![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I do not believe the above demerger should have taken place and that it should now be reverted to re-consolidate the article Roll of arms. The article Roll of arms was only a very short article and there was no need for a demerger. It has been shorn of its relevant detail and the new article is turning into a parallel article, developing a longer and longer intro, whilst the original article is developing its own list of rolls. A mess. Comments please. ( Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 13:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC))
I had not seen this, and I guess I am open to either merging or "de-merging", the main problem was that the material was in poor shape, not whether it was kept on one or on two pages. Since there is very little material here, it is easier to develop it on a single page, but once we get a substantial expansion of the "list" portion, I suppose it would make sense to export it again. At present, if the "list" were to be split off, there would be no "article" left to speak of. If the material is developed by high quality additions, there will come a natural point where WP:SS becomes convenient. -- dab (đł) 10:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I do not believe the above demerger should have taken place and that it should now be reverted to re-consolidate the article Roll of arms. The article Roll of arms was only a very short article and there was no need for a demerger. It has been shorn of its relevant detail and the new article is turning into a parallel article, developing a longer and longer intro, whilst the original article is developing its own list of rolls. A mess. Comments please. ( Lobsterthermidor ( talk) 13:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC))
I had not seen this, and I guess I am open to either merging or "de-merging", the main problem was that the material was in poor shape, not whether it was kept on one or on two pages. Since there is very little material here, it is easier to develop it on a single page, but once we get a substantial expansion of the "list" portion, I suppose it would make sense to export it again. At present, if the "list" were to be split off, there would be no "article" left to speak of. If the material is developed by high quality additions, there will come a natural point where WP:SS becomes convenient. -- dab (đł) 10:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)