Wikipedia talk:Content forking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is transclusion considered a type of content forking?[edit]

Recently, User:Flyer22 has asked me to revert several article transclusions that I have made, and has described my edits as an unacceptable type of content forking, despite the fact that transclusion is not mentioned in this article at all. Is it acceptable to transclude parts of one article into other articles, as long as no content is directly copied and pasted from one article to another? (As I understand it, "content forking" refers to the creation of multiple versions of the same page, whereas transclusion creates a single version of an article and automatically mirrors that version across multiple articles). Jarble (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

See here for the main discussion I had with Jarble about this. To summarize my objections with regard to this matter, he was copying articles in their entirety in sections of other articles, using "Main article" or "See also" in those sections to point readers to those articles as though they offer anything different than what the sections do, and he was achieving this copying by using articles as templates. He doesn't consider this inappropriate WP:Content forking because he was not directly copying the content into articles. It's clearly the type of transclusion he was doing that was the problem. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
And I didn't ask Jarble to revert; he offered to do so, and did so (for example, here and here), because even he (as shown in those edit summaries) seemed to realize that he had created massive redundancy and presumably didn't want to cause any more trouble for himself or for others. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
@Flyer22: and @Jarble: It's an idea that has crossed many editors' minds, and has been experimented with before, over the years.
The problems are very briefly mentioned at WP:SYNC (part of the WP:Summary style guideline), but it gets more complicated and problematic than that. TL;DR: It's best to write each article so that it can stand-alone, and write a separate brief synopsis topped with a {{main}} or {{See also}} tag for any article that needs a summary. Transcluding whole articles is more trouble than it's worth, particularly causing difficulty in tracking diffs or discovering changes, and confusing neweditors. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in, Quiddity. At the time of your reply, I had just got through stating that, given the low activity of this talk page (and its main page), we weren't likely to get any replies about this here...or at least any time soon here. I was obviously wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Confusing[edit]

Under article spinouts: "so it is more appropriate to break that section out as a separate section and just have a summary in the main article."

It says "separate section" but then refers to Summary Style, which would suggest a separate article. Anyone know which it's suppose to be? Separate section or article? CorporateM (Talk) 12:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Examples?[edit]

Some examples, could be hypothetical, of improper content forking would be useful. I'm still not sure when an article could be considered a legitimate spin-off piece and when this is to be avoided. Liz Read! Talk! 15:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Obligatory thread - making POVFORK less anti-AGF[edit]

This is an apparently obligatory thread requested via revert to my edit by Flyer22 (talk · contribs). Does anyone object/agree with my edit, and if so, please explain why. --slakrtalk / 10:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated I would, I alerted WP:Manual of Style to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
hmm... *scratches head* ...the MOS people? Does it have application to them somehow? I mean, I could be missing something, but it would of course help if I knew why you, personally, objected to the edit and felt the need to revert it (apart from it just being an edit to a guideline). Do you feel it doesn't clearly reflect consensus or something? --slakrtalk / 17:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Forking is related to WP:Manual of Style, and I couldn't think of a better and more appropriate place to get various comments on this matter. But, alas, none of them have weighed in here on this matter yet. As for your edit, I personally dislike when one editor significantly changes a longstanding guideline or policy without discussion, especially if the change is spurred on by some recent Wikipedia experience the editor had and he or she is looking to make the guideline or policy conform to his or her personal view. Such changes are usually reverted, as it is in this case. What benefit is there to your change? Flyer22 (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Changes to guidelines don't inherently require a discussion beforehand, but WP:VPP is probably the better venue for canvassing this. I'd have thought to post something there had I felt that this changed the guideline in a controversial or truly significant way (I would still like to know why you feel it does, though). What benefit is there? Apart from eliminating the redundant, confusing sorta-sentence starting with, "Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a," simply read the edit and its summary again. The change encourages harmony with the assumption of good faith guideline so that a fork that someone believes violates the neutral point of view policy can be discussed and consensus built without it becoming a referendum on the motivations of the forker(s) and a difficult-to-actually-prove accusation of bad faith, thereby also reducing veiled personal attacks, as it encourages commenting on the content instead of the contributor. On a related note, I find it's a good rule of thumb to assume good faith and comment on the content—not the contributor's possible motives or bias—when a credible editor makes a change to a guideline, too. --slakrtalk / 04:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Significantly changing a longstanding Wikipedia policy or guideline without discussion is not something I believe in, especially when it concerns a policy (though I know that Wikipedia:Content forking is a guideline), as is obvious by my above commentary. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be based on WP:Consensus, as even the "Changes to guidelines don't inherently require a discussion beforehand" link you showcased reflects, and that there is no objection to an edit does not always equate to "WP:Consensus"; sometimes such changes are accidentally overlooked. I suggest directing people at WP:VPP to weigh in on this matter. As for a "good rule of thumb [being] to assume good faith and comment on the content—not the contributor's possible motives or bias," I've seen enough cases where an editor is in a content dispute and then comes to a policy or guideline and changes it to suit their argument in that content dispute; so, yes, their motives and bias are relevant in those cases. I'm not stating that something like that is what brought on your desired change to this guideline; I'm only stating why motives and bias very much matter to me when it comes to changing policies and guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Notability standards for WP:SPLIT[edit]

I have started a discussion about notability standards for WP:SPLITs at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_standards_for_WP:SPLIT.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

jghcjchggf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.115.227.146 (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Template POV fork[edit]

This is my first time seeing a POV forked template, any feedback there would be appreciated since TFD is usually a pretty inactive place.AioftheStorm (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)