disabled. As discospinster explained above, when you create a main space article with a slash in the title, the software does not treat it as a subpage. Take a look at Template:Spinout/link. Notice the little blue link to Template:Spinout under the title: that's a subpage link. Do the same in main space (of course, I mean figuratively: as an admin, it would be inappropriate of me to suggest you create a test page in the main space :-) ) and there will be no such a link: main space (i.e. namespace 0) is treated differently by the software than every other name space. So allowing main space subpages would require more than the consensus agreement of editors: it would require changing a parameter in the Mediawiki software that Wikipedia uses. Geometry guy 17:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to create a test page to prove subpages don't work in the article space. Pages with slashes exist like FutureSex/LoveSounds & Derry/Londonderry name dispute. These are ordinary pages, create the same way you would create a 'subpage' on the main article space, except that they are not subpages because subpages are disabled. The Derry... is a particularly good example since Derry exists. If you go to the talk page Talk:Derry/Londonderry name dispute you will notice it thinks it's a subpage of Derry even though it obviously isn't. This is because subpages are enabled on talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Edit: Also OS/2 and AC/DC, mentioned on this page, are other examples of 'subpages' that aren't. While we don't have a Talk:OS we do have a Talk:AC and of course OS and AC so you can see the results Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Derry/Londonderry name dispute is a fantastic example: I really wanted to find an example where the (apparent) "parent" article existed. This is an excellent case which explains why subpages are disabled in the main space. I sometimes wish they weren't, but I understand why they are. Geometry guy 21:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

### Why articles do not have subpages (arbitrary subheading)

Aside from arguments based on technical or usability details (subpages do not have breadcrumbs in the main article space, newbies would find them confusing), we don't use subpages in the main namespace because they should instead be valid articles in and of themselves. This is the practice; for example History of Canada is effectively a subpage of Canada, but is valid as an article in its own right. Indeed, it's a guideline that Good and Featured articles must follow to some extent: Wikipedia:Summary style. Nihiltres{t.l} 19:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, {{BASEPAGENAME}} and {{SUBPAGENAME}} work differently in namespaces with subpages and those without them.Zocky | picture popups 21:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And so far no one has made a good argument as to why subpages are needed for articles. (They're useful for non-mainspace for a number of reasons - for archives, for drafts, for personal sandboxes, for grouping pages together where there is a clear "top" page, such as a WikiProject, but none of those have analogies to mainspace.)
The statement that I bring as an example of legitimate use of a subpage the transclusion of a portion of text into several different pages, which currently requires the use of subpages. is incorrect; it's quite possible (I've done it) to transclude only a section of an article into another article. Transclusion would be even easier if mw:Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion were enabled, but that's a different issue. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You guys are right about mainspace subpages; my Indoor bonsai/lead was not a subpage but a new mainspace with a slash in it. I still maintain that this decision is arbitrary and should be reversed somehow. Altenatively, we need a better markup to allow different parts of an article to be transcluded to different articles. I know GeometryGuy has been working on this and am waiting for his rewriting of the appropriate section of WP:Transclusion. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm willing to give the transclusion page a revamp. I can't fix the subpage issue, but I am a big fan of anyone who says "You guys are right". I think it is important that Wikipedia space pages present information, without agendas, and I plan to revise to page with that in mind, even though I have some sympathy with the ideas proposed by Emmanuelm. Geometry guy 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

## Anyone allowed?

Do you have to be a specific kind of user to have your own subpage? Pretty7Gurl (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

## POV Forks

In an article I'm watching, there was a criticism section, and someone added "and Praise" to the title, and added positive things said about the subject, for NPOV balance. There is also a Criticism subarticle. Could/should the same be done to it? (I would link to this article on the talk page for reference.)--WikiWes77 (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Criticism: usually, the article section would be named ==Reception==, and the article dealing with this "Reception of..."
See also Wikipedia:POV forks --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

## Subpages disabled in article namespace?

It says "Except in "main" namespace (="article namespace"), where the subpage feature has been disabled in English Wikipedia" but I was able to go as far as the creation page for an article namespace subpage (although I didn't actually hit the Save button to create it). I assume that this means I can create it, though, otherwise it would give me something like "this page is protected from creation" or something. Is this how it should be? Gary King (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Please read the word "feature" in the sentence you quoted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Subpages --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes Gary King (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'm using a transcluded menu in my user space, and I am wondering if there is any way to suppress the the "< User:SJL" backlink that appears in the top left corner of my subpages. It shifts my menu down the page, and isn't necessary on pages that have the menu. – SJL 21:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

## Consensus against subpage articles

I'm working on a proposal at User:Phil Sandifer/Branching to try to find a different and better way of dealing with the question of notability for specific sub-topics of a topic. In early conversations regarding this, the objection came up that subpages were disabled for the article space.

