This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fissure article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
@ John Cline: Can you please explain what you did here? I requested that the article at Fissure be moved to Fissure (anatomy), because it wasn't the primary topic. That was done. I also requested that the current disambiguation page be moved from Fissure (disambiguation) to Fissure. That was also done. The reason for that request was that there was no primary topic. Once those changes were done, there were a lot of incoming links to the disambiguation page now at Fissure, and these needed to fixed. This makes sense, first because articles that used to point to the anatomy article were now pointing to the disambiguation page. More important, though, a lot of incoming links were actually for other topics on geology, such as ground fissure and ice fissure. These articles used to incorrectly point to the anatomy article.
Now, what I don't understand is that you seem to have subsequently broke things. You apparently moved Fissure back to Fissure (disambiguation) and you created what appears to be a whole new stub article at Fissure. You also made this new article the primary topic. The primary problem here is that this stub article is redundant with the Ground fissure article listed on the disambiguation page. If you wanted to make Ground fissure the primary topic, then you should have moved that article from Ground fissure to the primary topic at Fissure. Now there's going to be confusion, because there are two articles on fissures pertaining to the earth. This is not a good outcome. I only requested that the fact there was no primary topic be reflected in the way the Fissure and Fissure (disambiguation) pages were titled.
I think you should revert part of this change and put the disambiguation page back to Fissure and redirect Fissure (disambiguation) to that page. Also, you should delete the stub Fissure article, since Ground fissure already covers that topic. Note that there was no prior consensus that Ground fissure is the primary topic. If you thought Ground Fissure was in fact the primary topic, you should have moved that article instead of creating a new one, and also you should have documented somewhere that was what you were doing. In the revision history, you said I requested this and didn't explain that you were also making Ground fissure the primary topic (which I never requested). Coastside ( talk) 14:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@ John Cline: After further review, I would say your new stub article is better than the current article at Ground fissure. Accordingly, I suggest you 1) Delete your new stub article at Fissure 2) Revise the current article at Ground fissure with the new content you put in the stub article. Doing this will preserve the edit history at the previous article. Now, if you want to make this the primary topic, I'm fine with it I suppose, although there wasn't prior consensus on that. It probably is the primary topic, although Ice fissure and Fissure (anatomy) are often intended. In any case, if you leave it that way, you should also 3) change the text in the introductory sentence in the disambiguation page from " is a deep, elongated groove or tear," which is a generic dictionary definition for when there is no primary topic, to something related to a geologic fissure, since you made that the primary topic. Coastside ( talk) 14:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@ John Cline: I created a redirect fissure (geologic fracture) for what I think is the most common use of the term fissure in the context of geology. It's a formal term for a geologic fracture that's opened up. Although it's a very common usage, it's only a subtopic of fracture (geology), or more specifically it's a term for a kind of fracture. Point here is it's not a candidate for primary topic, because it's not an article. I think I need to change a lot of the links to the article fissure, because many (most?) of them do not have to do with ground fissures that are due to subsidence. There are still some uses of the word that are really dictionary definitions meaning some kind of crack that are not specifically geological, and I think for those it's still appropriate to link to wiktionary. There is an argument to be made that ground fissure isn't actually the primary topic - that the primary use of the word fissure is this more generic use as a kind of geologic fracture. If that's the case, then maybe there is no primary topic, and ground fissure should be just one entry among the others in the disambiguation page. Or perhaps the primary topic is in fact this term, and it should be linked as the primary topic in the disambiguation page, in which case the topic Fissure would link to the new redirect fissure (geologic fracture). Thoughts? Coastside ( talk) 19:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Regarding making these articles better, go for it. My primary concern started from that fact that all sorts of links to fissure had to do with geology, not anatomy, which was how the "Fissure" article was first presented, i.e., the anatomy article was the primary topic. As far as writing an entirely new article on geologic fissures, I think that would be great. Once that's done all these links can be addressed anew. For the record, my "roll" didn't cause the mess these articles are in. I didn't write them. I've been focused almost entirely on trying to fix the mess with the incoming links. In any case, I won't make any more edits on fissures given that it sounds like there is someone else willing to address the mess. Coastside ( talk) 00:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Reflecting further on your comments, I think the path forward here is to rewrite Fissure as a general article on fissures in the context of geology. Or name that article Fissure (geology) and just make Fissure a disambiguation page. The "mess" here started, because there was no good article on geological fissures. There were subtopic articles on fissure vents, subsidence fissures ("ground fissures"), ice fissures, fractures, etc. But no general article on fissures. I would agree a general article on geologic fissures that summarizes these various topics (referring to other articles as appropriate) would be helpful. Coastside ( talk) 00:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@ John Cline: I commend you for the great work you're doing to develop this article, and the new information on Karst aquifers is very interesting. However, wouldn't it make more sense to add this to the article on Karst formations rather than in this article on Fissures? Coastside ( talk) 19:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fissure article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
@ John Cline: Can you please explain what you did here? I requested that the article at Fissure be moved to Fissure (anatomy), because it wasn't the primary topic. That was done. I also requested that the current disambiguation page be moved from Fissure (disambiguation) to Fissure. That was also done. The reason for that request was that there was no primary topic. Once those changes were done, there were a lot of incoming links to the disambiguation page now at Fissure, and these needed to fixed. This makes sense, first because articles that used to point to the anatomy article were now pointing to the disambiguation page. More important, though, a lot of incoming links were actually for other topics on geology, such as ground fissure and ice fissure. These articles used to incorrectly point to the anatomy article.
