Wikipedia talk:Summary style/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Transclusion, an interesting tool.

Earlier, I participated in this talk page to a discussion on how to remove duplication from Wikipedia. Since then, I found a neat tool called transclusion to publish the same text in more than one page. Now, here is my crazy idea: a summary article could be made up of a collection of lead paragraphs transcluded from the corresponding main articles. Thus, it will always be up to date and editors attempting to edit it will be sent to the main article. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to a particular summary page plus main page where that would be a good idea? I like the general idea of not duplicating material, but it would depend on the page. - Dan (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Coming soon. So far, I've only used this tool to host the same discussion in several talk pages. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dan, I just completed my first transclusion. The main article is Indoor bonsai. Its seemingly ordinary lead paragraph is in fact transcluded from the subpage Indoor bonsai/lead. The same text is also transcluded as a section in Bonsai and Houseplant, the two summary articles. All modifications to the transcluded text will be shown in all locations. Do you like it? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: User:Discospinster bluntly deleted within minutes the subpage Indoor bonsai/lead, judged to be a "test page". There was no warning and she did not discuss it in my talk page. Turns out subpages of main articles are forbidden, for no good reason. I will fight this but I know too well that Gods/editors are immune to attacks from simple mortals. Emmanuelm (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not that subpages of articles are forbidden; it is that they quite techincally are not enabled. Could you do this thing by using <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>around the lead instead? — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sidhekin, I'll skip the argument about subpages, it is discussed here. I want to thank you for your suggestion of the includeonly tags. For some reason, these tags do not work as advertised but the noinclude tags work well.

I added such tags around the lead paragraph of Indoor bonsai and transcluded the whole page into Bonsai and Houseplant. It seems to work fine and, frankly, is faster than creating a subpage. There is, however, an extra limitation: all recipient pages will show the same text. With subpages, I could have created several transclusion schemes from the same page. Emmanuelm (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not includeonly — it's onlyinclude (includeonly is something else). I keep making that mistake myself; I reckon they made a poor nomenclature choice for these tags.  :-) — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an open mind toward this approach for the time being. In the example being offered here, it seems to work reasonably well, at least visually. I think it's not very editor-friendly, however: "What are these 'noincludes' doing here?" "How do I edit the text in this section? All it has is two things inside braces."

It also causes somewhat screwy formatting: in Houseplant#Indoor_bonsai, "bonsai" is bolded because it's bolded per the MoS on the indoor bonsai page, and houseplant ends up getting bolded as well because that's how MediaWiki formats self-links.--Father Goose (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of limited deployment of this concept. I think some editors will be concerned that this will lead to laziness (simply sticking your lead into other articles without thinking carefully about rewording as appropriate), but I don't think that's a valid objection; just don't allow that. The most important point, it seems to me, is that more eyeballs make better text; if people are seeing the same text several places, and if edits happen in each place at the same time, then the text will improve faster and degrade less.

There are several reasons that, if it isn't awkward, it's better to have exactly the same text in both places, rather than updating and tweaking the text separately. When the two texts are allowed to contradict, the credibility of both is pulled down. It's also much more work to update the text both places and continually have to check the two texts against each other.

I'm wondering why people didn't try this before. You should bring this up some place that more people watch, like WT:MoS. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 23:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea and I'm also tentatively in favour (or at least open minded) towards limited deployment: I think it is worth trying it out in a range of articles and see how it goes. The idea also encourages good lead writing: the lead is supposed to summarize the article and provide a self-contained overview, which is exactly what a summary style section is supposed to do.

Concerning technical issues, it is safer to put an "onlyinclude" around the lead, rather than "noinclude" the rest of the article, because someone could add categories or interwikis after the final "noinclude". Concerning "how to edit this section?", this could be handled by using an "includeonly" to transclude the section heading and the {{main}} template. Then "edit this section" would take the editor to the transcluded article. I'll demonstrate that in a moment. Other editing issues could be handled by adding suitable comments to the source. Geometry guy 10:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This turned out to be much harder to do than I thought, essentially because lead sections don't have a section heading to link to. The best I can do can be found at {{spinout}} and I've demonstrated it on Bonsai and Houseplant: the problem is that the edit section link is in the wrong place, and I can't get it in the right place without adding it to the table of contents. I've also created {{spinout/link}} and {{spinout/title}} to deal with the bolding problems noted by Father Goose. They are demonstrated at Indoor bonsai. Geometry guy 14:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

GeometryGuy, thanks for the info about spinout; I am learning a lot here! And I agree with those that pointed out that this approach forces us to write good lead section; a well-written lead is a perfect summary. So, who among you will modify the Summary Style guideline to explain this?

Still, I maintain that the subpages approach would be better because it offers more flexibility. Specifically, it would allow the transclusion of different parts of a main article to different summary articles, something the templates cannot do. As I said before, main article subpages are arbitarily forbidden (which, Sidhekin, is closer to the truth than "not enabled"). You may want to discuss this here. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't know about {{spinout}}, as I only created it today (the template was previously a redirect to {{subarticle}})! Concerning flexibility, are you suggesting that it would be useful to transclude a section of an article other than the lead section into a summary article? I can't think of very many situations in which that would be a good idea. However, it is possible to achieve this using templates: just wrap the section in "onlyinclude" tags. If different parts are to be transcluded onto different pages, then this can be done by using #ifeq or #switch to test {{PAGENAME}}. Geometry guy 15:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Grin. I was just coming over here to say that if you want to do this right, you should talk with Geometry Guy :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A general issue: I can see a case where the lede of a subarticle might be right for that article, but too long for the desired summary in the parent article. I doubt we should try to address cases like those via technical means. But even if the {{spinout}} approach proves to work well only in some cases (it remains to be seen if it is a good idea in any), I at least like the prospect of having it as an option.--Father Goose (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. This will crash and burn (at least as a proposal) if there's a pattern of people using it when a word-for-word copy is not appropriate. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

GeometryGuy, when talking about the limitations of the various templates, I had more that WP:SS in mind. There are other potential uses for transclusion. For example, a lexicon explaining jargon words could be transcluded in several articles on the subject. Interestingly, Richard001 gave me another example below, about the vestigiality of wisdom teeth.

Now, imagine I want to i) transclude the vestigiality paragraph of Wisdom teeth to Human vestigiality and ii) transclude the lead paragraph of wisdom teeth to the summary article Teeth. I could do it with subpages, if I was allowed to. Can you do it with templates?

By the way, I brought this discussion to the the Village Pump proposal talk page. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that such multiple transclusions are a good idea, but yes, it can be done with templates. If you only wanted to do only two transclusions, as is this case here, then on the Wisdom teeth page you could use:

 <onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Human vestigiality||text of the lead paragraph}}</onlyinclude>
...
<onlyinclude>{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Teeth||text of the vestigiality paragraph}}</onlyinclude>

(Note the double bar and the reversal of the pagenames.) However, to be more flexible/transparent, and allow more than two separate transclusions, slightly longer code is needed:

 <onlyinclude>{{#switch:{{PAGENAME}}|Wisdom teeth|Teeth=text of the lead paragraph}}</onlyinclude>
...
<onlyinclude>{{#switch:{{PAGENAME}}|Wisdom teeth|Human vestigiality=text of the vestigiality paragraph}}</onlyinclude>

Now the pagenames are not reversed, but you also have to mention the Wisdom teeth page itself, so that the text actually appears in the Wisdom teeth article too. In either case, you then have to transclude Wisdom teeth into both Teeth and Human vestigiality, using e.g., the {{spinout}} template I created.

The "onlyinclude" tags ensure that only these sections are transcluded, while the Parser functions (#ifeq or #switch) ensure that the right text is transcluded onto the right page. Geometry guy 17:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, GG, you sure know a lot about this. I'll have to find a hour or two to try this. In the meantime, someone (you?) really should edit the WP:Transclusion article to explain this, ideally with working examples. And I am still waiting for someone to modify the WP:SS guideline to mention the transclusion of lead sections. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Basic criticisms

The obvious problem, as I have pointed out elsewhere, is that some things (like use of boldface and internal links) will need to be different. For use to be appropriate the section also needs to be an exact summary of the article, which it often isn't. There's also the possibility of a lead containing material that indicates that it is a lead, e.g. 'which will be treated more fully below' or something like that (though we could create a guideline similar to WP:SELF to avoid doing anything like that such that leads can be treated as small articles in themselves, independent of the rest of the article). I thought the main article and {{summary in}} notices were enough to make editors aware they should try to keep such sections in harmony. It could also be confusing for editors who don't understand what's going on, e.g. trying to edit a section and being redirected to editing the lead of a different article. Taking these things into account, even if people do understand not to use it inappropriately (which they don't with {{main}}), it's unlikely to be much use.

The other situation where it could be used is where two sections discuss the exact same thing without there being an article on the overlap of these things (it being too trivial to warrant its own article, for example). An example that comes to mind is the vestigiality of wisdom teeth, discussed both at human vestigiality and wisdom teeth. In these cases I sometimes add a hidden comment to each section alerting editors to the existence of the other and suggesting changes are reflected in both. Richard001 (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard, most of your reservations about the quality of lead paragraphs are adressed in the guideline page about them. If need be, we could tweak these guidelines to address this new use of the lead paragraph. Again, a well-written lead paragraph is a perfect summary. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I know this; what I was saying with for use to be appropriate the section also needs to be an exact summary of the article, which it often isn't is that the summary (not the lead) is often not a true summary at all. See the example given by Geometry guy below on Al Gore for one of the no doubt thousands of such cases. Richard001 (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am against using this idea systematically for some of the reasons Richard001 mentions. However, I am open minded to the idea of using it occasionally, where it works well (if it does). To give a silly example (an old favourite of mine), consider List of recurring human characters from Futurama. This has a subsection on Al Gore, and links to it as a main article. However, the lead of Al Gore is completely inappropriate as a summary of the role Al Gore plays in Futurama. Although this is a silly example, it does illustrate (in a rather extreme way) that a lead section might have the wrong emphasis to be used verbatim in another article. For instance, the lead section might not be the right length.

Concerning boldface and internal links, Father Goose already raised this, and I've provided a technical solution: see Indoor bonsai, Bonsai and Houseplant, where the boldface and internal links are correct in all three articles. Geometry guy 17:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Notice in WT:LEAD#Version 1.0 that lead sections might turn out to be the only content on some subjects in WP:Version 1.0. So leads are vitally important for a number of reasons, and that's what might convince some people to try this, in order to get more eyeballs in more places working on leads. You don't have that argument if you're transcluding any old section. The way to make progress with proposals in Wikipedia is generally to do one thing at a time and make your strongest case first, and be prepared to put a lot of work into this if you want it to succeed. That would probably mean regularly visiting "what links here" to that template to see if people have the right idea. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Dank, I'll put in the time I can afford. Right now, I am waiting for code wizards like GeometryGuy to show me how to do it. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This idea would only be at all useful in cases where the lead section being transcluded is the length required by the summary article it is transcluded in (that is, no more than four paragraphs long). WP:SS recommends that the section in the summary article be longer than the lead section of the sub-topic article and in many cases the sections in summary articles are several subsections long. I fear that the result of implementing the lead section transclusion trick would create a tendency to force summary article sections to be smaller than they need to be and less-integrated in the article b/c those "sections" are really lead sections for other articles. This isn't as flexible as the current approach and just doesn't seem right to me; unintended consequences appear very likely. --mav (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Further issues

Okay, while I continue to be open minded towards this idea, I have noticed a couple of further issues by watching the Indoor bonsai example. First, there is a watchlisting issue: when part of one page is transcluded into another, editors watchlisting the parent page also need to watchlist the spinout to keep track of changes. Secondly, the Bonsai#Indoor bonsai section now includes information in addition to the transclusion. Since this change happened so quickly, it is reasonable to expect that such edits will not be a particularly rare occurance. They have the potential to confuse editors and mess up the coordination of the articles. These two issues are related: if someone is watchlisting all of the articles involved in a transclusion, then they can maintain the coordination, but what guarantee is there that such an editor exists? And why is this any better than leaving comments/templates in the article source and on the talk page per Richard001? Geometry guy 19:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, I think these are significant concerns. I'm very tied up with style guidelines and other wiki-stuff; this transclusion stuff is interesting, but I'll have to come back to it in a week. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary via transcluded lead paragraphs -- a more complex example

I (a pathologist) have created a complex example of how the summary style guideline can be applied using transclusion of lead paragraphs. Here is the hierarchy so far:

• Pathology (summary article)
  • History of pathology
  • General pathology
  • Pathology as a medical specialty (both main and summary article; we need to improve this terminology!)
    • Anatomical pathology
    • Clinical pathology
  • Veterinary pathology
  • Plant pathology

What I've learned: I had to use plenty of self links for the transcluded text to work in both pages. Altough I removed some duplicated content from WP, the summary article contains a lot of repetitions. Overall, I like it a lot. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I know we need to do a better job of treating articles as part of a complex web, but using this will make articles look like they were lumped together by a machine. The use of summary style in pathology as a medical specialty looks particularly bad; two summaries there repeat the same sort of information (redundancy) and use boldface where they shouldn't, the result being an amateurish looking article. It's also probably somewhat annoying as a reader to read a summary of an article, then get the exact same text spat back at you when you click on the main article link. Richard001 (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the boldface issues. Also, it is best not to do the bolding of titles using self-links because if results in overlinking when the lead is transcluded. For these reasons, I already created {{spinout/title}} and {{spinout/link}} to deal with titles and links respectively. I've reduced the overlinking, but there is still some in the main pathology article as a result of all these transclusions. I also agree with Richard001 that there is some redundancy in the prose. Again, I don't want to rush to judgement: it maybe that with some rewriting the leads can be made to read well as summary sections when they are transcluded. My point of view is that we should be trying to see if this idea can be made to work, rather than declaring that it doesn't, or conversely backing it with premature enthusiasm. Geometry guy 15:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GG for the formatting, it indeed works better now.

