If a Wiki page gets too big, and you'd like to split it, you'll be tempted to split it by opinion first. It's very common to see a page already organized by opposing opinions anyway. Someone will write a four-paragraph blurb in support of something, and then it will be separated with a horizontal line from the next section, which will be ... a four-paragraph blurb against it. You'll probably be tempted to take the second blurb and turn into a page with a name like "EverythingsWrongWithFooBar".
Imagine the result, though. A flurry of pages saying things like "FooBarIsEvil" and "FooBarIsTheGreatestThingSinceSlicedBread" and "FooBarRefuted" and "FooBarMisunderstood". This will cause encourage two different behaviors, both negative:
Probably it's far more productive to split by topic area, creating a cluster of pages with names like "FooBarAndExtremeProgramming" and "WhatWouldChristopherAlexanderSayAboutFooBar". Of course, it's probably a lot harder, too.
In writing this, I'm fully aware that there are actually tons of these sorts of opinion-split pages already around. And maybe they help a little by serving a bit as designated places to let off steam on certain touchy topics, such as Microsoft. Still, I can't help but shake the nagging feeling that the refactorers could be working a little harder to guide civil discussion and piece-by-piece consensus. Maybe I'm just being too idealistic again. -- francis
I can't help but believe that pages split by opinion are actually good. I think of many page titles as a little handle attached to an idea. The title summarizes the idea, and may be an ImplicitAssertion? that the idea is good. It may also be a recommendation, such as SplitByOpinionNotByTopic?.
If PageTitlesAreHandlesForAnIdea?, and/or there are real-world scenarios both for and against the idea/recommendation, then pages with opposing names (SingletonsAreEvil and SingletonsAreGood) make sense.
Page titles should be assertions, for the simple fact that you can then link to them in sentences grammatically.