Talk:Canyoneering

I suggest one of the three following strategies:

1. Concede that this website is not a "wiki for all sorts of disciplines of verticality that happen to include canyoneering", and rather a "wiki for canyoneering", and move this page to the main page.
2. Make Canyoneering it's own namespace, and
   • Rename all namespaces to have the prefix Canyoneering. (Canyoneering Incidents, etc.)
   • Move all pages that are canyoneering specific and in the main namespace to the new namespace (e.g. Canyoneering:Beta, etc.)
3. Add the Category "Canyoneering" to all canyoneering related pages, and Rename pages that are canyoneering specific pages to "Canyoneering *" (in the main namespace.) (e.g. Canyoneering Beta)

This is because as it currently stands, any article in the main namespace is implied to be relevant for all sports, and not canyoneering specific.

My recommendation is the first, but I know Dangel has opinions on this. --Ihiromi (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2014 (PDT)

Personally, I'm ok with 1 as long as we're not Nazis about it (we can still add pages dealing with caving stuff, etc when appropriate). Practically speaking, we have barely any non-canyoneering content and 3.7 oodles of canyoneering content. But, I don't think any article in the main namespace is implied to be relevant for all rope sports -- I think the implication is simply that it's rope-sport-related. I'm also find with 3, though that seems a bit overkill. It would be nice for logical purity, but what is the user experience really lacking at this point if an article isn't explicitly binned into "Canyoneering" or "Caving" as the case might be? I definitely don't like 2 -- that would add an unnecessary Canyoneering: to basically every page URL on the wiki and it would leave our main namespace essentially unused. Regardless of 1-3, it does seem like a good idea to promote some more content on the Main page. I started doing that by adding a "featured canyon", but I think any good springboard into content like that would be good to add at this point. --Bjp (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2014 (PDT)