Let me remind you all the main advantages of this approach: it prevents the creation of a POV fork between the main article and the summary article and also reduces the arguments over the wording of controversial texts. If you look at my user page, you will see that I edit very "hot" pages where extreme POVs are the norm. In that environment, the "lead-as-summary" approach saves lots of time and nerves. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I might remind you that the 'lead as summary' approach is how all leads are required to be written, transclusion or no. The fact that they aren't just reflects on the present quality of Wikipedia. Richard001 (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, there's additional information at Help:Section#Sections vs. separate pages vs. transclusion. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This information is somewhat out-of-date and opaque: help pages are one of the least glamorous parts of Wikipedia, so they don't get the attention they deserve. Everytime I want to do something new with a parser function, I struggle to find the relevant information... Geometry guy 18:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to affirm everyone going down this path, especially coder Geometry guy, because it is a great need on WP and a community of people who are learning to do it right will help greatly to redirect those who do it wrong later. I experimented with this last fall but did not have the tools to make it stick, but it looks like we are getting there now. There is transclusion in use at 2008 straw polls, but not due to summary style and not fully smoothly either. Without having looked at the examples, some of the keys are (1) ease of using slightly different text in the main and sub sections (e.g. bolding vs. not, included vs. excluded clauses) without encouraging totally different sections; and (2) ease of editing text from both articles (e.g. getting users to know that editing the one requires thinking of editing the other, and minimizing extra clicks necessary). I'm very pleased with this progress! At some point I will reconsider its use at Ron Paul, Political positions of Ron Paul, and the rest. Keep it up. JJB 20:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Caution

The pathology example used here proved my point I give above; The lead section in History of pathology is, and always will be as long as it follows WP:LEAD guidelines, totally inadequate as a section summarising the history of pathology at Pathology. The history section at Pathology should be at least a couple subsections long with a half dozen or more paragraphs total when both Pathology and History of pathology are fully developed. I'm all for making sure that related articles be synced; especially summary vs subtopic articles. But lead sections and full-fledged sections serve different purposes. --mav (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we be consistent in template use please?

We need to define the specific role of the templates used in summary style and summary-like fashions. It remains unclear to me what the exact niche of {{main}}, {{further}}, {{see}}, {{details}} (and others?) is. If they overlap, they should be merged. Each should have a specific and unique function otherwise it only creates confusion about the whole process and inconsistency among and even within articles. I have long ago proposed {{details}} and {{further}} be merged, but there has been no real response. This article is similarly vague, e.g. "—see {{Main}}, {{Details}},...)" - and what is the difference? Richard001 (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I always use "main" if the summary section covers the same material as the sub article in total, and i use "see also" for subarticles that expand on the section but cover other topics, or when the subarticle only covers some of the material summarises.

Eg In LGBT themes in SF, the Comics section summarises LGBT themes in comics, but i used "See also" as it only summaries the parts that are relevant to speculative fiction, but the Yoai and Yuri section summarises the Yoai and Yuri (term) in toto, so i used "main".

Having a single see also/see/further/details template would be better imo, and more details on when to use them instead of main, to make the whole encylopedia more consistant.YobMod 10:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep summary and main synchronized using transcluded leads

I moved this discussion from my user talk page to here.

Hi Emmanuel, I reverted, but only because I don't see any evidence that any trial projects have started or that we have the results from them yet...do we? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The Pathology summary was a trial by me, with the invaluable technical help of GG and, in my opinion, it works well. The technique and this example were discussed here a month ago under Transclusion, an interesting tool. and its sub-headings. Then, you wrote you were in favor of this tool.

Dank, I searched for "Wikipedia:Trial project" and "Trial project" but found nothing. What is a "trial project"? What constitutes the "results" of a trial project? Emmanuelm (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

When a suggested change in guidelines involves a kind of templating that may not work as predicted and that people aren't familiar with, then WP:BRD is not the way to proceed; that is, we don't just change the guideline to say "this is okay now" and then watch what happens. I'll ask Geometry Guy if he feels the technical issues are settled, then the next step is to talk about this at some wider forum and see what the reaction is; WP:VPP would work. I'm still in favor of using the tool, but getting a number of people to try it out first and then report back is an important part of the process. There's no guideline that says you have to do this, but if you want it to succeed, it's a good idea. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see this tried on an article with a high edit rate such as Ron Paul (mentioned previously). Raising the topic at the Village Pump is also a good idea. The technical issues are not completely resolved, but I'm willing to help think up further improvements. Pathology works quite well, but not extremely well. My own tentative assessment of the transclusion idea is that it might better be regarded as a stage in the development of a family of articles rather than a final product. Of course there is no final product on Wikipedia, but at some point one may need to reconsider whether transclusion is helping or holding back the articles from getting better. Geometry guy 19:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've had some discussions with G-guy and mentioned this to Bulten. I was acting mostly in my role as watchdog here, and I don't have time to lead this discussion at WP:VPP or elsewhere myself; I'm hoping we can con persuade Bulten to take this on. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't want to give this any thought, but too late, I already did. If what we want is to enforce certain lead sections to be the same as certain sections in survey articles, this approach may make sense. If we're looking for a more flexible approach, one that would allow differences under some circumstances, then we're not looking for transclusion, we're looking for a tool that rapidly generates the desired diffs, so that people can easily keep track of discrepancies. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, i.e., ready for beta. Emmanuel's insertion here looked fine for a first draft of the appropriate explanatory text, though of course the spinout family of templates should be mentioned here, and more documentation would be useful there. The flexibility exists in judicious use of the noinclude and includeonly templates (and perhaps onlyinclude), which needs documenting. I'll put this on watchlist and see how it can be incorporated and built upon here and there. Thanks again for everyone working on this idea. JJB 22:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JJB for your kind words but my insertion was reverted and still is. How can a new idea be tried if it is deleted? I've done my part with Pathology, its your turn now. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me try again. Emmanuel, I very much support the idea of giving people better tools to keep lead sections in some kind of sync with sections in other articles. But we're nowhere near a consensus on whether it's better to do this with transclusion or some other tool, such as a diff-generator, and G-Guy is not going to swear that his template will work as desired, especially since he doesn't know what the desire is yet. The next step is to ask in some fairly public way what people want. And btw, this could cause real headaches with the proposed WP:Flagged revisions feature. It wouldn't be appropriate to say in this guideline "it's okay to do it", nor would it be appropriate to say here that it's proposed. I wouldn't be opposed to starting a new page where we talk about the proposal, but my guess is that's overkill; just discuss it on WP:VPP and do an RFC, and see what the reaction is. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Another criticism that comes to mind is that summaries of articles are of various lengths; some will be shorter than the lead and others will be much longer. Transclusion makes it seem like summaries should always be lead-clones, which certainly isn't the case. It also makes changing the length more inflexible, as people are forced to keep the lead and summary the same and may not realize that abandoning the transclusion approach is a possibility. Richard001 (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, transclusion is definitely not a panacea. It is something that can be used sometimes in some articles, and perhaps later removed. This needs to be made clear. The only way to explore its scope and limitations is to develop examples. I'm willing to contribute template-based solutions to issues which arise. Geometry guy 20:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how it works, but needs a lot more testing before being advertised as a viable option. All my articles summarise sub-articles i have written, and i don't see it being possible for any of them to use this transclusion technique. Even when length is not an issue, the lead of an article has to give enough context to be understood by a casual reader, and would give massive redundancy and poor organisation and writing in summary sections.

Sourcing - has this been discussed? If challenged, a summary section should contain citations, and all of mine do. Whereas my leads have no sources, as everything is sourced in the main text. Can transclsions deal with having sources in the summary but not the lead? Forcing sources into a lead would be ugly imo, especially as being present in mutliple articles could lead to sourcing every sentence multiple times for controversial articles.YobMod 10:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Added shortcut

I added a shortcut called WP:AVOIDSPLIT because I think certain merge / split discussions need to keep it in mind. If someone needs to reformat it or rename it, I would support that. Randomran (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Judith Butler reception: Summary style or POV fork?

See Talk:Judith Butler and Talk:Influence of Judith Butler's concepts. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Transwikification

I removed a reference to transwikification but was later reverted. As the standard next step, I'd like to explain my rationale in more detail.

The clause in question is this: "If information can be trimmed, merged, moved to another wiki, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created."

User:Zappernapper is right in saying that transwikifiction is a fairly common practice. The problem with the current wording is that it describes transwikification as a competitive alternative to on-wiki forking; it essentially says that we cannot .

Clearly this is problematic. The chance that a reader will see transwikied content on any particular subject is relatively low. External links can help, but since WP:SS deals with subtopics within broader articles, bottom-of-the-page links are generally inappropriate (as too narrow), and using them in {{see}}-like notices goes against various guidelines and norms. Transwikification is a Good Thing, but it shouldn't be regarded as a replacement for housing content in-wiki, especially in the context of WP:SS.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead

In a summary style article, is there any policy about wikilinking to the sub-articles in the lead? Of course the respective sub-articles will be linked at the beginning of each summary section, but should they also be wikilinked in the lead? If we wikilink some of the sub-articles in the lead, but not others, is that okay? I'm referring especially to the John McCain article, where this issue has cropped up recently.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I guess we've agreed to leave those wikilinks out of the lead, for the time being.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Balance in summary vs. article

Just added a paragraph:

"Also, the summary on the main page should usually keep an approximately similar balance as in the subtopic article. If two sections of a subtopic article are of approximately similar length, then the summary in the main article should not spend 3 sentences summarizing one section and none on the other, unless there is an obvious reason and/or a consensus on the talk page that this different balance is appropriate."

Full disclosure: This issue does relate to a discussion I am currently involved with. I do not intend to cite my own text as policy in that discussion, but I believe that it is generally a common-sense point for the future. Homunq (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Homunq is referring to the Sarah Palin article, which is perhaps the most unstable article in Wikipedia at the moment. Regarding his suggested edit to this guideline, I disagree with it. The comparative lengths of sections in a subtopic article should not always dictate how the subtopic article is summarized, because sometimes an extremely important point in the subtopic article can be stated relatively briefly there, whereas a less important point is elaborated upon at greater length lower down in the subtopic article. There are other additional reasons, but this is a good one to start with.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ferrylodge that this should not be a straitjacket, for reasons such as those they stated. This is why I stated it as I did: two equal-length sections should not get 3 sentences for one and 0 for the other. 3 sentences and 1 sentence would probably be OK. I think that this provides enough flexibility to cover cases like Ferrylodge's hypothetical, while still serving as a useful point of reference when opinions differ. Homunq (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think a summarizer should look at all at the body of a subtopic article? Why not just look at the lead of the subtopic article?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider the case at hand. There are different POV's involved, as well as editors with varying grasps of Wikipedia conventions. Clearly there is the greatest focus and the most chaos on the main article, a secondary focus but more order on the contents of the sub-article, and the least focus and the most order on the lead (aka lede) of the sub-article. Since I think that quality is something like the product of focus and order, in these circumstances, I think the best skeleton for a summary would be the TOC of the sub-article, not its lead. Homunq (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that there is the least focus on the lead of the sub-article, as compared to the rest of the sub-article. Usually, editors know that the lead is the most important part, because it is what either grabs or loses the reader's attention, and the lead is what gives the reader a first impression about the article. Similarly, editors will often focus more on the initial sections of an article than on the later sections, because the initial sections have a much higher likelihood of being read. Maybe it shouldn't be that way ideally, but in practice that's how things often work out. Likewise, a Wikipedia editor might try to appease another editor by moving material lower in an article, instead of deleting it altogether.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Editing or content?

This is currently classified as an editing guideline. Most of the contents at Category:Wikipedia editing guidelines seem to be about navigation, and I always expect this guideline to provide information about the level of detail (as in, "summarize your sources", instead of dumping zillions of unimportant details into an article). Do you think it might be better classified with the Category:Wikipedia style guidelines? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut

I added a shortcut called WP:DETAIL as it might prove useful to merge/split debate. If someone wants to reformat or rename it, no problem. Hiding T 13:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing summary style articles

This page says... "There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." was there any consensus for this? I was under the impression that all articles needed sources, not just the ones who don't have content forks. Many content forks are completely unsourced and in poor condition, should we rely on these for information found in Featured Articles? I don't think so. I think every article should stand on its own, complete with references, and should not rely on other WP articles as "sources". I think this phrase should be changed to state the opposite. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 20:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also agree. If not saying the opposite, at least it needs expanding to give more nuance. I often find editors claiming a section of an article (or even every entry in a list) does not need sourcing because the individual articles have the information. But the sub-articles are not sourced, or the summary has altered the maining in some way, so it is no longer supported. It should at minimum be clear that when an editor asks for a source or fact tags a sentence, the source must be provided - not a vague assertion that it is somewhere in another article.YobMod 10:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I added a note from WP:SCG#Summary_style stating "it is important to ensure that the material is present in the sub-article with a reference." But I don't necessarily agree with that statement. While it would be nice to leave it up to other articles to provide the references, things can change quickly and it would be impossible to synchronize all the articles with the sub-articles constantly. Each article should stand on its own, with its own references. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 17:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Summaries of Foreign Langauge Wiki articles

If sometimes happens that an article that describes something that is well known in an English-speaking country and then has a set of summaries that describe the same thing in other countries. Often an English-language article will map onto two or more articles in the same foreign language and it is appropriate in the English-language article to discuss the differences between the various foreign language articles (for example there might be differences between the way in which Germany, Switzerland and Austrian approach the subject). In such cases is it appropriate to have a set of "Main Article" links or "See" links, or is it preferable to incorporate the links as foreign-languagve Wikilinks? Martinvl (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary split question regarding HMS Belfast (C35)

Input would be welcomed at Talk:HMS Belfast (C35)/GA1 regarding if a Summary style split is appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 17:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The matter is now resolved. SilkTork *^YES! 08:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems with partial transclusions and page histories

