Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-188432-20130914215712/@comment-188432-20130920154806

Well, it seems to me that we're all agreed that the current system isn't working. It's illogical that BBC should lead to in-universe and British Broadcasting Corporation to the real world.

So that's definitely out.

The question is what to replace it with.

I'd have to say that I certainly don't support the Tangerineduel idea of making those two names go to a dab page. The point of dab policy in general is to choose the name that has the least number of characters, but that which remains logical. In fact, dab policy implicitly says that you should do whatever you can to avoid using a dab term, but when you have to use it, follow a standard pattern that people can easily figure out.

Making dab pages out of the terms BBC and British Broadcasting Corporation means that we're unnecessarily putting another click between the search bar and the desired page.

Besides we'd still have to come up with two new names for each article, because logically you'd need BBC (dab term) and British Broadcasting Corporation (dab term) for each. That's awkward and quite outside our norms.

You also couldn't make them redirects, because redirects can only go to one page. So BBC could only go to one of the BBC (dab term) pages. Which means that all we would have accomplished is to complicate the problem, not solve it.

The objection offered by Tangerineduel, Tybort and SOTO is that somehow the article won't "flow" or that it would be "very hard" to write. I reject that roundly, because there's no "flow" to in-universe articles that suddenly have a "behind the scenes" section. The whole point of a section head is that it allows you a clean break to go on with a new thought. The "behind the scenes" section head not only gives you the opportunity to inject a new idea that often has no direct relevance to the preceding section, but it even gives you license to change tense. If you wanted flow, you'd just add a paragraph. Adding a section head means that you're going on to a new topic.

To my mind there is no logic to saying that we can write articles that start in-universe and then have a RW section, but that we can't write articles that start RW but then have an in-universe section.