As far as I can tell, the reason for this was primarily technical - because articles like OS/2 broke under the subpage system. Am I incorrect in this assumption? Is there a larger reason why subpages were disabled? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the primary – and I think only – reason on why subpages in the article namespace are disabled. Gary King (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
So there is not a consensus against subpage functionality in article space, just against the Mediawiki subpage function? Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Right – it's a technical limitation, and a huge one at that. Gary King (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
But easily overcome by duplicating the functionality with templates where needed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
How? Gary King (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
You just make a template that manually takes the hierarchy of parent articles as parameters. Or, at least, that's the simplest to code way. I don't know if templates can do regular expressions. If they can, you could automate it for the majority of articles and switch to manual for OS/2 and the like. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

## Disallowed uses

Point 3, "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia." needs to be revised in a hurry. Surely that can't be serious? Case in point: the List of asteroids (and similar pages such as Meanings of asteroid names) absolutely *must* be broken down into sub-pages of manageable size (100 asteroids per page as it currently stands) just because of the sheer magnitude of the list (the asteroid count is expected to top the 200,000 mark pretty soon). The Template namespace is another good case, where it is standard to place template documentation in a /doc sub-page (which will also include the main page's categorisation and transwiki). Plenty of other examples exist already, I'm sure.

So, how to phrase the proper exception? Allowed uses 4 looks like a good candidate for rephrasing. Urhixidur (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...Reading Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) I get the impression that 1) the notion of sub-page is a little confused (in the main namespace, articles with "/" in their titles are not subpages), and 2) a bot could very likely migrate the List of... pages I mentioned earlier to the "preferred format" (which substitutes a colon-space for the slash, essentially). Urhixidur (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

## Secret pages

What is the policy on users' "secret pages"? I see them all of time and I just think that they are completely silly and useless. 70.19.191.130 (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

## Proposal

Disallowed uses, number three needs to be removed completely as it is no longer valid in the eyes of the community. I am speaking of: "Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia". Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Vedio song

Move Followed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.88 (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

## Draft and workpages

Current guideline in full
1. Writing drafts of major article revisions (WP:WORP) , e.g., [[Example Article/Temp]] in the main namespace, as you can get there accidentally using special:randompage — write these in the talk namespace, e.g. [[Talk:Example Article/Temp]]. Also, avoid incoming and outward links regarding such "Talk:.../Temp" page that might create the impression this is an encyclopedia page before it is, e.g.:
• surround "category" links by "nowiki" tags, so that the temp page doesn't show up in a non-project category as if it were an article, example: <nowiki>[[Category:Incredibly smart people]]</nowiki>. The "nowiki" tags should be removed only when the "temp" content is moved to its place in article namespace. (This is an outward link example.) Another solution: put a colon before word "Category", for example, write [[:Category:Shamanism]] instead of [[Category:Shamanism]]. In this case, it will be still linkable, but it will not make the subpage appear on category pages.
• don't create navigational templates that make it appear as if this temp page is part of a series of encyclopedia articles, for example, don't do this: "... | [[John I of Doeland]] | [[Talk:John II of Doeland/Temp|John II of Doeland]] | [[John III of Doeland]] | ...". (this is an incoming link example)
• Draft pages mistakenly created in the main namespace should be moved as appropriate, or deleted if they are inactive and redundant to the main article.
2. Using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevertigo (talkcontribs)

Re. "The usage of subpages was conventional on Wikipedia in its very early days until arguments against their usage became policy" - inaccurate, no such "policy" ever existed afaik: please show which policy if you contend it ever was "policy".