I see there have been several discussions on this page about the practice of 'partial transclusions' where noinclude and its variations are used to include the lead section of an article in a summary-style article. One of the main problems with this is that it messes up the page history completely, with an old page version showing not what was on the page at the time, but what is on the transcluded sections at the time of viewing (if it showed what was in the transcluded section at the time of the page version in question, there would be no problem, but that needs to be sorted before this technique is used any further). I've said something similar here, pointing out that the same problems arises with templates and infoboxes, but unlike section transclusion, there is a definite page history for the templates to cross-reference with. My view is that the technique of partial transclusion of sections of another article into another article (imagine if that page was further transcluded into other articles) needs to be banned (now, completely) until these issues are sorted out. It is OK to do this in talk pages, user page, and Wikipedia project namespace, but to do this on live articles risks causing all sorts of confusion. If anyone agrees with me, I will try and attract more attention to this discussion to see if there is any support for my proposal to forbid use of article-article transclusions in mainspace (template-article transclusions are OK, as that is what that system was designed for). Carcharoth (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed that generally it is better to copy the lead from the child article and maybe add a bit from the child body if it is too short, prune if needed to avoid redundancy, perhaps rephrase or rearrange to fit the flow of the main article and so on. Better to adapt the child lead than just transclude. On the other hand, if the child article is very active, on a highly controversial subject, there may be an argument for transclusion to avoid forking. An example is Ghost#Spiritualist movement which has little resemblance to the lead of Spiritualism, although it claims to be a summary of Spiritualism. There is a war going on there about pseudoscience which has caused the forking. To me, the page history issue is internal while the forking issue is public and should take precedence. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm someone fairly technical – but alas not yet in the realms of wiki scripting – who is also enjoying using partial transcludes at the moment. The technical issue of some people coolly writing some code such that when rendering a history version of an article, the transclude is done from a contemporary history of the transclusion source, seems to me a lot simpler than trying to deal with a lot of upset editors who've had their clever layout spoiled. I realise one-off substitutions could be fairly seamlessly done, but that's not the point. The point is to be clever and save repetition and keep articles connected. I was wondering how the database was organised earlier today while playing with a little whim in my userspace, but I can't see that such linking would involve any alteration to it, simply a few more milliseconds processing history-state pages. At least run this past the software coders before upseting the editors! Someone will have probably fixed it by tomorrow lunchtime! But then I'm an optimist ;-> Trev M ~  22:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do try and find a developer to do something about this. I suggest a starting point would be WP:VPT (the technical village pump). Post a note there pointing people here, and hopefully more technical people will turn up. On the issue of whether it is possible to make sure that rendering of a old page version transcludes what the template looked liked at the time the page was saved, that would be wonderful, and I would fully support that. There are a few problems though. (1) If a template has been deleted, viewing old page version will show a redlink. So what might need to happen there is for people who are active at templates for deletion to be less inclined to delete templates, and to retire them instead (there might also be a need to undelete a lot of undeleted templates and protect them, so that the page history can be accessed by the program rendering old page version when people access those old page versions). (2) Templates have their own namespace, so it is relatively easy to look up what a template page (be it an infobox, navbox, or something else) looked like at the time a previous page version was saved - BUT, I can't figure out how this would be done for the transclusion of a lead section. Do you instruct the rendering program to look up the old page version of the article and obey whatever "noinclude" tags were on the page at the time? That might actually work, but would probably slow things down a bit further. (3) This can't apply to images, as some vandal-images are quite shocking and they need to show up as redlinks or the current version of an image in page histories. All-in-all, I would want to hear what developers have to say about this, as it is they who would have to try and implement some of these proposals. Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I would never have thought of the problem from that point of view. I have made the request suggested here. Feel free to correct or clarify. Regardless of the outcome, this discussion and feedback gives me a big boost of confidence about the way Wikipedia works. 1+1=3. Thanks. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

How to summarize a list?

Transcendental Meditation#Notable practitioners is long and getting longer, so we're considering splitting it off to a standalone list for the parent article. (Now done: List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners.) The question is now about how to "summarize" a list of names. Do we, as editors, pick the names we think are most interesting or representative? Do we refer to the short lists of the most prominent practitioners? Do we pick every nth entry as a random assortment? Do we leave out the names and say that the notable practitioners include "musicians, actors, politicians, and other notable personalities"? Do we simply say that "many notable people have been practitioners"? Or do we avoid the problem by not attempting to summarize a list? Any suggestions?   Will Beback  talk  02:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

And to add to Will's question. As long as policy is being adhered to wouldn't editor consensus help determine how to summarize such a list?(olive (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

The point of this thread is to ask for suggestions on how, or if, we can find a way to summare a list that will adhere to policy. The problem, as I explained on the talk page, is that having one editor decide, with no objective criteria, which items to include would violate the "no original research" policy. I've proposed using one of the sourced short lists, or short list based on the most common items that appear in sources, but that apparently isn't satisfactory though I haven't heard why. So mere consensus doesn't seem like a good foundation for action. Also, this isn't the only article to face this issue and if there are good suggestions we may be able to improve the guideline. Let's not get into a debate about the details of the TM article here.   Will Beback  talk  06:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mere editor consensus isn't being suggested as far as I can see. If a list of names is reliably sourced, (policy is being adhered to) then selecting which if any of those already reliably sourced names should be used in a summary is not OR nor should the selection decision be left to any one editor. First a criteria for selecting how to choose the names may be necessary, and then which names fit within that description must be chosen. That requires consensus and Wikipedia as collaborative operates on consensus. I think you, in your opening post, suggested this concern was in reference to the TM article, but I'll be happy to keep specific references to the article on the TM page(olive (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

Nobody has proposed a criterion there or here. Suitable criteria for selecting a few entries from a list would be useful input here.   Will Beback  talk  18:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Criteria, from TM talk page discussion:

• The list we have is a cross section of people... actors, musicians, physicians, and so on, but in choosing names for the summary we are choosing reliably sourced names from a cross-section of the original list itself, not a cross section of practitioners or society or anything outside what already exists within the WP article’s list.

• Criteria which would give us a good cross section of our original list could include:

-Choosing one or two names from each decade.

-One or two each from the different groups of: doctors, musicians, actors, politicians, newscasters, military, bankers, and so on.

-Possibly even age ranges (teen, adult, elderly).

Consensus can help determine which if not all of these criteria, we can use, and then which names to use.(olive (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

I suggest we use this page to gain input from other editors. There's no point in copying our discussion from that talk page here, unless we're moving the whole discussion here.   Will Beback  talk  20:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest some consistency ... You said there was no criteria given here or on the TM talk page. I've given criteria on the TM talk page, and copied it here for ease. Its doubtful outside editors would involve themselves in that discussion especially since have specifically asked not to center this discussion on the TM article. (olive (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

I am here because of the post on the OR noticeboard. Yes, choosing to remove some names and not others approaches OR.

As of now, it appears that List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners has been created. I see no need to list any practitioners in the main article, and no need to trim any names from the list article. It is not clear to me why removal of list entries has ever been proposed, especially when most seem to have references that support their being on the list. Could someone clarify the motive for trimming the list? Blue Rasberry 13:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There was never a proposal to remove names. But often when material that starts in one article is split off a summary is left. (In this case the list was only in the article for a few days). So one approach to summarizing would be a mini-list. However the mechanism for selecting which names to include in that "summary list" is problematic. I'm not sure how we can really summarize a list by including a few entries. "The list of U.S. states includes Alabama, Texas, and North Dakota". Hence this thread.   Will Beback  talk  13:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The same question is now cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#Question on how to create a summary for larger lists.   Will Beback  talk  18:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What's missing in Will's example above on the United Sates is that the list created has implied categories that are subsets of the list itself. For example:The contiguous United States, and those states not contiguous.

For example:

States in the USA

Main article: List of States in the United States of America

The USA is comprised of 50 separate states. Each State has a unique name and while most of the states are contiguous, such as New York State in the North East of the NA Continent, Florida state in the SE, California on the West Coast, Kansas and Nebraska in the middle, two states are outside the Continental US, Hawaii and Alaska.

or... these are also subsets of "United States", and there are multiple other ways of creating categories/subsets

Eastern Atlantic states, Southern States, Midwestern States, and so on..

What's clear is that there is no OR in any of these examples, the master list is already sourced, and so a summary or subset, a merely technical creation and division, speaks for itself. Sourcing to another list would seem to be an exercise in redundancy.(olive (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC))

There are two problems with using categories and then picking one or two items from each category. First is how to categorize the entries. Using the states example again, if we use a category of "island states" then we have only one entry. Likewise, "states that start with the letter 'U'". Second, even if the category issue can be resolved that just multiplies the issue of how to select the representative entries within the categories. OTOH, an logical and objective criteria, like "the five largest states", would seem less problematic. Perhaps even better is to simply describe the list, briefly, and then link to it. "The 50 states stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and vary greatly in size and population. For a complete list, see..."   Will Beback  talk  15:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest finding 2-3 secondary references that provide reasonably short lists of that kind for the main article. The long (now) standalone list has been produced by trawling through dozens of sources. I suspect that many of those refs mention that X is TM practitioner in a context where X is the main topic, rather than the other way around. So, the question is rather simple: which practitioners are considered most noteworthy in an overview of TM by reliable sources? (By the way, the Romanian episode is poorly covered in the article, here's an overview article [1] in Romanian; you can use google translate, but the article uses fairly elaborate, literary Romanian, so YMMV. There's an entire book about the affair, also in Romanian. Because it involved a large number of Romanian intellectuals, User:Dahn might be interested in writing an article, which could be summarized in the main TM one.) Pcap ping 09:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion. I had made a similar proposal, but it didn't get any traction. One problem with those little lists, of which there are many, is that lazy reporters would apparently repeat each other's work. For example, many lists include the Rolling Stones. So far as I can tell from my research, only Mick Jagger learned the technique, and there's no indication in any of the sources I've read that he ever gave it a second thought. Going back even further, I've seen lists that included Shirley MacLaine even before she'd actually learned it. But as a general practive, I think that's a good way to go.

In the end, what we did was to use Google News and see who was mentioned most frequently in conjunction with TM. We picked the top five names. To give it a little more variety and to reduce the over-representation of musicians, we only used the top name per occupation. It was cobbled together and it may not meet the absolute ideal of NOR, but it seems like the best summarization possible given the circumstances.

Thanks for the link the the article on the Romanian episode. I'd seen some information on it and have been hoping to read more. While some groups take a sort of perverse pride in their persecutions, this doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the TM literature. Overall, this may have been more important to the history of Romania, whose government apparently lost some of its finest minds, than to the international TM movement, for whom Romania was just another domain. Because it exists at the junction of two movements, it'd probably get the best treatment in a standalone article. I'll contact Dahn about it.   Will Beback  talk  09:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Support for summaries

I m considering howe summaries could be better supported and have some initial ideas. This would support both summary style splitting or articles and within article summaries like in the lead or at the top of some subsections.

I think I'd want two templates

• {{summary disputed}} where someone thinks the summary is plain wrong or misleading
• {{summary improve}} where it just doesn't summarize reasonably well

Plus a type of summary citation which is stuck at the end of a summary sentence and refers to what's summarized. For summary style that is done already but within articles there's no real indication that a statement summarizes something further down. One can of course put in an ordinary link but I think something better is needed. Then a lead could have something like 'Monsoons in Mojimbe regularly kill thousands of people.^[Monsoons] ' which referred to the section 'Monsoons' instead of listing various citations from that section. Dmcq (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll copy this over to WT:Verifiability#Citations_in_the_lead and any discussion should probably be centralized for the moment there. Dmcq (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary section heading

Since before I ever began editing WP I have wondered why the first section of articles has no heading. I now note several things

1. Perhaps, unlike in many other media, there is not supposed to be a heading for some stylistic or arcane reason and this can never be changed or revealed
2. The function of the first section is different in different articles:
   1. It may be a summary. I never recognised that that was what it supposed to be until I started doing background reading, and there may be a significant proportion of practising WP editors and writers who continue not to know that
   2. It may be an introduction - an explanation of the content of the rest of the page
   3. It may be the entire page content
   4. In a fudgily written article, it may just be a first-thing-that-comes-to-mind section before the writer's mind crystallises into headings
3. By default, with a reasonable size article and a top right Infobox and/or image, it shoves the contents box off the bottom of the first page screen that loads, leaving only the length of the scroll bar handle and load time as an indication of the extent of the page, unless code to make the summary text wrap it is added

The first thing I want to know – or rather feel – when I enter a page, often before even deciding whether to delve further within the page, is what the extent of the content is... so the regular poker-faced page-top that I am confronted with frustrates that.

I suspect this convention grew by default out of when WP was small enough that a page for a topic was enough division of content: that the first bit of the article just carried on under the h1 until it got too rambling and then an h2 was stuck in.

I am inclined to experiment in a few articles and name it Summary or Introduction or Foreword according to its rôle and watch what happens. The implications for search page extracts might be worth considering.

Actually propagating a heading for the section may serve to get it far better implemented, getting writers and editors to consider what it is actually there for, filling your first screen!

In the meantime I look forward to reading longer-practising writers' views on these matters.... Trev M ~  16:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The first section is described in WP:LEAD and tends to be variously called the leader, lead or leda. In other documents that bit would be a short lead in italics before the main text. So yes it does have a special purpose. Dmcq (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• • In the WP:LEAD page itself, for example, that short bit in italics seems to be consumed as follows:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:LEAD)
Jump to: navigation, search
This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; ...
it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus. 	
Shortcuts:
This page in a nutshell: The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.

That's already quite a lot of information. Then we get the italic bit, without a title, without italics (because hard to read on screen no doubt), then we get what the default section - the contents - on what article actually has in it... so with articles growing in complexity isn't it about time it had some clearly assigned purpose for the many who come here for whom WP is the printed work of our past?

I'm only just realising that the Summaries we're talking about here and the Lead are two completely different things! Maybe this thread should be transcluded to the LEAD talk page, as it's relevant to both. Trev M ~  17:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How about just following the style already here? Please get some consensus before sticking in your own style. I was able to start editing Wikipedia without reading any of the rubbish in the WP: pages and without people complaining because I just kept the style already there and copied what other people had done. Keep it simple unless something a bit more complex is really necessary is my philosophy. You seem to want to use all sorts of things like this onlyinclude you've stuck here. It is not an exercise in learning strange constructions - the point is to write stuff that anyone else can edit as well.. Dmcq (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • Clarity is good as well as simplicity; if they are the same, even better. This is posted here to see what other input there is to the idea; let's see for a few months. Trev M ~  19:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for a heading above the initial text as it is just clutter and pointless. The TOC should appear below the initial section as you usually read the initial section to see what the article is about and decide if you need to read on to get detail. It is at that point you look at the TOC and decide which sections you are interested in. It is much better if the start of the TOC is below the bottom of the infobox. Keith D (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • • I simply disagree regarding your first assertion: it would have clarified much for me during the early days of my use of Wikipedia, and I believe would encourage other editors to use the section appropriately. There is plenty of wasted space and clutter around WP pages! You seem to be making the assumption that my (and thus presumeably the majority of other users') thought processes and reading techniques are, and should be, the same as yours!

