Talk:Hip-hop theater

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Hip-Hop Theater. -- Gbern3 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I created this article last week and I'm proposing that hip hop theatre be merged into it. Since late July I've been in the process of doing a complete overhaul of the hip-hop dance article (this is what it looked like before) and I noticed that the theater section was becoming rather large. So in order to follow WP:SS policy, I created this article, hip-hop theater, and copy-and-pasted the original section from the dance article here. The problem is that there is already a page for this but it's called hip-hop theat"re". After I finished this page (theatER) I did a google search to see if it would come up and the other page (theatRE) was listed in the results. I honestly did not know that it existed but since both pages are here now, I'm proposing that the theatRE article be merged into this one since this page is longer and has references. Feel free to contribute to this discussion. Gbern3 (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to add that merging would prevent duplication and divergence of content also. Gbern3 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Support I tend to prefer British English spelling. Otherwise looks like a righteous merge to me.Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Support I see no problem with this merger, so long as a redirect preserves the alternative spelling so people using the BE and AE spellings arrive in the same place. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I agree. I would rather do a redirect than to delete the page with the BE spelling. Gbern3 (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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.

Merger proposal II

I propose that Marc Bamuthi Joseph be merged into this article, hip-hop theater. MBJ was split from hip-hop theater two weeks ago. As demonstrated by MBJ's history, very little content has been added to the article since it was created to justify splitting it off in the first place. Hip-hop theater was only 17K before the split so the small size of the parent article (this article) does not justify splitting off MBJ either. Per WP:SS "A fuller treatment *emphasis mine* of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own... If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page *emphasis mine*, but should instead be merged <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Merging> into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." For these reasons, I am proposing that Marc Bamuthi Joseph be turned into a redirect and the content merged back into the parent article here. Since MBJ is so small, there also won't be any problems concerning undue WP:WEIGHT either. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am the editor that split Marc Bamuthi Joseph out of hip-hop theater. I copied much of the new article directly from Hip-hop theater. However, I did add some new material, his year of birth, several awards, and new citations. I also added the appropriate categories. The fact that I simply copied much of the new article is irrelevant. The reasons Marc Bamuthi Joseph should be a separate article are outlined below.

• Marc Bamuthi Joseph clearly meets Wikipedia notability guidelines as a quick Google search will demonstrate.
• There are already 18 links from other WP articles. Marc Bamuthi Joseph was a redlink problem before the split.
• Just because something is a stub or is split from a larger article doesn't mean it should be deleted.
• Though short, it is well written and well referenced.
• Biographical information about this artist is too specific to be in a general article on Hip-hop theater.--Foobarnix (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Foobarnix, all articles are supposed to be well written and well referenced so this is a non-sequiter. In addition, someone else wrote it and referenced it, you simply moved the content to a new page and added another sentence. There's nothing wrong with biographical information in an article about a larger topic, especially when it's relevent. With that logic info about Don Cornelius should not be in the article on Soul Train, and info about Don Campbell shouldn't be in the article about locking. Those articles would be significantly lacking if that information was cut considering that Don Cornelius created Soul Train and Don Campbell invented locking.

I want to expand the quote I cited above from WP:SS to the full paragraph: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. For copyright purposes the first edit summary of a subtopic article formed by cutting text out of a main article should link back to the original." The reason why I'm (re)posting this is because I want to explain why it is relevant that you copied much of the article.

1. If you really think MBJ is notable enough to have his own article, you should've left the summary about him that was already in the original article (this article), developed a fuller version of his bio and his theater work, put that information in a new article, then come back to this article and add a wikilink. Not cut the summary altogether and move it to a new page with no full treatment.
2. On a secondary note, please don't cut-and-paste content into a new article without any attribution about where the content came from. It's too late to change the edit summary, but you can at least put a note on the talk page using the {{copied}} template. Look at the top of this page for an example. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Since MBJ looks like a proper stub now with a second paragraph of new information and not just a copy-paste of the content in this article, I'm going to remove the merge banners. However, I'm also going to replace the original content/summary that was cut from this article because, according to WP:SS, that wasn't supposed to be removed anyway (see quote above). Hopefully, one day MBJ will be expanded into a full article. 132.3.17.68 (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)