Re. "The usage of Wikipedia:Categorization became technically possible, and as such answered any calls for some kind of heirarchical categorization." - tendentious, the relevant guideline does not favour hierarchical organisation exclusively, see Wikipedia:Categorization#The category system. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

## Issues

After a quick review, I see some problems with this guideline:

• 1. Writing a content fork to avoid NPOV
• 2. Writing drafts of major article revisions, e.g., Example Article/Temp in the main namespace

Neither of these have anything to do with subpages per se, as you cannot create subpages in article space. --Gadget850 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

## Subpages in Help, Help talk and Category talk

We are planning to enable the MediaWiki subpage feature in the namespaces Help, Help talk and Category talk. If anyone has any comments regarding that, see discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Subpage feature. Technical comments are especially welcome, we want to know if anyone knows anything that might break when we enable that.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

## Are we permited to create /meta/ subpages?

Hi folks,

I've only been actively updating Wikipedia over the last 5-6 months. I have particular interest to pages related to cricket tournaments. One common section in most cricket tournaments' pages is the Squads that took part in the tournament. Here, common information regarding the player (such as date of birth, type of player, club etc.) is provided separately in each tournament's page. (example: 1998 ICC KnockOut Trophy)

I was considering if I can use "/meta/" subpages on the player's wiki page to store some of this permanent player attributes and then creating a template that uses these meta subpages to display the players' attributes. This will remove the need to manually provide the same information on different tournament pages for the same players. Instead, just providing the player name to this proposed template would be sufficient to display all the necessary info. This also would provide one single place to change the player's attribute (e.g. club) which would then be shown on all the pages using the proposed template to display his attributes.

This is basically getting the idea from Template:Election box candidate with party link where each party's template page contains subpages to store the party color (Template:{{party}}/meta/color) and party shortname (Template:{{party}}/meta/shortname)

The difference I can see from this established template is that the template I have in mind would be using "/meta/" subpages on article pages, while the election box candidate template uses "/meta/" subpages on other Template pages.

I have seen a lot of discussion (largely opposition) on use of subpages and I haven't as yet worked extensively with subpages, so thought I'd better understand if what I would like to do is permitted before I take up any such actions. Your help and guidance would be much appreciated.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 04:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

## Subpages for transclusion

I've seen this done before, but I don't know of any examples, and I don't know if it's technically *allowed*! I've just split the "long list" Table of muscles of the human body into several "sublists". All of these related lists ought to have the same basic introduction, and I have done this at Table of muscles of the human body/Intro. I am wondering whether this is the correct location for this transcluded subpage. It does take a parameter, but I wouldn't exactly call it a template. Where should this go?! — Skittleys (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The article claims that breadcrumbs are suppressed for the main namespace. Is there any way to suppress it on a specific page, on a different wiki project? Ex: Oathkeeper/Oblivion. We want that page to display as a non-subpage, but don't want to disable sub-pages for other articles.71.54.120.189 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

## Overflowing hatnote

The long hatnote appears very unwieldy to me, so it has been condensed, and an Ibox has been added to hold the links. Hope you like it, but if not, then go ahead and rv it. Then hopefully you will come here and discuss it? Or discuss it without reverting, as you wish.
—  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

## Why workpages are evil

See my argument at Wikipedia talk:Workpages#Workpages are dangerous and should be avoided. Please also note that I'd like to revise part of Wikipedia:Subpages which currently refers to Wikipedia:Workpages. -- 19:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

## An alternative to subpages

Hi all, I have a wiki of my own and am trying to adhere to the wiki standards, and it seems like subpages are frowned upon by the majority that actually voice their opinions.

My wiki is focused on games and that is the main content. All of the games will discuss things like the game mechanics, any features that are available in the game, perhaps a walkthrough of sorts (imagine a game with 30 stages with extremely long descriptions), and (possibly long) lists detailing all of the objects available.

I am trying to come up with a way to organize all of these articles without the use of subpages, but it is rather difficult without becoming redundant. For instance, there are 10 games, and all of them have a list of items, list of bestiary, list of characters, walkthrough, and whatnot.

We have decided to stick with Game name: item for every article because there is no other way to distinguish between them, but we have some games where we have a bestiary list with hundreds of entries and each entry links to an article with a rather long profile (ie: fills up the entire page no scroll). Clearly, it would be unsuitable to include this on the main list because then our page would be over 200 KB.

With subpages it would be pretty easy to link, and there's no reason why any OTHER games would want to link to these articles as they are game-specific.

