Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Section move

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name

[edit]

@Bsherr: The name doesn't seam the best. Does anyone have a better one? I'm thinking split and merge, split n' merge, content move or similar. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 15:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do like “content move”... which makes it clearer to other editors exactly what is happening to the content in question (ie the content will still exist in WP and, more importantly, is not being “deleted”... it has simply been moved to a more appropriate article). Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with that then. @Bsherr: What are the suggestions you have? – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 16:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, that's the name I actually think would be most disastrous. I'm very worried it conflates this with Wikipedia:Moving a page, which is completely unrelated. You'll have novice editors mistakenly starting Wikipedia:Requested moves thinking of this as a "partial move" instead of Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I would encourage you to use the existing terms for now, split and merge. If a consensus is reached around a new name, so be it, but it's the substance that matters much more than the name, which can be swapped in later. --Bsherr (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True, I didn't think of that. I'll move it again. Is it fine to update the templates links and name of split and merge for consistency between them? – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 22:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. I'll be back in a bit to do some copyediting. --Bsherr (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on making this page a guideline

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the discussion was oppose and tag with how-to

I think Wikipedia:Split and merge is ready to be a gudeline and is much better then the current WP:SPLIT and WP:MERGE system. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 06:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this is more of one thing where as WP:MERGE and WP:REDIRECT are two things. When you do a split and merge there's no middle page. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 23:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Split and merge" is convoluted. To me they seem more like two things: Split then merge (if the "split" does not create a new article then its not a split but rather simply moving content form one article to another). Something like this, if neccessary, is better suited for a section somewhere. It certainly doesn't need it's own discussion template or forum. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki, Pythoncoder, and Godsy: There's quite a few people linking to Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and saying it's two different things. What if it was called Content move? would you feel it stills violates Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep or it two different things? – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This all just boils down to:

If content in an article is off topic and would be better suited in another article, then that content should be removed from the article where it is off topic and copied, with attribution, to the article where it's better suited.

The rest is too complicated, confusing, and unnecessary. The question is how or why the off-topic content got there in the first place, and it shouldn't require a discussion to move it to the right place. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Split and merge templates should be nuked. We still aren't managing the existing merge and split templates well, and stirring them up into this muddy construction isn't going to help with managing the mess. How about stepping back and defining the problem needing to be solved before designing the solution. Show us some example articles where the problem exists. wbm1058 (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure off topic does sound a little negative, but this page should include stuff about Template:Off topic, the problem with Template:Off topic is that is may also refer to a "split" rather then a "split and merge". Maybe having a section on WP:SPLIT would be better? Then it can still be specific but we would have two very similar guidelines. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 20:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit summary requirement

[edit]

This page was mentioned at Copying within Wikipedia (aka WP:CWW) (diff). The essence of Copying within Wikipedia is easy to miss at WP:CWW and I can't see it at all in this page. @Diannaa: Do you want to offer an opinion? Should this page exist? Should it prominently show the requirement to provide an edit summary with a link to the source? Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see a spot in Step 5 where it recommends to "make a good edit summery" so I've placed information there as to how to provide the required attribution. I think everything here is already covered by WP:copying within Wikipedia and this page is not needed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

Template

[edit]

I took liberty to create template:create article for use in sections which should likely be in need of the split-off. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inowen, {{split|section=yes}} already does this. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]