Trev M ~  22:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Keith D on all points. There is no need for an extra header at the top. It is clutter and conveys nothing since the purpose of that section is agreed by convention. There is no point in sticking the same word in bold at the top of every article and there would be no point in using different words. The lead should satisfy quick casual query and if you are searching through the contents then you want to spend more time on the article anyway. As to the placement of the contents list there is little point in making quick queries longer in the interest of making longer perusal where you already know about the subject a tiny fraction faster. Dmcq (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Query regarding wikilinking at Village Pump Misc.

I have posted a query at the village pump, on the question of what is the best (long-term) way to handle redundancies among related articles. It relates to the use of summary style, so I thought some of you might have something to say. Cheers! AGradman / underlying article as I saw it / talk 03:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

citations

I have removed the following text:

There is no need to repeat all the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point. The policy on sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, says that sources must be provided for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.

When adding material to a section in the summary style, however, it is important to ensure that the material is present in the sub-article with a reference. This also imposes additional burden in maintaining Wikipedia articles, as it is important to ensure that the broad article and its sub-articles remain consistent.

The sourcing requirements for all articles on WP are effected only by the material in the article, and not in related articles. The use of summary style has no effect on our citation requirements whatsoever. This section has caused confusion in the past. I don't believe it is helpful. Colin°^Talk 10:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the change as I don't agree with it. A section that briefly describes the content of another article shouldn't need it's own references as verifiability requirements should be met in the other article.--RDBury (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are never sourced to other Wikipedia articles. Summary style is no exception. This section has for too long given the impression of an opt-out of WP:V for summary sections, just like your comment states. Look at WP:V. Do you see an exception that allows sourcing to daughter articles? This doesn't even document best-practice as I'm not aware of any of our best articles (FAs), which adopt summary style, that don't stand on their own legs wrt sources. Can you point out any FA that relies on its daughter articles for sourcing? Colin°^Talk 17:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also point out that RDBury also reverted this edit which resolved the confusing mess that the first paragraph had made as it had got references confused with further reading and external links. That edit should be uncontroversial. Colin°^Talk 18:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Colin is right about this, RDB. Articles have to stand alone in terms of their references. We can't refer readers to other articles and expect them to hunt for the citations there.

The sourcing policy, WP:V, says in its lead: "This policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons" (bold added). I have a vague memory of the "sections of articles" part being added specifically to address this point about summary-style. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you be in favour of these two consecutive edits being restored. This removed the above text and fixed the remaining paragraph to correctly discuss further reader and external links. Colin°^Talk 19:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be fine with that. Small typo: "to give more structure to long a bibliography" --> "to give more structure to a long bibliography." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The removed (now returned) material is correct, but incomplete... While there is no need to repeat all the references. However, there is a need to repeat at least some of them (enough to support the summary). Blueboar (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be clearly and simply stated, e.g. that "Any article beyond stub-class should be able to stand on the sources cited in that article." We have far too long used AGF as an excuse for accepting unsourced content. Fixing this would dramatically reduce copyvio issues as well. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, have you ever seen anyone "repeat all the references"? No, because that would be a silly and unnecessary thing to do. Wikipedia articles get summarised to all sorts of levels in the article that links to them: section, paragraph, sentence, list item, word. Somehow, only section summaries, and only articles that have a hierarchical relationship, have been singled out for special treatment wrt sourcing. We don't need to say it. What's more, when we do say it, the reader thinks, well how much should I copy from the daughter article? Instead they should be concentrating on writing a good summary of the section topic using the best sources they have.

The second paragraph imposed the requirement that material added to a summary section must also be present in the daughter article with a reference. But both material, if WP:V requires it, need a reference. And the desire to keep the summary and detail articles in sync is a nice-to-have that is a content guideline issue quite separate from policy issues such as sourcing, and it is already covered in another section Colin°^Talk 22:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Heck, even list articles need sources. Blueboar (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Restore previous name

This editing guide was renamed as a MoS guide last year on an understanding that an agreement had been made during a discussion on this page. As this has always been an editing guide, and the advice here is still about making an editing decision rather than a style or formatting one, I feel it should be returned to an editing guide, and the previous name of WP:Summary style restored. The discussion linked above referenced this guideline in order to make editing decisions during the MoS consolidation drive, but there was no discussion regarding bringing the guideline itself into the MoS. I have informed the editor who made the move. Views are encouraged. SilkTork *^YES! 12:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Contentless sections

A problem I note with a lot of articles (for example, Milton Keynes Dons F.C.) is that when articles are split, people just cut-and-paste sections into new articles and leave the parent articles devoid of information. Obviously, this fails the spirit of WP:SUMMARY, as "summary style" means that a main article should give a summary and give links to "main articles" if it makes an article too unwieldy to combine all the information, but it seems not to be an important part of the policy. Should this be rectified or not? Sceptre ^(talk) 23:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There is never any reason to have a section with no content at all. or a section other than the EL section at the end that has nothing but links. So I would say yes, it should be rectified. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. As a longtime fan of the summary guideline, I have read this N quote as affirming that a breakout is "part of" its main article for N purposes. That is, we recognize that List of minor planets: 200001-201000, Later life of Isaac Newton, and List of centenarians (educators, school administrators, social scientists and linguists) are not notable in themselves, and yet they are clearly not deletable at AFD for N reasons, since their main topics (List of minor planets, Isaac Newton, Lists of centenarians) are notable. This N exception seems to be a natural corollary of the COMMONNAMES exception that breakouts enjoy.

In a content dispute, it has been raised by some that this might count as a backdoor to inherent notability, because it does "the same thing" as inherence. It makes all consensus breakouts "inherently article-worthy" (which sounds a lot like "inherently notable"). Clearly someone who did not understand the summary structure might easily raise a good-faith AFD, rightly arguing the topic is nonnotable but is being treated as if it were inherently notable solely because its notable main topic is sufficiently long. This happens particularly with lists. It would seem there would be a standardized method of communicating the structure to notability checkers. (Incidentally, I guarantee that if you look up the particular content dispute in my history, you will face a topic maelstrom largely irrelevant to these present sitewide questions; but feel free.)

Q1: Since WP:LISTs are articles, does this guideline apply equally to lists as it does to other articles, though lists are not mentioned herein? JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q2: What is the best way to handle the tension between the rightness of breakout articles vs. the objection, frequently met, that the breakout's title is nonnotable as a topic? (I see that N failures are not "encouraged" per AVOIDSPLIT, but this is accommodating language because the above demonstrates that sometimes there is no notable split and yet split is still indicated due to size.) JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q3: In particular, in a comprehensive list combining notable and nonnotable topics, I have observed the tendency for the notable ones to be broken out with short summaries and the nonnotable ones to accumulate long entries (especially if primary sources are involved), which seems to lean against guidance here for main-page balance. Is this guideline leaning more toward balanced breakouts, or is it toward imbalance (so as to indicate varying notability), or is this a local question? JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q4: Since breakout method itself should be decided locally, should choice of breakout method include consideration of whether individual breakout candidates "look notable" or "look nonnotable" if they are considered without reference to being broken out? (My answer is it doesn't seem that this should be a consideration.) JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q5: Should local method determination rely primarily on anticipation of the detail levels that various user cases would typically look for? JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q6: Since the guideline affirms breakouts must be able to stand alone, but only contextualizes this for V purposes, should we conclude that breakouts must stand alone for N (which would fail many articles like the above), or that they need not (which would indicate a clarification to the guideline)? JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q7: What are the best style methods of communicating in-article that an article is a breakout, to transcend argumentation over N? (Obviously I start with the "Main article:" link at top, the navtemplate(s) indicating a place in a series, and sufficient sourcing and weighting; "Previous article:" and "Next article:" come to mind; anything else?) JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability requirements apply to sub-articles. There are no special rules and there need not be any special rules that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There is evidence N does not consistently apply to subarticles, for instance WP:NCLL, plus the above sample subarticles. I am looking for substantive discussion on this evidence. Logically, either all such subarticles need to be deleted or merged for N failure, or some subarticles need not be deleted for N failure. Substantive point-by-point answers from anyone would be appreciated. JJB 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes we say lists are articles but they don't follow quite a lot of a normal article's rules. Have you a real problem in mind? Dmcq (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, per the second OP graf, but these queries have long applied to many topic areas besides the presenting one. The challenge is to balance list-style or multiple-subtopic articles with spinoff articles that may be nonnotable. My understanding is that sometimes it's OK for a main article to have short summaries of notable topics interspersed with details sections of nonnotable topics that may be longer than the short summaries ("imbalanced"); and that sometimes it's OK to count all topics as not necessarily notable spinoffs of a list that would be too long if not spun out ("balanced"). The former is more common if the notable and nonnotable subtopics have a varying amount of sourceable data, as with the supercentenarians in various "list of" articles; the latter if the nonnotable subtopics have a relatively constant (usually programmed) amount of sourceable data, as with the thousand-count minor-planet sublists in list of minor planets. In other words I would like to make explicit a number of practices that have been implicitly accepted but not spelled out in guidelines. What would you say to a person who argued that House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 is wholly nonnotable as a topic and should be merged? JJB 20:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say that his life prior to the presidential campaign was a notable topic. The title of the article isn't ideal but that's the topic of the article. It is not an arbitrary point. Dmcq (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You have responded to the rhetorical question and nothing else, and you changed 1981-2000 to 1936-2000 making your response off-point. Accordingly I will be changing this page in attempts to clarify the ambiguities and answer Q1-Q7 in a consensus manner. JJB 12:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The question you asked as a test case was " What would you say to a person who argued that House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 is wholly nonnotable as a topic and should be merged?" and I said I believed the article was notable in its own right. I fail to see how you then think a reasonable course is to assume the complete opposite and stick it into the guideline. Your opinions do not count more than that of other editors and a conservative approach is far better if problems are pointed out in changes to policies and guidelines. New ideas are not automatically and intrinsically better than old ones which have been looked at longer. There is no requirement for another editor to produce rebuttals about every single thing you say with an automatic assumption that if there is a single thing left out then you are okay to stick something completely opposite to what another editor says in. Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, I called it a rhetorical question, not a test case, and your response to this one did not account for the other nonnotable items mentioned above, and your response also made a scope error that you have not corrected. Nor did I insert into this guideline the complete opposite, but I sourced my insertions in edit summaries, or explained their reasonable implications. The fact that we sometimes split arbitrarily indicates that some splits are technically nonnotable as such. The remainder of your generic observations about editing methods do not directly relate to improving this page. However, I don't mind interacting with your edits, such as by correcting grammar, as we seem to be converging on the same point; but please keep discussion to the merits of how current policy and practice should be described. JJB 15:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You called it a rhetorical question after I answered and I don't see what was rhetorical about it. It was a good straightforward example as far as I can see of you thinking an article was split arbitrarily. It wasn't. There is no reason for you to say articles can be split arbitrarily. It isn't true. articles split off must be notable in themselves. This is the third time I've said that here, please take a bit of care with basic policy. I will leave it to somebody else to revert the change so they can complain too and then perhaps you might take account of WP:Consensus even if you think your one voice is worth more than any other one voice and go changing things like that against WP:PGCHANGE. Dmcq (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The example subtopics of McCain, planets, Newton, and centenarians are arbitrarily split according to seminatural divisions that do not have inherent notability. There are essentially no sources that discuss any of these subtopics independently from their main topics. The fact that these and many other articles exist indicates that often consensus favors a nonnotable split because its main topic is notable, not the subtopic; I am simply attempting to explain why this practice has arisen, on an appropriate page. JJB 17:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It would probably be best if at least some of the fairly straightforward questions above can be pondered by those other voices. Investigations are best made rationally and not via repeating concluded opinions. Agent00f (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Main versus details

I think the main template is better for linking to detail articles. The point about te summary is to be a summary, not details. Saying more details is just wrong and it also encourages unnecessary details in the summary. Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The article World War 2 uses the main template, not details. Dmcq (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Clear from Template talk:Main that main should be used so changing details back to main and changing to main in the example. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Before I changed it, this page inconsistently used both templates, "main" and "details", for the same purpose, so I chose the one that was unambiguous. If the other is used ("main"), other pages will need to be changed per Template talk:Main to resolve the contradiction and ambiguity. JJB 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You should have checked first. Dmcq (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem with sticking in links

Links to world war 2 were stuck in where the context was as a title of an article or section. This is one of the problem when people do large trivial edits, they just stick in errors without helping. They should be confined to articles. It would also be better if one is really desperate to mess around to be very careful and separate the substantive edits out. Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Before I changed it, the link (not links) was in the example lead. I moved it to the example title, which was an improvement. Obviously in the real article the link appears in neither place, but here a link to the article is appropriate. Accordingly will try an alternate. Please do not charge me with sticking in errors when I am fixing an error with a compromise that is not necessarily an error. I affirm separating substantive edits out, but sometimes one doesn't anticipate what is substantive. JJB 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Section 'Lead section'

I didn't understand WP:SS#Lead section

Lead section

Further information: Wikipedia:Lead section

For planned paper Wikipedia 1.0, one recommendation is that the paper version of articles will be the lead section of the web version. Summary style and news style can help make a concise intro that works as a standalone.

The links didn't help me at all. Dmcq (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is historical. Please rewrite as you see fit. Perhaps it can be folded into another section about news style. JJB 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Policy check

Dmcq has referred to this edit as warring and "absolutely definitely wrong". The significant parts of this edit were taken from other policy and guidelines:

• WP:N: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list."
• WP:SIZE: "If necessary, split the article arbitrarily."
• WP:SS#Size (elsewhere on this page): "Judging the appropriate size depends on the topic."
• WP:LSC: "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles."

