|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Content forking/Internal redirects here. |
I don't agree this recent bold edit to the guideline is really a "clarification" as claimed, but rather goes against the prior version of the guideline. Moreover, it's not a good change.
So, I have reverted that edit to the guideline by User:Valjean, because it doesn't make sense. Why would a Wikipedia article about creationism have to discuss "articles on other appropriate points of view" such as evolution, but a Wikipedia article about a book about creationism would not have to do so?
P.S. The bold edit to this guideline was made in the middle of a content dispute. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Watchers of this page may be interested in this Phabricator task I just filed, following discussion here. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
In WP:SPINOFF, the 2nd case (meta-articles) seems to be actually a consequence of spin-off rather than a cause for spin-off. So, I'm inclined to rewrite it as follows:
The main situation where spinoff articles frequently becomes necessary is when the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem, for example: (...) The resulting article often becomes a summary style overview meta-articles composed of many summary sections, e.g.: (...) Summary sections are used in the broader article to briefly describe the content of the much more detailed subarticle(s).
fgnievinski ( talk) 19:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
This proposal is to rename the guideline to "Content forks".
The guideline now predominantly describes content forks rather than the editing activity of creating content forks, i.e., "content forking".
When applying the guideline, editors are primarily concerned with identifying the actual content that may need fixing, rather than the behavior that resulted in it. It is simpler to say "this is a content fork", rather than "this is an example of content forking".
Most of the subsections describe a type of content rather than a type of content editing.
The lead section was changed to "Content fork" years ago.
Maybe it's time for the title to be changed to "Content forks" to match the focus of the guideline.
I've edited the lead and a couple sections to help clarify what types of content forks are or are not acceptable, and what is or is not a content fork. For example, transcluded templates aren't content forks, as the copy can't diverge from the original, even when the original is modified. The guideline didn't mention pages of different types that cover the same subject, even though they fall under the definition of content forks (pieces of content about the same subject), so I've added that in.
Please look it over, and revert, remove, or revise as you see fit. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 07:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Please see related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Should_the_seciton_on_"Introductiont_to"_articles_be_depreciated_(removed)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Content forking/Internal redirects here. |
I don't agree this recent bold edit to the guideline is really a "clarification" as claimed, but rather goes against the prior version of the guideline. Moreover, it's not a good change.
So, I have reverted that edit to the guideline by User:Valjean, because it doesn't make sense. Why would a Wikipedia article about creationism have to discuss "articles on other appropriate points of view" such as evolution, but a Wikipedia article about a book about creationism would not have to do so?
P.S. The bold edit to this guideline was made in the middle of a content dispute. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Watchers of this page may be interested in this Phabricator task I just filed, following discussion here. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
In WP:SPINOFF, the 2nd case (meta-articles) seems to be actually a consequence of spin-off rather than a cause for spin-off. So, I'm inclined to rewrite it as follows:
The main situation where spinoff articles frequently becomes necessary is when the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem, for example: (...) The resulting article often becomes a summary style overview meta-articles composed of many summary sections, e.g.: (...) Summary sections are used in the broader article to briefly describe the content of the much more detailed subarticle(s).
fgnievinski ( talk) 19:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
This proposal is to rename the guideline to "Content forks".
The guideline now predominantly describes content forks rather than the editing activity of creating content forks, i.e., "content forking".
When applying the guideline, editors are primarily concerned with identifying the actual content that may need fixing, rather than the behavior that resulted in it. It is simpler to say "this is a content fork", rather than "this is an example of content forking".
Most of the subsections describe a type of content rather than a type of content editing.
The lead section was changed to "Content fork" years ago.
Maybe it's time for the title to be changed to "Content forks" to match the focus of the guideline.
I've edited the lead and a couple sections to help clarify what types of content forks are or are not acceptable, and what is or is not a content fork. For example, transcluded templates aren't content forks, as the copy can't diverge from the original, even when the original is modified. The guideline didn't mention pages of different types that cover the same subject, even though they fall under the definition of content forks (pieces of content about the same subject), so I've added that in.
Please look it over, and revert, remove, or revise as you see fit. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 07:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Please see related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Should_the_seciton_on_"Introductiont_to"_articles_be_depreciated_(removed)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)