Since subpages are not nice, and most people also think so, I am stuck with this situation where I am forcing editors to have to make extra amounts of effort just to have articles in a game link reference each other, rather than being able to use [[../adjacent_page]] for cross-linking (ie: if you are on stage 1, it makes sense to have a link to stage 2, or back to the stage list). It is in fact turning off many editors --XTsukihime (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,
In general it's good to adhere to whatever the Wikipedia culture is because that's the bleeding edge of wiki whatever. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is very different from a wiki that is about a specific topic with no filter in terms of what is not acceptable information. I am setting up a wiki ([2]) atm, and came here just for any ideas around subpages, since I'd already made the decision to deploy them.
Here is my advice on subpages. Anyone can feel free to ask the Sysop user talk page (of the link above) for help with your wiki btw. A) The main page should be a subject worthy of capitalization. Subpages should be about stuff that it does not make sense to capitalize, and is not worthy of standing on it's own as an article. B) The best argument for subpages is to avoid a ton of pages that would all have very long names with very similar elements. Like in the wiki linked to above. There'll probably be several many pages with the word "Sword of Moonlight" in them. Which would just be really kind of ridiculous. C) Subpages can be things that make no sense as a subject, like a user contributed guide.
Finally the problem with subpages, is they're really ugly. And flawed. So if you don't have full control of your wiki, you're probably better off not using them. If you can install extensions/hooks, and customize the skin at the php code level though, you can make subpages play very nice. The main thing you want to do in my opinion is strip the page title to just the subpage name. And do so for the breadcrumbs subtitle as well. Then you want to have probably an automatically generated subpage listing. And a manual system for more prominently displaying subpages towards the top of the page. Finally you want your subpages listed under main pages in category listings.
With all of this in place you have a strong argument for subpages where non-encyclopedic, ie. exhaustive wikii are concerned.--72.173.5.119 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

## Semi-protection

Semi-protection is also abbreviated as SP. So, can anyone add a note at the top along with the WP:SOCK notice that "For semi-protection policy, please see WP:SEMI"? X.One SOS 11:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Done some time ago. —  crh 23  (Talk) 09:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

## Tabs for subpages?

Unless I'm losing my mind (distinct possibility), I once saw instructions for having user subpages show up as tabs. After some searching, I'm still unable to find these instructions. This page would be a logical place to reference them. If someone would direct me to the instructions, I'll be happy to update article. Thanks. --Sjsilverman (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Late answer, but you want {{page tabs}}. -- Hex [t/c] 19:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

## Suggestion for revision of "Disallowed uses" paragraph 2

The following is submitted as a recommended revision to paragraph 2 in Disallowed uses. My rationale follows:
== Disallowed uses ==
...
2. Writing drafts of major article revisions, e.g., [[Example Article/Temp]] in the main namespace, as you can get there accidentally using Special:Random. Instead, write these in the talk namespace, e.g., [[Talk:Example Article/Temp]]. (See Wikipedia:Workpages for detail.) Also, avoid incoming and outward links regarding such "Talk:.../Temp" pages that might create the impression they are an encyclopedia page before it is. To accomplish this, you can:

• Surround "category" links by "nowiki" tags, so that the temp page doesn't show up in a non-project category as if it were an article. Example: <nowiki>[[Category:Incredibly smart people]]</nowiki>. The "nowiki" tags should be removed only when the "temp" content is moved to its place in article namespace. (This is an outward link example.)
• Another solution: put a colon before word "Category". For example, write [[:Category:Shamanism]] instead of [[Category:Shamanism]]. In this case, it will be still linkable, but the subpage will not appear on category pages.
• Another solution: "comment out" the categories. Example: <!-- [[Category:Shamanism]] -->.

Don't create navigational templates that make it appear as if this temp page is part of a series of encyclopedia articles. For example, don't do this: "... | [[John I of Doeland]] | [[Talk:John II of Doeland/Temp|John II of Doeland]] | [[John III of Doeland]] | ...". (This is an incoming link example.)
Draft pages mistakenly created in the main namespace should be moved as appropriate, or deleted if they are inactive and redundant to the main article.
...
Rationale:

• Syntax is a bit clearer.
• Another method is suggested.

Query: While the section is titled "Disallowed uses", the bulleted suggestions (both in the original and my proposed revision) imply that writing draft revisions of major articles are acceptable if they avoid incoming & outward links. Is this correct?

I welcome corrections, comments, suggestions, derision, etc.. – S. Rich (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)