The remainder of this edit enfolded or copyedited Dmcq's text. Warring does not refer to new insertion or new enfolding of noncontroversial content, but to reversion. Accordingly, Dmcq is free to express concerns with the extant quotes here or in the respective talk pages of the quoted pages. JJB 16:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

JJB's edits relevant to this section [2]

My revert trying to accomodate him [3]

His 'enfolding' [4]

I have repeatedly pointed out before this that bits split out of articles need separate notability they do not inherit notability. Splitting at an arbitrary point is simply wrong. Dmcq (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not about "bits" split out, this is about what editors have always done when splitting is necessary due to very long article size and when there is no clear subdivision. JJB 17:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Example? Dmcq (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Four examples are above. Many more are findable. JJB 17:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I already explained about John McCain, Newtons later life is also notable as a separate topic, and list articles are treated specially. Why don't you just acknowledge you can be wrong and work with WP:Consensus rather than edit warring? Dmcq (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

We can disagree about our views of the examples, but your view does not seem to object to the policies and guidelines I imported into this article. If you have a specific text objection, please propose a change with a substantive reason. JJB 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

' if necessary, split a very long article arbitrarily' I 've lisst count how many times I've pointed out about notability of articles.. Also less importantly the notability of a list has little to do with the notability of the items in the list. '(as when most of the listed items fail the notability criteria).', plus just leave the 'also' out when referring to the guideline for long lists - it is the primary source about that - not 'also' Dmcq (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

In re your charge that I am committing an "end run around WP:Notability", I found this interesting discussion in WT:N archives, with reference to this community RFC. At WT:N Dmcq seems to have said that objecting to List of Shakespearean characters (A–K) because it has no independent notability is not useful. That's almost exactly the point I'm trying to make: objecting that such a list does have independent notability is also not useful. These splits are arbitrary.

Since you object to the wording from WP:SIZE, you might take the objection there. Your second objection seems to relate to the wording from WP:LSC, but does not give a reason for deleting the parenthesis; the stated case is a significant case of disregarding notability for subsections. I have taken out "also", which was intended to mean "beyond subtopically", not "as a nonprimary source". JJB 18:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's another one I neglected, which might need to be worked in:

• WP:INHERIT: "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an 'inherited notability' per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." JJB 19:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that bit in WP:SIZE.I will raise a question about it at WP:VPP. I do not believe guidelines should override policy. Dmcq (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I have raised this general question at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 96#Splitting_articles_arbitrarily Dmcq (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq has refused invitations to discuss this page here, continuing to discuss specifics of this page at VPP although the particular change only affects this page. To clarify the conversation, my latest edit was responsive to this*, and my next edit will be responsive to this (Dmcq charging my just-prior edit as "pointy and disruptive" in an edit summary), and to Dmcq's removal of the WP:N guideline as "inapproproiate synthesis". I grant that I didn't think of the fact that it's in WP:N, not WP:SIZE, but since Dmcq objects I will put it in a Notability section instead. The previous section I had it in discusses notability (so I will prepend instead of include), so the relevant N material is appropriate here, and there is no evidence of objection to the sentences themselves, only an unstated inference that Dmcq has not succeeded in communicating. If Dmcq believes this is still synthesis, it is recommended to discuss it on this page. It took several days to communicate the alleged synthesis last time, and when Dmcq finally succeeded in communicating a full allegation, I made the previous prompt change, which Dmcq just cut out; so I hope it does not take long to find the alleged syn this time. I think making these charges in an edit summary on a different, widely viewed page is starting to push the limits here, as there has been zero reason stated for excluding WP:N considerations from this page. JJB 00:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC) *Since Dmcq just (at VPP) asked for fuller response to the asterisked diff than my response via mainspace edit and summary, the answer is: it doesn't "obviously say" to me what you infer it does; my belief that N is always relevant is consistent with the fact that I don't infer what you do; and the reasons for including it are above (e.g., N is discussed here and N's nonlimitation on content is relevant). JJB 00:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Add: the perfected charge of syn is as follows: "'Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. If possible, split the content into logically separate articles' . This is obviously saying that one needn't bother about notability for spinout articles." Alleged syn can be fixed by separating the two synthesized pieces (separating the first two sentences from the third), which I did and Dmcq rejected. If, however, the first two sentences alone are "obviously saying that one needn't bother about notability for spinout articles", then they certainly are obviously saying that as they stand in WP:N (with the obvious given that WP does have size requirements), and thus the bogeyman syn that Dmcq believes I am making has been made for years by WP:N. JJB 00:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

And now, of course, Jclemens reverted Dmcq (reinserting) before I reinserted elsewhere, and Dmcq reverted my reinsertion but not Jclemens's, which is fine, because Jclemens's version is equally acceptable as mine. Dmcq has now charged me with vandalism in an edit summary and continued to not talk here. JJB 01:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC) And, of course, Dmcq has reverted the other reinsertion without talking, against consensus of 2, after two foul edit summaries. This could count as 3RR, but it's only 2 edit sets. Please discuss. JJB 01:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have explained about synthesis on Jclemens page and pointed them at WP:SYNTH for a fuller explanation. Dmcq (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have raised the question of this behaviour by JJB at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_edits_by_User:John_J._Bulten Dmcq (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe Jclemens didn't see the syn either. Please respond to my logic above that there is no syn. JJB 01:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The matter concerned a number of guidelines which were having bits taken out and stuck together, and so a centralized place was best. The discussion is already at VPP and should not be forked to other places. Dmcq (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

When you start reverting and you revert the wrong revert and find yourself immediately reverting again, (a) you may have a problem with reverting, and (b) you probably should be on the talk page too. I have linked your various arguments against my text from various pages, and when I could understand them I made accommodative edits. Your latest syn argument appears to be this from an arbiter's page. Near as I can tell, you're reading the existing AVOIDSPLIT as "ambiguous about whether notability is required" and the WP:N sentences, taken with it, as saying "it expressly is not required". I repeat that your interpretation of WP:N's placement here does not follow logically, and that Jclemens implicitly affirmed the same by repeating that the sentences (also a summary of WP:NNC) belong here.

Incidentally, the WP:N "edit battle" several of us were in was over the words, "Article and list topics must be notable"; I added them and you after consideration deleted them. If you want an implication that follows logically, the implication of your deleting the "must" statement is that you don't think topics must be notable! But that faulty conclusion suggests your deletion was mistaken, not that you are making a coach-and-six end run through or around N. (You can still self-revert safely as the last reverter.)

So at whatever page we continue to work this out, please answer directly the real remaining reasons, if any, that you disagree with N being quoted on a guideline that mentions N. JJB 04:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Also, Jclemens invited you to continue at talk after you announced unwatching; so feel free to continue there too (though I prefer here). JJB 04:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Oh, and Jclemens while supporting one of "my" versions also strongly encourages against edit-warring. Accordingly I do need to repeat my customary notice that if I should conclude discussion is not progressing to the stating and resolving of concerns I am free to bold again at a future date. JJB 05:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Dmcq is continuing to discuss on other pages without raising objections to my copy-paste from WP:N to here. Rather, Dmcq charges me with forking, though I have agreed to discuss the topic on any of the various pages Dmcq has selected and am only "summarizing" that discussion here for proper documentation. Accordingly, I may go ahead and boldly restore Jclemens's version as a 2-to-1 current preference without risk of being considered a warrior. There is still one other page that discussion may still validly "split out" onto later, viz., User talk:Dmcq. JJB 18:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown's reversion

Comments stricken that have served their purpose and need not be perpetuated. JJB 11:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Dennis saw fit to step into the consensus matrix here by cold-reverting backwards prior to a bunch of other agreed improvements to the article. Dennis's rationale at ANI continues the misstatements that my "central point is based upon a policy", that I'm "arguing how WP:SS is why [my] proposal is 'right'", that MMA is "a conflict that is based on it", that it is "central to dispute resolution". In fact, I said this is no central point but only one vague resolution possibility; I'm not arguing that SS favors the possibility but that practice (which I was trying to document) favors it; the MMA conflict is not based on SS (although my suggesting it to Agent00f has led him both to a basis in SS and a greater basis in policy interest generally); and resolution can proceed without SS changes.

Because it's a cold revert, Dennis has also committed the metaphorical throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Dennis has thrown out a useful edit by uninvolved HueSatLum and also inappropriately reverted contrary to Jclemens's decision to step in. He has thrown out a very large number of grammar and style improvements that Dmcq and I agreed on. Dennis believes himself to be unbiased and sufficiently uninvolved to make this determination. And this is all to keep only two sentences out of this page that already appear in another guideline because an alleged, never-proven synthesis has been tendentiously held. Dmcq was not involved in MMA when this SS discussion began, and yet Dennis reverted from Dmcq's version, which contained all the interim improvements agreed to except for the last discussion about the 2 sentences. This is a bit punitive to me because Dmcq has no COI by Dennis's definition, and yet Dennis is removing Dmcq's version of a lot of work Dmcq and I agreed on.

I do appeal to Dennis, Dmcq, and Jclemens (and HueSatLum) to reach a talk consensus here that some amount of the interim work can be returned to WP space without insisting on the entire MMA world being resolved first. JJB 21:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• The other editors are free to edit as they please. The revert was because both you and Dmcq are in disputes (MMA, Agent00f, VPP) that are centered on it, in particular you and MMA, and it is inappropriate to modify a policy when it is central to someone's arguments. I can link your discussion on my talk page archives again and it is clearly more than "an idea" as you were trying persuade me into representing with you on this point. It is clear that you are using it as a central theme, which is perfectly fine, but don't tinker with it while you do so. That is improper on principal alone. I would also say that changing the meaning of a guidelines is best if it isn't done so rashly anyway. Not every editor logs in every day, and there is no rush. I personally think an RFC is the proper way to make significant changes to any guidelines, as that lets everyone participate that might have an interest, not just those that have this page on their watchlist. I would note that it would have been improper to only revert you, which is why I reverted to a clean state, which was recent. If you do not think I am sufficiently removed from the subject matter to make this determination, you are welcome to have it reviewed. Since I haven't added content here, ever that I remember, and have only restored to the last version before the two of you began a conflicted edit, I'm pretty sure that qualifies as "uninvolved" and neutral. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear and above board, I have made it clear that I welcome review from any admin that cares to, at the ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, most of your misstatements in the above have already been rebutted. I have no love lost for the MMA articles: what I do care about is that the stream of contentious AFDs, which has no reason whatsoever to end at any time because of constant new-event creation, be given such a reason to end. RFC/U doesn't do it. Maybe I need to try another alternative resolution just to show my bona fidae (I guess starting my own MMA AFD now would be pointy though). I also care about this situation ending in a number of other areas where it clearly exists, and you are thwarting that with a subtext that reads to me like a desire to use tools. You believe yourself uninvolved and neutral, but you also believe my edits are all about MMA. Frankly, that's a problem.

Your claim that I have a COI with any editing to this page until MMA is "concluded" and your hint, by calling it categorically disruptive, that you might use tools, is unjust to an editor whom you were thanking for his kindness last week. JJB 22:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Making it personal isn't going to push my buttons or help your case, and continuing to characterize my statements as "misstatements" is a thin veil and you know it. If that is what you really think, so be it, I'm much to old and grey to take offense so easily. It isn't personal, JJB, I have no issue with you, and actually enjoyed previous discussions with you. You raised some interesting ideas and all, but it does indicate (along with other venues) a predisposition, combined with your activities, that says you need to have a gap between these areas. And my "claims" haven't been disproved, only contradicted, and only by you. Feel free to disagree, but questioning my motives isn't nice or correct, and you know that. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm the last one to block people. I get yelled at because I WON'T block when others would have, and try to work things out with dialog. Ask around. I work ANI every day and don't do a single block most days. That argument is just hollow, JJB, and you should know that. I've never even worked in WP:AIV which is the blocking-est place on Wikipedia, instead I work in disputes trying to help people. I kept trying to hint to you that you shouldn't be editing due to the conflict, again and again, but you forced my hand until finally I had to play the role of admin instead of that of friend. Again, I've asked for review and if any admin has any problem with my actions, they will speak out and we will address it then. All I have done is freeze the edits for a short while, which is less obtrusive than adding full protection at WP:RFPP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

See, you call it "freezing" the edits because I too am a polite editor and I take polite requests the same as I take RFPP. If you want to help people, then don't cold-revert, but at least rebuild as far as this version, which contains minor changes as agreed by Dmcq, HueSatLum, and I prior to any insertions relating to my unanswered questions Q1-7 on this talk relating to MMA and other disputes. The diff between your version and this request (edit-request template waived) makes clear that this is all minor and copyediting changes. Cold-reversion brings back bad memories for me. Thank you.

Now, to be honest, I can say that my earliest analysis at your talk (not my later analysis at VPP) seems not to take into account all the guidance I have read, so I recognize that the proposal has matured. (I haven't found anything requiring refactoring, but it's possible.) If you can restore the minor and copyedit changes, then we're back to the original point where you can do what Dmcq didn't and answer Q1-7 above. My first insertion of my answers to those questions only occurred after Dmcq revealed not having any answers. However, since on the primary disputed point I am not changing guidance (I am merely as Jclemens says highlighting one relevant guide within another, which is self-evident by comparing the exact quotes from versions where my edit summary makes reference to being verbatim), the argument would be the same whether this guide is changed or not: the change merely attempts to answer this question in one place. So (again) this page is not central, it merely seemed a good place to get it all together. If you are willing to take the time to interact with an essay page, that might be a better place. But if you are going to imply that you are watching this article, you are also responsible to interact with its talk, including taking one or more of the options I've just outlined. JJB 13:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Also Jclemens continues to affirm, "I do have a general agreement that WP:NNC should be added to WP:SS, because split/merge discussions should not degenerate into deletion, but rather un-splitting, merging, would be the preferred remedy." I would appreciate your interacting with this too. JJB 13:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I was not involved in the above incidents, but I believe these edits by John J. Bulten and this edit by me were constructive and should have not been reverted. Thank you. —HueSatLum 16:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain there's no special restrictions on your editing the guideline. Dmcq (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The restriction is on Dmcq and JJB only. There is no restriction on anyone else that I am aware of. Others should feel free to edit as usual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Another admin has now put on full protection, I guess because that MMA dispute has got pretty nasty. If you have a change you believe should go in set up a new section here with it. You need to be accurate in your description of what you want done. If it has consensus - if it is obviously okay or you wait a day to see if there are objections or a longer talk otherwise and it seems okay - stick {{editprotected}} on it and someone will eventually come along and stick it in. For the record the latest version I'm fully happy with is [5]. Dmcq (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• "The revert was because both you and Dmcq are in disputes (MMA, Agent00f, VPP) that are centered on it,". Can everyone please be more careful with naming me in disputes that I'm not part of. Far as anyone can tell, the only connection posted was done in error, and there's no reason to keep at it when it's already been cleared up days ago (at the RfC/U which everyone has seen). I'm not even involved in the MMA drama-machine anymore except to make these types of comments when it gets dragged back out like a bad habit. Agent00f (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Fix cold reversion

Per the reasons in the previous section, the unargued minor and stylistic improvements made by John J. Bulten, Dmcq, and HueSatLum should be restored, as the instance of cold reversion removed these changes that all parties have agreed to be improvements. The preferred version to revert to is Dmcq's, although if Dennis Brown believes there is inappropriateness in that version we could save the improvements without restoring the earlier questioned text I inserted by restoring this version instead.

