Instances of a subject included in main page

[Barry R. Smith]

Hello, I'm new here, so hopefully this isn't something with an answer posted already.

One frequent phenomenon is that there is some general topic which has a page, and several special cases of that topic are also noteworthy.  As a couple of examples, under the topic of "prime number", one might like to know about special types of prime numbers like Mersenne Primes, Fermat Primes, etc.  Under the topic of "fraction", one might like to know about dyadic fractions, Egyptian fractions, etc.  I notice that in both of these instances, a section is included in the main page that discusses a few of these special instances.  Is there a standard for whether this type of section should be included in the main page?  I would imagine that each of these "named" cases will have its own page someday, and so perhaps it would be more appropriate to have most of this information in the "Related Pages" subpage, with links to information about the different types of primes, fractions, etc.  On the other hand, are some special cases so important that they must be discussed in detail on the main page?

I worry that casual readers will not find the "Related Pages" subpage.  Perhaps the section about special cases should be kept, with maybe a mention that special cases do exist, possibly one example, and then a reference to the "Related Pages" subpage?

Also, I understand that if the pages on Mersenne Primes, Egyptian Fractions, etc. have not yet been written, then this approach will be hurtful in the short term.  So I propose that leaving sections on special cases in the main page for now, but to require that before an article is approved, it's "Related Pages" page must exist and have links to at least hypothetical pages about the important special cases.  Later, when those pages are created, we could remove the section on special cases from the main page.

[J. Noel Chiappa]

in both of these instances, a section is included in the main page that discusses a few of these special instances. ... I would imagine that each of these "named" cases will have its own page someday, and so perhaps it would be more appropriate to have most of this information in the "Related Pages" subpage
...
I understand that if the pages on Mersenne Primes, Egyptian Fractions, etc. have not yet been written ... So I propose that leaving sections on special cases in the main page for now ... Later, when those pages are created, we could remove the section on special cases from the main page.

This seems like a good strategy to me.

On the other hand, are some special cases so important that they must be discussed in detail on the main page?

I think we should leave it up to the judgement of the article writers and editors. Some things may have types which are so important we want to cover them (briefly)  in the main article on that thing. Others may not. I'm not sure a hard-and-fast rule makes sense.

I worry that casual readers will not find the "Related Pages" subpage.

This is something that there are occasional discussions about - whether stuff belongs on the main page, or on a subsidiary. One recent thread (too tired/low-energy to find it) discussed whether footnotes should be on a separate subpage (some people didn't like tha idea).

I personally am not so big on having links to related topics on a separate subpage, for precisely the reason you suggest. One possibility (one we tried out for the footnotes, but nobody seemed very interested) is to have them on the main page, but normally hidden, with a button to expand them. If people like this, it would be trivial to clone the template that was created to do this for footnotes.

Noel

[Aleta Curry]

Hello, I'm new here, so hopefully this isn't something with an answer posted already.

Hi Barry.  Well, even if it is, we'll forgive you.

Would you be so kind as to link to your userpage in your signature?  Thanks.

I agree with Noel in general here.  Use your best judgement. 

As to whether or not checking out related pages is too inconvenient for users--I think not.  Seems to me it's a question of familiarity.  Just because people aren't used to it doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing.  We'll find out soon enough, in any case! 

[J. Noel Chiappa]

As to whether or not checking out related pages is too inconvenient for users--I think not.  Seems to me it's a question of familiarity.  ... We'll find out soon enough, in any case! 

And the good news is that because our organization is so regular, if we do decide to change our minds, it would probably be easy to whip up a bot that moved them back to the main page of the article.

Noel