Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Splitting long articles
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was no splitting. - Sikon 04:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Sikon/Palpatine
It could have used even more trimming, but at this point, I regard trimming it down to half its original size as quite an achievement. I'll be making more edits. Ideally, I would prefer our long articles split in accordance to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Summary style, leaving only a basic overview and delegating most of the information to specialized articles. - Sikon 10:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- If we're going to start splitting long articles we need to think about how to name the sections. Do they get a normal name or one that makes them a subpage of the main article? As Sikon pointed out on IRC, some articles could be considered subpages of more than one other article, eg "History of the Jedi Order" could be a subpage of "Jedi" or "Timeline of galactic history". But, in cases like "Early life of Palpatine", this is clearly a section of his biography and I think "Palpatine/Early life of Palpatine" makes it clear that it's part of his bio and gives the automatic link back to the main article at the top. Any thoughts on which is preferable? Green Tentacle (Talk) 11:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Does this mean we're going to hold a consensus for Anakin and Vader's article's to be split up again!!1!? —Silly Dan (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, because Anakin and Vader were two articles about the same person. Example: Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader = no; Anakin Skywalker and Early life of Anakin Skywalker = yes. - Sikon 13:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- But Later life of Anakin Skywalker = Darth Vader except for the last half-hour or so. —Silly Dan (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, because Anakin and Vader were two articles about the same person. Example: Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader = no; Anakin Skywalker and Early life of Anakin Skywalker = yes. - Sikon 13:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am so opposed to this that my vehement opposition could split from my body and become a separate entity itself, thus giving me two votes against it. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 13:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- There's no logic or reason to split articles just because they are long. If a topic is fleshy enough, obviously the article will be considerably long. In some cases, maybe a split makes sense, as in "The Old Jedi Order" and "The New Jedi Order" or "The Galactic Empire", "Imperial Remnant" and "The Fel Dynasty Empire". But generally, splitting articles for the sake of keeping them short is unreasonable. Or should we have fragment articles like "Kyle Katarn as an soldier for the Empire", "Kyle Katarn as a Rebel Agent", "Kyle Katarn as a Jedi Knight", "Kyle Katarn's fear of falling to the dark side", "Kyle Katarn's lightsaber combat technique", "Kyle Katarn's opinion of bartenders with bad grammar" etc. lying around, when it's easier to have all those things placed in the same article about Chu... Kyle Katarn. KEJ 13:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- And remember guys, "size matters not". -- SFH 17:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to start splitting articles. -- Ozzel 19:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm on my mother's dial-up computer right now, and it took about five minutes for the Palpatine page to load. And you know what? Even with that wait, I'd still rather have everything in one place than have the article split up into chunks. Even an article like Palpatine still loads faster than most MySpace pages and other websites out there. jSarek 20:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong oppose to splitting articles. Too speculative. Too disorganized. Atarumaster88
(Audience Chamber) 02:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's summary style is crap over there and it would be even worse here. Strong oppose. —Unsigned comment by Havac (talk • contribs) 03:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well we did split off Padmé Amidala's wardrobe. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- (which I think was an absurd thing to do anyway... but nevermind that now. KEJ 07:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC))
- Yes, but I don't see that as one subject split into two, but rather two subjects not merged into one. -- Ozzel 04:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I actually like that article by itself since its not pertenent to her biography. It's clothing. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well we did split off Padmé Amidala's wardrobe. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per everyone else. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 07:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- The only reason we probably ever notice as editors that an article is particularly long is that the software tells us so. If for no other reason than that machines will not rule my life, I oppose this. And for the speculativeness (is that a word?), as per Atarumaster88. Wildyoda 22:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose for now —Xwing328(Talk) 15:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I oppose breaking up a character's biography section. Splitting off seperate article(s) for the character's attire/style, weapons and/or ships would be alright if lengthy. -Fnlayson 02:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's summary style is crap over there and it would be even worse here. Strong oppose. —Unsigned comment by Havac (talk • contribs) 03:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.