Template talk:Split

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

The Rhythm and Blues article should certainly be split, because it describes two totally different forms of music as if they were the same.(see Talk:Rhythm and blues~Jack Daily 9:33UTC

Leave this alone. This is the style Wikipedia prefers. Do not change it. Zpb52 July 4, 2005 11:02 (UTC)


[Personal attack against Netoholic posted and subsequently deleted by Zpb52]

First, Netoholic did not lock the page. Second, Netoholic could not lock the page. Third, personal attacks are not allowed. Do something more productive. Carbonite | Talk 6 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)
For the record, I (the person responsible for the other design) requested that the template be protected as is, pending the outcome of the ongoing merge template voting. Whichever style is selected there should be applied to {{split}}, and we don't need edit warring in the meantime. —Lifeisunfair 6 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)

Fix the Category![edit]

Somehow, the category for this template has gotten changed to Category:Articles to be merged, not Category:Articles to be split as it should be. It makes no sense to have it in the same category with articles that need to be merged. I would fix it, but it's locked. Lifeisunfair, as you were the one who requested the protection, please get this fixed. Netoholic, as you were the one who made the error that changed the category(see diff), please get this fixed. The layout doesn't matter - the category does.

I spotted the request at WP:AN and have corrected the category. I have not made any other alternations. Thryduulf 6 July 2005 11:24 (UTC)


Anyone else think it might be useful to create a demerge template? The difference between it and this would be, this one would be used for ones to be split to completely new pages (or at least different ones) and creating a disambig page or something and Template:Demerge would be used for ones where part of it is to stay put, and (an)other part(s) would be moved somewhere else? Sorry if another one already covers this, but I don't think there is. - TALK ®€Ð¦-¦0† TALK 21:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

For situations in which someone is suggesting that one or more specific sections (but not an entire article) be merged into an existing article, the {{mergeto}} tag should be added to each applicable section of the source article, and the {{mergesection}} or {{mergesections}} tag should be added to the destination article (optionally to one or more specific sections).
We do, however, appear to be lacking a template that indicates a suggestion to split a specific section into a new (not yet existent) article. I'll go ahead and create one for this purpose. —Lifeisunfair 23:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I've created a template called {{splitsection}}. Adding {{splitsection|Mr. T's Mohawk}} to the Mr. T article would generate the following:
It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article entitled Mr. T's Mohawk. (Discuss)
Does that seem satisfactory? —Lifeisunfair 03:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. That seems pretty much exactly what I was thinking. - TALK ®€Ð¦-¦0† TALK 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think a "demerge" template would be useful. See, for example, the Athlon 64 page, where I suggested that perhaps an "AMD K8" page should exist for the general class of AMD chips with the "K8" design, with the "Athlon 64" page discussing only those K8 pages called "Athlon 64" and referring to the K8 page, and pages for other K8 chips, such as Opteron and Turion 64 referring to the K8 page as well (sort of like Intel P6 being for the P6 design and Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III, etc. referring to the P6 page). The existing "split" template seems to be intended for pages that cover multiple unrelated topics that share a name. "Demerge" sounds a bit like "undo a merge", so I'm not sure it's the right term, but.... Guy Harris 22:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Well, someone finally deleted the GIF, so I replaced it with an SVG, instead of the PNG, which (as usual) is not preferred because it doesn't display correctly for some. For reference: the SVG and the PNG. — SheeEttin {T/C} 15:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki renders SVGs as 24-bit PNGs, which are far less compatible than 8-bit PNGs. (They display without transparency for approximately 85% of Internet users.) The GIF was deleted at the Commons (due to an apparent misunderstanding), and it's been restored. —David Levy 18:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Split a category?[edit]

Is that an appropriate template for a category that should be split into two categories? The reason I was looking for it is because I think some of the articles in Category:Greatest hits albums would be more appropriate in Category:Best of albums as greatest hits and best ofs aren't always the same. Joltman 16:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


How about we add "or section"? The split templates for sections are only to suggest splitting off into one article. Is this change permissible? --Gray Porpoise 13:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


Why aren't these in SVG? I understand there are some compatibility concerns, but there are far more important images than this in SVG. Why worry about an unnecessary icon being SVG when we have whole diagrams and images in all sorts of different templates that one actually might need to see? Everything else is transitioning to SVG, I was just wondering why these have stuck to GIF. —The preceding signed comment was added by Cadby (talkcontribs) 04:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

1. None of the significant advantages associated with SVGs apply to these icons, so there is no compelling reason to switch from images that display properly for most users to images that display improperly for many.
2. Most of the "far more important images" (such as diagrams) are not significantly affected by the lack of a transparent background.
3. You may feel that these icons are "unnecessary," but they assist people in identifying the nature of the templates in which they're contained. A non-transparent background makes them more difficult to recognize (especially for people with visual impairments). —David Levy 05:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

date parameter[edit]

A lot of maintenance templates have had the "date=" parameter integrated lately. I think that would be useful for this set of templates also. __meco 16:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Location for discussions specifier in template[edit]

I would appreciate the ability to specify the location for the discussion, similar to the various MERGE templates. Some very active pages, most in need of splitting have extremely active talk pages, and the conversation can be entirely missed.
Can anyone take this one?
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"entitled" should be "titled"[edit]

I recommend that the word "entitled" be replaced by the word "titled" — entitled means having a right to something, while titled is unambiguous. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

the "Splitting" header needs a better background[edit]

At the moment, the background for the "Splitting" section of the documentation is blue, and it's very hard to read it. Why is this the case, and can this be removed/fixed? --FIQ (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing "from a disambiguation page" as a default.[edit]

The fact that this template defaults to suggesting that pages be split into subpages accessible "from a disambiguation page" is misleading and troublesome, since it is typically used to request that large topics be split into subtopics (see, e.g., the use of the template at List of Fame (1982 TV series) episodes). This is an inevitable result of having this template at the basic title, "split". Disambiguation is rarely appropriate, and should only be proposed where it can be demonstrated that topics covered on the page are actually unrelated (see WP:DABCONCEPT). To have this as a default sends a false message that disambiguation is generally appropriate, where it is generally not. I have removed this part of the message and created a separate {{split and dab}} template for the rare cases where disambiguation is actually needed. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Case sensitive[edit]

The argument names "date" and "discuss" are case sensitive (must be lower case). Does someone want to modify to make it a bit more tolerant and also accept "Date" and "Discuss"? ~Kvng (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)