This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

The question which topics we should create is related to, but definitely distinct from, the question of what naming conventions we should follow. I'd like to start a discussion about this. Here are some places to start:

• Generally speaking, the creation of topics should be broadly encouraged. If anyone ever feels discouraged from creating a topic, it should be for a very good, clear, specific reason.
• When you wikify (create links from) words in an article, when the "wikified" words do not name an already-existing article, then you're proposing that a new article be created. Just bear in mind, generally, whenever you put [[ and ]] around some words: do we really want an article with exactly that title? Or would it be better to call it something slightly different? If slightly different, you can still use the same language you wanted to use in the first place, just write the link like this: [[real name of page|this text is linked]]. See how does one edit a page for further instructions.
• While there are many exceptions to this, in general, it is better to create a topic described by a noun than by an adjective. For example, we would prefer philosophy to philosophical. Of course, if one wanted to link "philosophical," that's easily done, like this: [[philosophy|philosophical]]. The latter code will display like this -- philosophical -- but links to the philosophy page. Sometimes there is an interest in making terms of jargon into topics, and jargon sometimes occurs in adjectival form. There's nothing wrong with that; we strongly encourage supplementing articles with explanations of jargon.
• One issue that might constrain the choice of topics occurs when there are two or more names for the same topic. For example, "spam" and "spamming"; the first is a kind of e-mail or newsgroup post, and the second is the activity of sending or posting such messages. With such sets of closely-related topics, we have a number of choices:
  1. Redirect from one topic to another; so, for example, make "spamming" redirect to "spam."
  2. Make one page a very brief definition, followed by a pointer to the other page ("for more information, see spam").
  3. Develop two separate articles.

There must be other issues. Discussion?

Another issue is that creating topics randomly might lead to ambiguity. Spam isn't first and foremost a type of post, it is a type of food that rumored to be made of compressed pigs. Thus "spamming" might be a better name since it has no such ambiguity. For further such considerations, see both naming conventions and disambiguation.