Now, what I don't understand is that you seem to have subsequently broke things. You apparently moved Fissure back to Fissure (disambiguation) and you created what appears to be a whole new stub article at Fissure. You also made this new article the primary topic. The primary problem here is that this stub article is redundant with the Ground fissure article listed on the disambiguation page. If you wanted to make Ground fissure the primary topic, then you should have moved that article from Ground fissure to the primary topic at Fissure. Now there's going to be confusion, because there are two articles on fissures pertaining to the earth. This is not a good outcome. I only requested that the fact there was no primary topic be reflected in the way the Fissure and Fissure (disambiguation) pages were titled.
I think you should revert part of this change and put the disambiguation page back to Fissure and redirect Fissure (disambiguation) to that page. Also, you should delete the stub Fissure article, since Ground fissure already covers that topic. Note that there was no prior consensus that Ground fissure is the primary topic. If you thought Ground Fissure was in fact the primary topic, you should have moved that article instead of creating a new one, and also you should have documented somewhere that was what you were doing. In the revision history, you said I requested this and didn't explain that you were also making Ground fissure the primary topic (which I never requested). Coastside ( talk) 14:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@ John Cline: After further review, I would say your new stub article is better than the current article at Ground fissure. Accordingly, I suggest you 1) Delete your new stub article at Fissure 2) Revise the current article at Ground fissure with the new content you put in the stub article. Doing this will preserve the edit history at the previous article. Now, if you want to make this the primary topic, I'm fine with it I suppose, although there wasn't prior consensus on that. It probably is the primary topic, although Ice fissure and Fissure (anatomy) are often intended. In any case, if you leave it that way, you should also 3) change the text in the introductory sentence in the disambiguation page from " is a deep, elongated groove or tear," which is a generic dictionary definition for when there is no primary topic, to something related to a geologic fissure, since you made that the primary topic. Coastside ( talk) 14:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@ John Cline: I created a redirect fissure (geologic fracture) for what I think is the most common use of the term fissure in the context of geology. It's a formal term for a geologic fracture that's opened up. Although it's a very common usage, it's only a subtopic of fracture (geology), or more specifically it's a term for a kind of fracture. Point here is it's not a candidate for primary topic, because it's not an article. I think I need to change a lot of the links to the article fissure, because many (most?) of them do not have to do with ground fissures that are due to subsidence. There are still some uses of the word that are really dictionary definitions meaning some kind of crack that are not specifically geological, and I think for those it's still appropriate to link to wiktionary. There is an argument to be made that ground fissure isn't actually the primary topic - that the primary use of the word fissure is this more generic use as a kind of geologic fracture. If that's the case, then maybe there is no primary topic, and ground fissure should be just one entry among the others in the disambiguation page. Or perhaps the primary topic is in fact this term, and it should be linked as the primary topic in the disambiguation page, in which case the topic Fissure would link to the new redirect fissure (geologic fracture). Thoughts? Coastside ( talk) 19:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Regarding making these articles better, go for it. My primary concern started from that fact that all sorts of links to fissure had to do with geology, not anatomy, which was how the "Fissure" article was first presented, i.e., the anatomy article was the primary topic. As far as writing an entirely new article on geologic fissures, I think that would be great. Once that's done all these links can be addressed anew. For the record, my "roll" didn't cause the mess these articles are in. I didn't write them. I've been focused almost entirely on trying to fix the mess with the incoming links. In any case, I won't make any more edits on fissures given that it sounds like there is someone else willing to address the mess. Coastside ( talk) 00:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Reflecting further on your comments, I think the path forward here is to rewrite Fissure as a general article on fissures in the context of geology. Or name that article Fissure (geology) and just make Fissure a disambiguation page. The "mess" here started, because there was no good article on geological fissures. There were subtopic articles on fissure vents, subsidence fissures ("ground fissures"), ice fissures, fractures, etc. But no general article on fissures. I would agree a general article on geologic fissures that summarizes these various topics (referring to other articles as appropriate) would be helpful. Coastside ( talk) 00:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@ John Cline: I commend you for the great work you're doing to develop this article, and the new information on Karst aquifers is very interesting. However, wouldn't it make more sense to add this to the article on Karst formations rather than in this article on Fissures? Coastside ( talk) 19:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)