• HueSatLum has affirmed that the hatnote should be restored, which is present in both proposed fixes but absent in the present version.
• Dmcq is "fully happy" with the first fix, indicating a preference for that fix over the second one.
• My concern about cold reversion would be fixed with either fix. In the first fix, the disputed text is neatly limited to only 2 sentences, while, in the second fix, there would be several sentences to be discussed at talk during the full prot.
• Jclemens affirmed WP:NNC should appear, favoring the insertion side in the 2-sentence dispute. It also appears from editing that Jclemens prefers the first fix over the second.
• In the section above I made this edit request without a template because it had not yet been protected. I point out that the second fix has this diff against Dennis's version, indicating that the second fix is completely minor and stylistic improvements. The first fix was the result of consensus about all points except the 2 sentences, so it has a greater diff from Dennis's version, but Dennis is the only one objecting to it, without providing a reason for undoing the improvements.

Since reversion by Dennis Brown demonstrably removed agreed improvements to the article, please restore one of the two versions linked above. JJB 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Any of those identified versions is fine by me. Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• There may be some merit to JJB's concern. I don't have a preferred version and have no opinion or opposition to any changes that any admin decides is appropriate. You might consider asking the protecting admin, thumperward (aka: Chris Cunningham) for the change as he is uninvolved and is objective in the matter. His Protection of the page is completely independent of the prior sanctions. The Protection does not supersede the previous ban. He is a fair person and can determine whether the changes were consensus or not, and suggest the best course of action or make the changes himself, and I would trust his judgement in this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• I would note, JJB, that I'm not objecting to any version. The ban was placed on you and Dmcq as a matter of principal, not because I disagreed with any particular content. If I had a preferred version or a personal edit issue, I would not have placed the sanction, as I would have been too involved to do so. This is the same reason I have no opinion now. I don't care what WP:SS says as much as I care that it is the consensus of the community and doesn't contradict other policy, and it is not being edited by those with a direct, temporary, conflict of interest. Other admins, such as DGG, have expressed the same concern. My motives are quite different than you make them out to be, but that is fine, we all have a right to our own opinions. That doesn't make them true, but we all have the right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Done I haven't read the ANI discussion, but there seems to be agreement here that the 494546510 version is appropriate, so I have reverted to this one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear, there are currently no restrictions on the above editors now, and everyone agrees to a slow, measured way of making changes here to avoid any conflict concerns. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Next discussion

The next discussion during page-protection should focus on the question of insertion of the two sentences from WP:N as either here or here (ignoring edit conflict between these two). I favor insertion, Dmcq sees synthesis. Dennis Brown does not object to any version. Jclemens says, "I do have a general agreement that WP:NNC should be added to WP:SS, because split/merge discussions should not degenerate into deletion, but rather un-splitting, merging, would be the preferred remedy." To me this implies inserting the 2 sentences and more. Dmcq favors an RFC here advertised on 3 other pages, which I don't object to but have not coded it right now. That's just to give everyone the current status. JJB 11:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You said "Discussion about AFD merge results is off-point" about Jclemens reason. Dennis Brown was trying to stay univolved as an admin dealing with conflict about this. Please do not just choose soundbites to make out something that doesn't reflect reality. This is the sort of thing I mean by synthesis. Dmcq (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear, I have taken great pains to not read any particular version, to insure I have no preferred version. I also do not endorse any version. My only concern is that whatever version becomes the "current" version is based on the input of many people, and is a clear consensus of the views of the community, after a few weeks of discussion for any change that is substantive. At this time, I have opted to not participate in the decision making process as to remain uninvolved, but reserve my right to do so in the future if I ever feel so inclined. If someone has a question about procedure, they can ask me on my talk page, but nothing here should infer that I agree or disagree with any changes. I have no opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq, yes, it was off-point at VPP (20:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)). My next sentence there was "Feel free to handle your preferred insertion as you see fit": I don't have a problem with discussion on additional text that you and Jclemens see fit, as it's not off-point here (though it will temporarily require an edit request). I also thought it would be appropriate to mention Dennis as well because he did edit in relation to the 2 sentences. Please do not charge me with synthesis in my own statements simply because you disagree with conclusions you infer from my statements because you haven't asked me to reconcile them: it makes it harder for you to demonstrate that you can spot synthesis in WP guidelines. What I am looking for is a linkage between how the 2 sentences anywhere in this page, taken with other statements in AVOIDSPLIT, can logically be combined to infer any of the synthetic conclusions you have alleged that I made. This demonstration would ideally have a syllogistic structure so that editors can judge whether it is a logical implication of the content and positioning of the sentences, or not. Thank you. JJB 12:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Just get on with the RfC if you want a change. There has been enough discussion at WP:VPP# Splitting articles arbitrarily already. Dmcq (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've now said at VPP, I kinda thought you'd want the ordinary BRD cycle to resume, where we two discuss why you think there's synthesis, and we agree on an edit that will enfold your concerns. I have been reading your charges of synthesis as they come, and (except for one occasion where I said so and made a responsive edit) I've never seen the connect between what the words say and the idea of inherent nonnotability or whatever the syn is. If you're still unwilling to discuss (here) why the two sentences should not be in, then it would seem that consensus favors including them. Those are the basic BRD paths. Jumping to lots of other pages is not demonstration of syn, sorry. Looking forward to productive protected discussion, thanks. JJB 17:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the summary style guideline quote WP:Notability and if so in what place

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.

---

Should this guideline contain the quote from WP:N " Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list". If so in which of these contexts is it okay?

The main discussion was at WP:VPP# Splitting articles arbitrarily. There is section below for discussion, please put only a short summary of your feelings about which are acceptable in the decisions section. Dmcq (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have put in a new option D below for people who want to remove all notability requirements when splitting articles. This is even stronger than options A and B. Dmcq (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Your creating D based on your reading of Victor Yus's comment results in an option that nobody supports. This is not writing for the opponent and comes dangerously close to strawman. JJB 18:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Complaining about my interpretation of what they said based on your interpretation of what they said. I think it would be better to let them decide themselves if D is or is not what they want. I have not said they support it. Dmcq (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The presentation of this RFC disguises the fact that it's actually about the two of us working out a disagreement in wording. Others should recognize that you are working from C, I am working from (what I've now called) E, and we should work together to compromise between these. The rest is irrelevant. JJB 19:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Disagreement of substance not wording. I view A, B, and E as all trying to reduce the notability requirements for split out articles. A straightforward statement of the notability requirement would just quote 'Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"'. It would not go on about 'They do not limit the content of an article or list' in the context of splitting out parts of an article. D is for people who want to be straightforward about reducing the notability requirement. C uses the quote in a reasonable way as far as I'm concerned. Dmcq (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

A

Size

Main page: Wikipedia:Article size

Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. Articles over a certain size may not cover their topic in a way that is easy to find or read. Opinions vary as to what counts as an ideal length; judging the appropriate size depends on the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up. Size guidelines apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table.

B

Other specifics

Notability

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability

Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list.

Avoiding unnecessary splits

C

Naming conventions for subarticles

Subarticles (not to be confused with subpages) of a summary-style article are one of a few instances where an exception to the common-names principle for article naming is sometimes acceptable.

Subarticle deletion

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability

Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. If a subarticle fails notability in an WP:AfD then it may be possible to merge the content into an article on a wider topic.

Subarticle navigation

D

Avoiding unnecessary splits

Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the main article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article. If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created.

Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. If possible, split the content into logically separate articles. If necessary, split the article arbitrarily. Long stand-alone lists may be split alphanumerically or chronologically or in another way that simplifies maintenance without regard to individual notability of the subsections (common selection criteria: lists created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles; short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group). However, a split by subtopic is preferable. Judging the appropriate size depends on the topic.

E

Naming conventions for subarticles

Subarticles (not to be confused with subpages) of a summary-style article are one of a few instances where an exception to the common-names principle for article naming is sometimes acceptable.

Notability

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability

Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. However, if only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about a subtopic, that subtopic does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead remain within, or be merged into, the article about a larger topic or relevant list.

Subarticle navigation

Decisions

• None or C: The options A or B quite explicitly imply that the subarticles do not need to satisfy notability. Dmcq (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• A or B: We could also make a compromise based on C if the text is appropriately changed per discussion. JJB 19:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• None Solution in search of a problem. I don't see this as a widespread or common issue. --Jayron32 19:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Per the VPP discussion linked above, a number of editors find clarifying spinout notability to be a widespread concern. Commenters should review context. JJB 20:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Per the VPP discussion linked above, a lot of editors have made emotional arguments that the vehemently feel about something, but have provided little evidence that there exists a problem. --Jayron32 21:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Whichever option means that notability isn't a requirement for split-out articles. We don't want people running around trying to enforce such arbitrary and purposeless rules when others are working on finding the most convenient and usable ways to present information. Victor Yus (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • None of the options makes notability explicitly required. There is a bit in the existing guideline about splitting articles which cautions about splitting out articles if they wouldn't meet notability which could be taken by some as implying notability is required. If you are saying you want to say that notability is explicitly not required then probably saying A or B here is a first step and put something in the discussion below. Dmcq (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Please note: the quote is technically from WP:N lead rather than WP:NNC, which it summarizes; italics are unimportant; the "explicitly imply" has been disputed as undemonstrated, as no such implication appears prima facie; and Dmcq going to all this work to simply say that there needs to be another sentence about deletion is IMHO a bit misguided.

That said, I did invite discussion about deletion, and I don't mind a moderating statement about deletion being added for balance. I think a new heading "Subarticle deletion" would be a bit much, in part because it would be creating a new guidance topic (as I have been accused of doing), and in part because it would tend to overencourage subarticle deletion. Second, when placed in proposal C it is not a summary of N, as it says quite a bit more than N says (failing to summarize is another accusation I've faced). As to the sentence itself, "fails notability in an AfD" is a dramatic misconception of the nuances of AFD discussion, and "may be possible to merge" really contradicts the assumption of this page, that the article was already split due to size, which leaves the reader guessing as to whether size can now be ignored, WP:PRESERVE can be ignored, or what the tenor of the sentence may be.

I haven't begun working on alternatives to C yet, as I see nothing significant in other guidance to work from, so I don't have an alternate proposal, and it may take some discussion to figure out exactly what Dmcq means by C. The closest thing is in WP:N as "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger article or relevant list.", which would need to be prefaced as "However, if" when placed after the other two WP:N sentences. But this doesn't address the other problems mentioned. JJB 19:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I put in option C to cover the reason Jclemens wanted notability mentioned. I have informed them about this RfC. Dmcq (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Ick... but C isn't even the right way to go about it. If someone splits something, and it doesn't meet notability guidelines, merge it back. While I would prefer AfD become "articles for DISCUSSION", that's been defeated multiple times, such that a number of admins and non-admins all think that keep or delete are the appropriate outcomes in an AfD. In case of content that's been split out of another article that is almost never true, per WP:ATD. I think A or B or a revised version of C with some cleaned up discussion of AfD would all work. I just want it mentioned somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

By all means stick A or B as your preference above if that is your decision, but I see absolutely no correspondence with what you say you want. Do you not see how A and B are saying the subparts of an article need not be notable, you may split them out as you wish? Do you simply not see the two sentences besides each other in those two options above? And how does the current version which warns unless the bits are notable plus C which says if the bit is shown not notable it can still be merged back not correspond with what you say you want? I am totally failing in seeing the connection between what you say you want and the wording you support. Dmcq (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

To take the liberty of answering for another, it's clear from prior comments that neither A nor B says "subparts need not be notable" to Jclemens: it's an inference that you alone are making, and you have now revealed that you're making it because you're improperly using the general to override the specific. The two sentences are next to each other in WP:N already; if they are syn by themselves, they have been syn in N for ages, and nobody ever thought so until you began to object. Or, if the syn is between the 2 sentences and the local sentences they are placed with, that is resolved by placing them elsewhere (thus A, B, or D). The "current version which warns" is not in dispute (it's only in dispute if your misinference about my views is true). I grant that your statement about merging is responsive to Jclemens and thus is good as starting the negotiation going, but it has the flaws I already outlined. So your stated failure to understand Jclemens may arise from not getting over the misinference hump. JJB 13:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis says 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' Yes I believe the two parts together imply something not said by either.. I see no point of the phrasing in A or B except if it is supposed to be relevant to splitting the bits out. Yes that is an inference. Synthesis is about the inference that people take from such juxtapositions. The impression it coveys is what is relevant, not what you say you meant by putting it in. Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Note that the current guideline says

Avoiding unnecessary splits

Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the main article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article. If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created.

I don't see how explicitly implying notability is inapplicable is consistent with this and I would have though this would have to be very much altered before sticking in something which implies the exact opposite. Thus I think options A and B are incompatible with the current content.Dmcq (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's close to what I'm asking for. Rather than try to state your logic (not easy), we might do better to attempt alternate versions. What would be wrong with taking C, changing the title to "Notability", and moving to the sentence I suggested, slightly edited as follows? JJB 20:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC) (Another sentence from WP:N added.) JJB 18:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. However, if only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about a subtopic, that subtopic does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead remain within, or be merged into, the article about a larger topic or relevant list. JJB 20:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq, why are we creating version D based on a misinference you took from Victor Yus, when the above is an actual proposal and you have not created it as a version? I must repeat that your methods of structuring discussion and your ability to infer others' meaning correctly are both problematic. JJB 18:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I did believe it reflected what they said but I never said it reflected their view, I put it in as a general option. I left them to figure out if they wanted to support it or not. Anyway if you are so hot on not misinterpreting people could you lay off saying things like "This hypothetical gets closer to the logic Dmcq sees" thanks. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That change to C to remove about AfD and merging and changes the title to Notability and duplicates a bit in the section about avoiding unnecessary splitting but in a way that even more implies the split off bits need not satisfy notability. It is just B made worse as far as I'm concerned. Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• We dance around the subject so much, but ultimately notability as a concept exists so we don't have a proliferation of articles about garage bands, neighborhood businesses, and fan fiction authors. I am wholly unconcerned when people split large articles on obviously notable topics for the sake of length and readibility, and I don't believe we need notability to deal with how to split articles, if they really need to be split. --Jayron32 21:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Which I think is why the bit I copied above about 'Avoiding unnecessary splits' is just slightly ambiguous about it in case an AfD decides things differently from a guideline. People should be splitting up logically rather than worrying too much about notability. But when the limit is at 100k as far as I can see whenever you do split up an article like that the bits do turn out to be notable. It might be an idea to have an explicit notability criterion for spun out articles but I really don't see the need, what we have seems to cover the cases quite well enough unless we have to explicitly cover what I can only call some attempts to game the system.

