Wikipedia talk:Content forking

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

Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Tools[edit]

The text of this page was directly copied and pasted from another list of counter-vandalism tools. Should both of these pages be merged? Jarble (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Double negative[edit]

"Note that meeting one of the descriptions listed here does not mean that something is not a content fork – only that it is not necessarily a content fork."

This double negative (with a positive) is confusing and frankly, I don't know what it is intended to mean? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that took me a couple of tries as well. I tried being bold and just went ahead and changed it. Does that work? Robin Hood  (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes thanks Cinderella157 (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Content fork or POV fork?[edit]

There are many articles about music, music history, different musical styles, etc. However, there are no articles about women in music. Would "Women and music" be a content fork or an impermissible POV fork?OnBeyondZebraxTALK 03:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"Women and music" would not be a good idea for WP:AND. There is, for instance, List of female composers. Women in music might work as an article title. Female musician might sound odd, and might be too narrow if you want to include music historians, Cosima Wagner, etc. – and after all there's already a Category:Women in music
Some condiderations:
  1. It's hard to write very general articles, so think twice: probably a draft stage would be a good idea, until the article has some balance and basic coverage (even before launching such article as a stub in mainspace).
  2. Gender-exclusive topics are sensitive matter, like e.g. sexual orientation-exclusive topics. Compare LGBT writers in the Dutch-language area: this shows it can be done but, for instance, there may be some sensitivity that WP:BLP musicians don't want to be pinned down on their gender (like in the example article on the LGBT writers "In the 21st century LGBT writers became less concerned with their LGBT status, being a good author is their primary concern"). Similar: Women authors not wanting to be pinned down on their gender in Wikipedia, and creating a large fuss about it: http://www.dailydot.com/society/wikipedia-sexism-problem-sue-gardner/ – tread cautiously.
  3. Writing articles on subtopics such as Woman composer before writing a more general article in WP:Summary style might be a good idea too.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I remember the issue over female authors, now that you reminded me. There were concerns that women authors shouldn't be put into a separate category for female novelists, as I recall. What do you mean when you say it's hard to write general articles? Is it because editors protest at the generalizations that end up being made whenever a very broad topic is discussed? I agree with you that gender-exclusive topics are a sensitive matter.OnBeyondZebraxTALK 00:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Re. "it's hard to write general articles" – I was thinking for instance about this (late stage of a discussion where we still can't get sorted out how the "general" article should be written). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Summary sections?[edit]

BullRangifer, why did you add summary section information with this and this edit? I think it will likely confuse matters for editors. As you know, we already have a WP:Summary style page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. You may want to take a look at the "finished" product of my recent edits. It may make more sense. I added the "sections" wording because the articles are not summaries, the sections are. The previous content and heading was a bit confusing, at least to me, and I work with these all the time. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Part of the confusion came from the main guideline itself. We don't have "summary articles", so I fixed it there as well. A "summary-style" article is a different animal, as made clear in my edits here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"Parent" article or "meta-article"?[edit]

Here are some examples of "summary style" meta-articles where many or most sections are summaries of more detailed subarticles:

Would it be better to call them "parent" articles? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

example of acceptable forking[edit]

maybe append the sentence "...as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." with: "an example of this is separate filmography articles for actors whose lists of associated film roles and TV appearances are too numerous to include in the article" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.246.77.14 (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason you think that example ought to be included? Chris Troutman (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Just for clarity in the lead. It's a common feature of that type of article, where forking routinely occurs when a table within an article becomes too long or complex to be displayed as part of the body. There are similar examples later on in this guide, but it might be good to let the reader, right from the start of the guide, have a clear and good idea in mind of an acceptable example (one which they may have already encountered) to contrast against the inadvisable examples later on. (EDAHAM is previous IP 58.246.77.14 - was not logged in, sorry)Edaham (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Edaham: I'd oppose that change. Having something like a filmography spinout from an article about an actor is common and it's covered in this essay. However, that's one example out of many given and I don't think the lede should provide the one example as you suggest. I'd prefer a sentence that quickly mentions several examples. If you have a better suggestion I'd be willing to discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@Chris troutman: ok will think about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham (talkcontribs)
@Chris troutman: "...as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. Examples of this might be the cuisine of a particular region forking from an article about the region in general, a filmography forking from an article about an actor or director or a sub-genere of an article on an aspect of culture such as a musical style" How about this - bearing in mind that the purpose of the sentence is to get the idea out there early in this style guide that some types of forking are encouraged and even required in order to make the information more wieldy.Edaham (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Edaham: I'm fine with what you describe. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Chris troutman:I have made the edit with a minor alteration. I also corrected a typo.