No. I'm against putting editing rule boxes (like aethel's suggestion) preemptively on every page, to anticipate editor problems from new wiki editors or wiki editors who have not read the guidelines or from trolls, rather than a gardener fixing the problem that arose from the edit once there really is a problem. For that part of my objection it is irrelevant whether the fix is to make have two pages, or to allow one page with two info boxes.
However, I don't think it should be discouraged for editors to put some fic information on an existing podfic page, any more than to put podfic info on an existing fic page. The guideline for gardeners meanwhile has to make sure that bias towards giving prominence to fic in fandom doesn't push the podfic content aside. And I think in cases where neither aspect is very long, or one is extensive, but little is said about the other (yet), that could be achieved by having two sections on the same page rather than two pages.
BTW that arrangement doesn't have to mean that the podfic part has to be the second part of the page, you can just as easily but a "the source fic" section below the part that talks about the podfic.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
However, I don't think it should be discouraged for editors to put some fic information on an existing podfic page, any more than to put podfic info on an existing fic page. The guideline for gardeners meanwhile has to make sure that bias towards giving prominence to fic in fandom doesn't push the podfic content aside. And I think in cases where neither aspect is very long, or one is extensive, but little is said about the other (yet), that could be achieved by having two sections on the same page rather than two pages.
BTW that arrangement doesn't have to mean that the podfic part has to be the second part of the page, you can just as easily but a "the source fic" section below the part that talks about the podfic.