The insertion about notability in A and B is as far as I can see trying to imply that notability is explicitly not a consideration at AfD. I believe the impetus behind this is the Mixed Martial Arts debate going on where individual events are being deleted at AfD. They are allowed to continue existence when put back into an omnibus article under something like option C above. The trick is to say since they are split out from this omnibus article they only need to satisfy content guidelines and not the notability guidelines of WP:Notability (sports). That if you want to find a problem behind all this is where the problem lies. Dmcq (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that implication, at all, in either A or B. I hear what you're saying, and agree that we don't want to imply that... but I don't think either statement does. Plus, even if you think either one does, that should be a pretty straightforward fix. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I see it as WP:SYNTH of the form 'the parts of an article do not need notability. The parts of an article may be split out'. This is like saying 'It is legal to drive a lorry if you have a heavy goods vehicle licence. Lorries may be used to transport high explosives or nuclear waste'.

Why are you talking about A and B? Do you see C and the existing section noted above about avoiding unnecessry splits as not fully satisfying your concerns "I've seen people split things out, and then someone else asserts non-notability and argues for deletion of the spinout article because it's not notable. In fact, things spun out prematurely and without sufficient notability for the subtopic should be merged back into the parent article.", or have you some other concerns. Dmcq (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This hypothetical gets closer to the logic Dmcq sees. A general statement of legality can be misconstrued as overriding a specific statement of illegality (such as one that would be expected to exist about particular illegalized transport of nuclear waste). However, this misconstruction has been deprecated since 1884, as per the canon Generalia specialibus non derogant. In the present case, it is solved by repeating the specific in place. That specific is at WP:N as 'Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice".' I have added it to the proposal above. The fact that Dmcq has misconstrued "N does not apply to content" as "some topics themselves need not be notable" is not solved by perpetuating this misconstruction across five or six discussions, but by stating it (as Dmcq now has) and agreeing on compromise text that addresses the concern (as I have now done).JJB 18:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

At least you're finally acknowledging that putting two correct sentences together can imply something that is wrong. That is what synthesis is about. Or maybe you're not acknowledging that, if you could be briefer and clearer it really would help. Dmcq (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I misplaced the above. I think it's correct to say that, when you propose a logic-based hypothetical for the first time, that it "gets closer" to the logic that you intend it to illustrate. I've always acknowledged that placement of correct sentences can be syn. The question is, is the inference reasonable to a "neutral" third party? The above very briefly demonstrates that it is not reasonable, it is a misinference. Nobody reads a general statement (N does not apply to content of topics) to overrule a specific (article topics must be notable). Period. It also illustrates the path forward; see below. JJB 13:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Any wording away from WP:GNG's using "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and toward using material from fan sites and material connected with the subject isn't a positive move in the right direction. If you only use "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," then you are less likely to run into problems of having to split articles. So yes, notability guidelines encourages limiting the content of an article or list to coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So does Wikipedia:Splitting requirement that each standalone article meet WP:N. Of course, a good way to delete material from an article that some goofy editor insists on keeping within Wikipedia is to split it off into its own article and then list the new article at AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are you supporting or opposing? It might help if you say in the section above which of the options you do or do not support. Dmcq (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Uzma, I'm surprised to hear this view from you; I think splitting for the purpose of later AFD is a bit impolite even if you announce that you're doing it; it's a "phased" approach. If the goofy editor fails core policy, we push that; if there is a marginal compliance with core, merging seems more community-approved than splitting (keep all the goofiness in one article). JJB 18:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have added an option to even more explicitly remove notability guidelines. This seems to be definitely supported by some people who find that articles on individual games have been deleted at AfD on notability grounds but that they are allowed to merge them back into an omnibus article. Dmcq (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Every article on Wikipedia should be about a notable subject. A splitout from a larger article should only be on subtopics that are notable independent of their parent topics. If a subtopic doesn't have the sourcing and coverage to make it a notable subject, we shouldn't be giving it a description lengthy enough to require a spinout. Our wording should clarify that the notability guidelines apply to all articles, regardless of their origins. ThemFromSpace 17:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thinking about this some more, I'm confused as to why we're arguing about this specific wording. I think most editors are in agreement that articles should be on notable topics, but nonnotable topics can be discussed within the context of articles. Where's the disagreement at? ThemFromSpace 17:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think people are saying split out subjects need to be notably different, for instance a particular era of American history would be counted as a spinout which is notable in itself but it is also a subtopic. There isn't an option above saying everything must be notable, but I would definitely count the none option as being fairly firm about requiring notability, A and B as significantly weakening the notability requirement, C as strengthening it, and D as practically removing it altogether. Dmcq (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

IMHO Dmcq is committing a misstating of the question (not the first time here either). The disagreement is whether copying the two sentences from WP:N is synthesis (Dmcq) or not (me). The proper solution is for Dmcq to attempt to explain the syn (which may have now happened) and for compromise text to occur (which C and my responsive proposals are a means of doing). A and B are former attempts to address my concern in a way satisfactory to Dmcq, to which Dmcq replied that they were still synthetic; D is supported by nobody; and "no change" does not address my (and Jclemens's) concern about the linking of the subject of WP:NNC from this article. JJB 18:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

My answer was based on the questioner's "Every article on Wikipedia should be about a notable subject" and wanting to know which if any option corresponded with that aim. I have said why I see synthesis in A and B and you have said you do not see what I am saying. I have tried a couple of times and you say the same and I now see no point flogging a dead horse as far as you are concerned. I think we just have to agree we disagree. Dmcq (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You made a good stab with your lorry example, and I responded above. We could certainly agree to disagree about interpretation, if we can agree on a wording solution. I have no problem with C if the title is changed to "Notability" and the contents better reflect WP:N, as I proposed above. Perhaps you didn't see it inserted up there. I am, however, repeating the request for you to interact with the version above, as working from C is the best path to consensus. JJB 01:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Changing C so the title is Notability and then removing the bit in it about merging as per your statement at VPP "Discussion about AFD merge results is off-point.", plus a little rearrangement moving it up for logical order, gives option B which is already listed above and supported by you. I don't see the point of listing B twice. Dmcq (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You are not responding to my statement that it was off-point at VPP but not off-point here: I don't require removing the bit about merging, I quoted guidance about merging in my version as you can see. I then added another sentence to respond to the lorry example. Yes, compromise between B and C will look partly like B and partly like C; the fact that I am compromising from B by repositioning and by adding 2 more sentences to give the context you demand should not be discounted by saying it looks partly like B.

Now here's part of the problem. My versions are all based on consensus guidance. Your versions include a sentence about deletion taken from no guidance that I can see; you also proposed version D, claiming the principle of writing for the opponent but striking a full graf of long-accepted guidance because you (and nobody else) believe some editors support striking it; and you're objecting that 2-4 sentences that I quote from N are synthetic, either in themselves or combined with SS, but nobody else has objected to this at N! (Yes, there are attempts to delete "worthy of notice", but I thought you fully support that sentence.) I point out that your section in C presenting itself as a summary of N does not summarize N and has a misleading heading, and you totally thwart the principles of this page, SS, by affirming the misleading heading and summary! In all this you are the one having difficulty with current guidance, and also failing to demonstrate a logical basis for your difficulty in these yards of text; yet you accuse me of being the one fighting against current guidance (I do admit the yards of text). You even responded to a paragraph charging you with migrating this to 5 or 6 talk pages by objecting to my verbosity.

I have given you much slack to encourage you to follow BRD and other editing conventions, and you have moved very slowly in the actual discussion of changes, continuing to allege a synthesis that, if you have nothing more to say, has been wholly disproven by canons of statutory construction known in the 19th century and still used today. Accordingly, I think I must limit my interaction with you to (a) textual improvements and (b) correction of errors. Let's start with stylistic as it's easier. In version C, can you agree to change "an WP:AfD" to "a deletion discussion", in accord with the general principle of avoiding alphabet soup (I don't remember the principle's link)? I think that's a straightforward improvement that does not undercut your principles behind C. Then we can discuss what C is summarizing and (if it's N) what title C should have, and other differences. JJB 13:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

BRD is about bold, revert, discuss. You did bold, revert discuss, reinsert into the guideline even with opposition shown, finally get it removed by an admin after long dispute. Dmcq (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Answer the question please. Is it an improvement to change "an WP:AfD" to "a deletion discussion"? While you're at it, you might answer whether it's an improvement for C to retain the original italics from WP:N and a link thereto (as in E). Thank you. JJB 19:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You set up E, you fix it as you like. A and B are straight copies of the last two things you stuck into the guideline, I made no changes to them. Dmcq (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm finding this RFC hard to follow. But I don't think it's a good idea to ignore the GNG or imply it can be ignored. I also think the statement on avoiding unnecessary splits is a good one, and the general notability guideline is one of the best controls on spinout articles with undue weight on primary sources and other kinds of synthesis. I'd say leave the wording as it's stood for a long time. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I let Dmcq write the RFC. If you look for my italicized version, you'll see the basic principle of WP:N is included; and nobody is arguing for deleting parts of AVOIDSPLIT, option D is probably a strawman. The additions do not contradict GNG, they merely incorporate longstanding parts of N here to make the interaction clear. If the original SS wording stays, the ambiguity about how the controls of GNG apply to spinouts remains, and that's what I'm trying to clarify in my version (which Dmcq has not acknowledged as a version yet). JJB 13:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I asked you to write it but you wouldn't. My interpretation of the options is that the current guideline indicates notability of sub-articles is needed but doesn't definitively say so. Options A and B are synthesis which put in the notability guideline besides what follows so as to imply notability is not required for split off articles. Option C strengthens the notability requirement for sub-articles. Option D is for people who really don't think notability should apply to sub articles at all though it is not absolute in that - basically it is a mirror of the current state. Dmcq (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The current guideline WP:N definitively says some form of notability of subarticles is required: "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'." Since I have already proposed this, I made it option E above. Option C does not require notability for subarticles because it uses the word "may", not "must", among other problems. Further compromise can be made between C and E until we understand each other. JJB 19:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the 'may' in context. "If a subarticle fails notability in an WP:AfD then it may be possible to merge the content into an article on a wider topic." I don't changing that to must would be a good change. Dmcq (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Another proposal

Doesn't answer. Look, let's just make this simple for the sake of ending this crazy thread, since you have demonstrated difficulty with accepting the proposals of others. Just take C and reinstate the italics and links as I suggested stylistically and a comma, and let's agree to make it an edit request. Then my only objection would be that your (wholly new) sentence does not accurately summarize N and you can try to explain to me why it does in a separate section. Here goes: JJB 20:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Subarticle deletion

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability

Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. If a subarticle fails notability in a deletion discussion, then it may be possible to merge the content into an article on a wider topic. JJB 20:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not own this RfC. It is open and other people have contributed. How about just waiting for it to end and see what people have said? Dmcq (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This troubles me. You are now declining to comment on a specific proposal that gives you everything you're bargaining for except for a bit of stylization. Frankly, this looks not like consensus-building but like stalling the improvement process. Since you're not one to argue over style, you are either in agreement with the above draft (which is more identical to C than E is to B), or your support of C is not wholehearted. Please answer: is the draft above acceptable to you or not? JJB 23:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You said 'Then my only objection would be that your (wholly new) sentence does not accurately summarize N and you can try to explain to me why it does in a separate section.' Put in another option that you really do have no objections to besides or instead of E if you want. I think the best course is to let this RfC follow its path, decide a solution and avoid any objections to be settled afterwards. That will clean the whole business up with no possible dispute afterwards. Dmcq (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

This troubles me again. Your refusal to budge, even refusal to admit that you agree with a solution not essentially different from your own, is not building the encyclopedia but thwarting discussion. If we reached an interim compromise now, it would allow us to discuss my remaining concern about C now, rather than have a random close and have either of us potentially object later. You have said only that you prefer the current version or your obviously flawed C version and refused to discuss improving the obvious flaws, as well as to discuss any other version. If I proposed yet another version, you could ignore it just like you're ignoring E and my rewrite of C. You are postponing this discussion to the 30-day presumed course of the RFC, after which someone decides a solution, after which - are you actually claiming you won't have any objections to be settled if you disagree with the solution? You'll trust a random closer with this in a month rather than talk it out now? This is an excessively problematic tying-up of the article.

A simple guideline search shows that WP:STONEWALLing is contraindicated and the essay Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling describes your behavior in great detail (no substantive discussion (filibuster), ignoring good-faith questions, charging verbosity, starting new diverting discussions, edit-war lockdown and admin manipulation). If documentation of this charge is necessary it's very easy.

Please demonstrate the ability to work toward an interim compromise by proposing any substantive, responsive change to C, as I have. Thank you. JJB 00:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We had a very long debate before and were unable to agree. Best to let other people decide over the options above or suggest something else if they like. Dmcq (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

We never had a discussion about C except in this section. Thank you for providing further evidence of lack of substantive discussion, ignoring my good-faith request, and charging me with disruption (below). Please demonstrate the ability to work toward an interim compromise by proposing any substantive, responsive change to C, as I have. JJB 01:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If you have some change you would like in C then propose your preferred version above either as a new option or to replace E which I believe is your current preferred version. I believe that would be far better than talking about not liking it and wanting changes. If the consensus prefers it then I will accede to the consensus. Dmcq (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Have requested admin closure

In the light of the request below and the lack of recent activity and the unprotection tomorrow and the past history of dispute I have requested that an admin closes this RfC at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style.23RfC:_Should_the_summary_style_guideline_quote_WP:Notability_and_if_so_in_what_place

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 request

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.

Please insert the subsection shown in version C, repeated below. Dmcq proposed it; I do not disagree with its text, though it is not the best or best-formatted solution; and we are the only two commenting in detail here. I have also posted my belief at #Another proposal that Dmcq is WP:Status quo stonewalling or WP:FILIBUSTERing. Given my belief, it would be better to work from C as a baseline than to wait a month for edits as Dmcq seems to propose.

