Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Wikipedia Help NA‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
|
||
Please leave the merge proposal alone. If you do not like it please comment here. I think 2 weeks is an acceptable display time. Following this:
Thank you - Gareth Aus 06:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I still am not convinced that several articles is better than one large article (in case the article really is about one single subject, such as the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict). What are really the benefits of having multiple articles? I don't find that the readability is impeded by an article being long; rather, it becomes one easy point of reference since you don't need to look in other articles for certain information, and the context that the surrounding information can provide a paragraph may also be very desirable. I did split up an article I'm actively contributing to ( Speedrun), because it seems to be the default practice and it was asked for on the talk page, but I'd personally prefer monolithic articles over this approach. So maybe you could help me out here a little? I think that this project page should also address my question, since it doesn't really explain why pages need to be broken up sometimes. — msikma < user_talk:msikma> 07:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to rename the following three articles, so I can create a template and put them into a series. Unfortunately, I have made a bit of a mess of things.
Here is what I have tried (somewhat unsuccessfully) to do:
1. Create a useful template "Canadianpetroleumhistory. 2. Rename the article "History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part one" to "History of the petroleum industry in Canada" 3. Rename the article "History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part two" to "History of the petroleum industry in Canada (Oil sands and heave oil) 4. Rename the article "History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part three" to "History of the petroleum industry in Canada (Frontier exploration and development) 5. Rename the article "History of the natural gas liquids industry in Canada" to "History of the petroleum industry in Canada (Natural gas liquids)
The idea is that at the end of this process this will be a series of articles about Canadian petroleum history, each referenced within the series in the manner of the History of Brazil.
Can someone help me, please? If you just fix the template and insert it properly into the first article, I will do the rest.... 04:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Marked "disputed". I provided arguments in #Merge proposals section above. I know this is bold and actually I expect a revert. -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 15:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
...on what a "guideline" is and what a page has to do to be one, but it's safe to say that this page isn't ready to be a guideline, at least not yet. Discussion is welcome. There was no discussion on making this page a guideline, no comments on the talk page since May, and it gets the main point wrong, confusing a "main" page with a "summary" page. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 20:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
Wikipedia Help NA‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
|
||
Please leave the merge proposal alone. If you do not like it please comment here. I think 2 weeks is an acceptable display time. Following this:
Thank you - Gareth Aus 06:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I still am not convinced that several articles is better than one large article (in case the article really is about one single subject, such as the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict). What are really the benefits of having multiple articles? I don't find that the readability is impeded by an article being long; rather, it becomes one easy point of reference since you don't need to look in other articles for certain information, and the context that the surrounding information can provide a paragraph may also be very desirable. I did split up an article I'm actively contributing to ( Speedrun), because it seems to be the default practice and it was asked for on the talk page, but I'd personally prefer monolithic articles over this approach. So maybe you could help me out here a little? I think that this project page should also address my question, since it doesn't really explain why pages need to be broken up sometimes. — msikma < user_talk:msikma> 07:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to rename the following three articles, so I can create a template and put them into a series. Unfortunately, I have made a bit of a mess of things.
Here is what I have tried (somewhat unsuccessfully) to do:
1. Create a useful template "Canadianpetroleumhistory. 2. Rename the article "History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part one" to "History of the petroleum industry in Canada" 3. Rename the article "History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part two" to "History of the petroleum industry in Canada (Oil sands and heave oil) 4. Rename the article "History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part three" to "History of the petroleum industry in Canada (Frontier exploration and development) 5. Rename the article "History of the natural gas liquids industry in Canada" to "History of the petroleum industry in Canada (Natural gas liquids)
The idea is that at the end of this process this will be a series of articles about Canadian petroleum history, each referenced within the series in the manner of the History of Brazil.
Can someone help me, please? If you just fix the template and insert it properly into the first article, I will do the rest.... 04:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Marked "disputed". I provided arguments in #Merge proposals section above. I know this is bold and actually I expect a revert. -- Kubanczyk ( talk) 15:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
...on what a "guideline" is and what a page has to do to be one, but it's safe to say that this page isn't ready to be a guideline, at least not yet. Discussion is welcome. There was no discussion on making this page a guideline, no comments on the talk page since May, and it gets the main point wrong, confusing a "main" page with a "summary" page. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 20:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)