For completeness: Jayron32 and Shooterwalker prefer status quo but do not address the concerns stated on this talk; Victor Yus favors change generically; Jclemens supports the change that C was intended to address, though would not stop at C; Uzma Gamal and ThemFromSpace did not clearly support or oppose a version but do support GNG, so might support version E, which was built from C. If there's consensus on anything, it's that the RFC was confusingly presented. However, none of these editors have stuck with the conversation (feel free to chime back in), so this is primarily a two-editor discussion where one is willing to take the other's baseline to enhance further discussion.

It is not necessary to make a judgment on the stonewalling evidence, merely to comment on whether consensus between Dmcq and myself is sufficient to make the change to version C. The brown text is to be added below:

Naming conventions for subarticles

Subarticles (not to be confused with subpages) of a summary-style article are one of a few instances where an exception to the common-names principle for article naming is sometimes acceptable.

Subarticle deletion

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability

Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. If a subarticle fails notability in an WP:AfD then it may be possible to merge the content into an article on a wider topic.

Subarticle navigation

Thank you. JJB 00:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this request. JJB said above 'Then my only objection would be that your (wholly new) sentence does not accurately summarize N and you can try to explain to me why it does in a separate section.' They do not fully agree with what they are proposing and are planning to start up discussion again. Better to wait for a consensus decision. I see this proposal as disriuptive. Dmcq (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that version C is an accurate statement; I don't agree that it is a summary of WP:N or that it is the best version. You have refused to explain why C summarizes N and I am attempting to get you to do so, or to do anything other than continue arguing for status quo without substantives. Agreeing on temporary baselines is consensus-building. Please do not charge me with being "disriuptive" when I am agreeing with your version. JJB 01:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The RfC is 'RfC: Should the summary style guideline quote WP:Notability and if so in what place'. What you are talking about is abandoning the RfC and setting up a new discussion on the same topic. If you have an option you want then stick it in the RfC and let the consensus decide about it. I believe you want option E, if so then give a good argument for it in the RfC rather than giving the opinion you don't support it by supporting C with the intention of then disputing what you proposed for insertion. I would like to see an end to this dispute. Dmcq (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

To admin - I'd be very happy if you could hide some of the RfC discussion above which is repetitive and not very relevant to the decision thanks. I think the long text is putting off contributors. Dmcq (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have requested closure of the RfC see #Have requested admin closure Dmcq (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reiteratede the request for closure of the RfC by some admin. There's no ants in the pants reason for sticking in a change until that happens, especially not for someone to stick in a change they disagree with and want changed. Dmcq (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:RFC, you can close the RFC yourself. There is nothing that says I can't either. The purpose of RFC is to obtain consensus, not to stonewall, nor to revert away from your own proposal. Writing for the opponent is part of consensus-building from a baseline that all agree is an improvement. Further, many RFC's are not closed by admin anyway but by bot. Since I have provided evidence above that I see no way to read except as your stonewalling, you have not contradicted the evidence, you have not closed the RFC, and your latest reversion confirms the evidence, it appears it is now time for me to take the discussion to a different page. JJB 18:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not appreciate personal attacks. Take it to WP:AN/I if you wish to complain about me. Dmcq (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Observation - Most RfC's run 30 days, some much longer, some a bit shorter. This has gone on just one week. Why the hurry to close? One week seems way to short to close, in my opinion. Some people are on vacation, school finals, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As I explained in the request to close people just don't seem to be contributing and JJB was very insistent on changing the text without any extra waiting. The best way of allowing change is to end the RfC properly early and get the best decision we can out of that. I don't see how either of us can close the RfC in a way that is visibly neutral, an admin would be needed for that. Is what you are saying that I should withdraw the request and we leave the RfC to close naturally, in that case what should be done about this change then? Dmcq (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:List of Arcade Video Games Navbox

Template:List of Arcade Video Games Navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Template main versus template details (again) and for what purpose(s) to use template main

This seems to be a perennially controversial issue, so I've started a RfC at Template talk:Main#RfC. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the RfC is archived at Template talk:Main/Archive 3#RfC. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Multiple mains

I've just removed a new section that was added yesterday. It read in full:

Multiple mains

In many cases a subarticle is only referenced from a single parent article. However, it is not uncommon that a subarticle is 'mained' from two or more different articles. Where this occurs each parent article may have their own summary of the subarticle while the subarticle does full coverage. Do not split or duplicate the subarticle simply to avoid multiple mains.

I believe this is controversial and should be discussed before it is included in the guideline. For example, it seems to contradict the usage defined for Template:Main in its documentation. My major concern is that this may become a recipe for summary-style content forks. --Stfg (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be controversial, and it can never do that.

As an example of why you need it, if you have two major topics, they can both need the same subtopic as part of them. To make up a fictitious example assassination and JFK could both require a subtopic of JFK assassination. So all you do is put a quick summary section in both JFK and assassination and add the main template to the top of that section in each place.

The alternatives are mostly just bad, you either duplicate the material in both assassination and JFK or you create two different subarticles.

Another example could be a car engine; if two cars share the same car engine, then it's wrong to have two different articles for the same engine.

In some cases you can just do a wikilink, but if the subarticle is important enough and you have a whole section in each of the parent articles, then it's appropriate to do this.

This is already done in several places in Wikipedia.GliderMaven (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The template you need, I believe, is {{See also}}. --Stfg (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that isn't the right template for the JFK/assassination type example. A 'see also' is intended for use to refer to something that is similar, but different; for example 'Lego' and 'Meccanno' could be a 'see also'. In this case JFK Assassination is an actual example of both JFK and Assassination. Do you see the difference?GliderMaven (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. Of course I see the difference, but I don't find the documentation of {{See also}} so restrictive. The documentation of {{Main}} does restrict its use, as I have pointed out elsewhere. Other templates that would serve in particular cases include several linked from these. It happens that John F. Kennedy#Assassination invokes {{main|Assassination of John F. Kennedy}}, and that is fine because that event is truly a sub-topic of JFK. And it happens that Assassination doesn't have such a section. But if it did, the {{Details}} template might be best for the section hatnote, rather than using {{Main}} in a way for which it isn't intended, because the JFK assassination is an instance of an assassination rather than a sub-topic of it. (There are other options too.) --Stfg (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Details is another valid option rather than main, and can be used in very much the same way as it. However, the documentation for 'see also' reads: Note: use only when OTHER TOPIC PAGE is related to current article..., which is telling you should only use it for relateds, not for further detail/mains.GliderMaven (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

OK with relateds for See also. --Stfg (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency with WP:Article Size

A portion of this guideline is in direct conflict with Wikipedia:Article size. The following text currently appears in the "Rationale" section of this (Summary style) guideline:

This style of organizing articles is somewhat related to news style except that it focuses on topics instead of articles. The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details, thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of details they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic. Breakout methods should anticipate the various details levels that typical readers will look for.
This is more helpful to the reader than a very long article that just keeps growing, eventually reaching book length. Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front, by summarizing main points and going into more details on particular points (subtopics) in separate articles. What constitutes "too long" is largely based on the topic, but generally 30 kilobytes of readable prose is the starting point at which articles may be considered too long. Articles that go above this have a burden of proof that extra text is needed to efficiently cover their topics and that the extra reading time is justified.

— Wikipedia:Summary style#Rationale (emphasis added)

However, the "Size" subsection of WP:Article size says (emphasis added;I can't place the table in the quote template...it should be obvious the quoted content is between the dashed lines):

---

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

Readable prose size	What to do
> 100 kB	Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
> 50 kB	May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 kB	Length alone does not justify division
< 1 kB	If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded, see Wikipedia:Stub.

---

The 30kB rule on WP:Summary style apparently goes back to 2006 and at that time it was consistent with WP:Article size, based on two discussions in the archives for this page (Wikipedia talk:Summary style/Archive 1#How to determine size for summary style and the adjacent section Wikipedia talk:Summary style/Archive 1#30kb of prose):

See Wikipedia:Summary style#Size, which links to Wikipedia:Article size. On that page there is, among other things: ">30KB - May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size; this is less critical for lists)".
Whatever the improvement you propose, I think consistency with Wikipedia:Article size would best be persued. If you feel that that page might benefit from updating, best to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Article size. --Francis Schonken 13:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears the change on WP:Article size was first proposed in this 2008 discussion. At the time articles over 30kB readable prose size "[p]robably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)".

Almost a year later, Wikipedia talk:Article size/Archive 4#Rule of thumb again brought up the issue of increasing the size from 30 to 40. There was no clear consensus explicitly agreeing to the increase, but it was changed changed by one of the editors to the discussion with the edit summary: "restoring split recommend number to previously used 40; range consistent with number below. Greater than or equal to sign. See talk". Note that the change was made on 21 April 2009 (mid-point in discussion), but the discussion continued until 23 April.

There was a tangential discussion about article length at Wikipedia talk:Article size/Archive 5#Discussion about split of large articles at an arbitrary point, which discusses a couple points but mainly points to a then-ongoing discussion at the village pump Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 96#Splitting articles arbitrarily (this discussion is long...skimming through it, it mainly relates to whether articles should be forced to be "arbitrarily" split and whether the split article needs independent notability).

Both WP:Summary style and WP:Article size are editing guidelines and the relevant part of both guidelines has been unchanged for 7 years.

My thoughts (divided and numbered to ease discussion):

1. 40 kB "readable prose size" is more appropriate.
2. WP:Summary style and WP:Article size substantially overlap and could be merged. Both have been around for a long time, but a redirect from the page name that isn't kept (assuming the combined guideline would use one of the two titles) would be a redirect and all anchors would be changed to redirect to the correct location, so editor familiarity with these guidelines wouldn't be substantially harmed. That said, I am not interested in performing this task or working out the details of how the merged guideline would be structured & worded.
3. The "Rationale" section is important to understanding this guideline (WP:Summary style) and should be the first section after the lead
4. The structure of the "Rationale" section should be reversed: "Levels of desired details" should be the section name and its content should begin the section, "Rationale" and the content presently before the "Levels of desired details" subsection should be a subsection (but see next suggestion)

AHeneen (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Tx for quoting what I wrote 10 years ago, however that has little further relevance after the article size guidance has changed.

Re. your points

1. updated
2. the focus of this guideline is a technique of splitting (how to split, and several considerations when doing that), the focus of the other guideline is when to split. I'd keep that basic thought, and thus two separate guidelines.
3. per #2, the rationale is largely in the other guideline, thus not the focus here. I grouped the rationale (and the clear link to the other guideline) in the rationale section, without moving that section, for the time being.
4. the rationale section may benefit from some further rewriting (not just update 30 → 40 and groupe "size" and "rationale"), it is material that originated long ago, and got crufted a bit. I don't think I necessarily agree with the reversal you propose. Well, maybe propose your rewrite, I'd have to see what it would look like before making up my mind. It may work better than what we have currently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

When these guidelines where created page size was quite important to the reader for reasons of download time, and to Wikipedia for reasons of bandwidth. The first reason is far less salient today.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC).

What do you understand by "The first reason": readable proze size? download time? Wikimedia server bandwith? – these are somewhat different reasons:

• readable proze size is gaining momentum w.r.t. smartphone users, who take a much larger share now than in Wikipedia's early years. When the page size guideline says 40kb is the point where a split should be considered, then that's what it is as far as I'm concerned. Like I wrote in 2006, cited above: "...I think consistency with Wikipedia:Article size would best be persued. If you feel that that page might benefit from updating, best to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Article size."
• download time: an argument still made, see e.g. Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Three-article proposal, "This article is too long to be loaded,...". However that rationale is no part of Wikipedia:Summary style, so I see no reason to discuss this rationale any further here. It's not part of this guideline, and nobody proposes to introduce it here. Download time is also in most cases more influenced by images and other media, large sortable tables, excessive number of and/or complex template calls, etc. than that it would be influenced by proze size as such. Apart from super-simple pages (that have no download time issues, nor readable proze size issues) prose size has no correlation with download time.
• Wikimedia server bandwith is not part of the rationale on this page, nobody proposes to introduce it here, so I can't quite follow why such strawman-like argumentation is introduced here.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

Hello, there's an ongoing discussion at #Possible problem spanning multiple vehicle articles which may be of interest to followers of this page. It raises questions as to whether the creation of a series of new summary articles necessitates the removal of content from eight preexisting articles which address what might retroactively be considered as 'child' topics of the series of freshly created 'parents'. The Wikipedia:Summary style guidelines have been explicitly brought up in the discussion. --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

For the record, archived to User talk:NeilN/Archive 35#Possible problem spanning multiple vehicle articles. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:SELTRANS for automated content WP:SYNCing

I went ahead and boldly added a subsection on how to implement selective transclusion of a sub-article lead to a parent article for automated content synchronization. If there's any objection to covering how to implement this on this page, feel free to revert my addition and discuss it here.

Assuming that there are no objections to my addition, since implementing a selective transclusion is rather technical, I was wondering if others thought that it would be useful to include a list of example articles where a sub-article's lead is selectively transcluded into a section of its parent article.

Some examples include:

1. Sub article: Zinc and the common cold; Parent article section: Zinc#Common cold
2. Sub article: Bodybuilding supplement; Parent article section: Dietary supplement#Bodybuilding supplements

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

{{No selflink|SUB-ARTICLE_PAGENAME}} vs [[SUB-ARTICLE_PAGENAME]]

@Pppery: WP:AWB will remove a selflink in an article (i.e., the latter markup in this section heading), which is why the the following markup – <noinclude>'''</noinclude>{{No selflink|SUB-ARTICLE_PAGENAME}}<noinclude>'''</noinclude> – is necessary to circumvent this automated removal. I'm going to restore this for that reason. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Fix AWB, rather than introducing unnecessary ugly tags to worn around it. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pppery: It's not just an issue with AWB; e.g., the Xtools page history tool will flag pages that contain self-links as an error in the very last section about detected page errors (NB: that section only appears in the analysis for an article if the script detects 1 or more errors). The MOS also discourages self-linking for the reasons stated in this link. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The method you're advocating for shares the same downside of needing to be updates for page moves, which is the only reason I'm seeing that your link argues against. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal on overly long entries in lists

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Overly long list items

Gist: Add brief advice about what to do about excessively large items in lists, to either WP:Manual of Style/Lists or WP:Summary style.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

For the record, the proposal is archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists/Archive 7#Overly long list items. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)