Wikipedia talk:Summary style

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject icon This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.

Restore previous name[edit]

This editing guide was renamed as a MoS guide last year on an understanding that an agreement had been made during a discussion on this page. As this has always been an editing guide, and the advice here is still about making an editing decision rather than a style or formatting one, I feel it should be returned to an editing guide, and the previous name of WP:Summary style restored. The discussion linked above referenced this guideline in order to make editing decisions during the MoS consolidation drive, but there was no discussion regarding bringing the guideline itself into the MoS. I have informed the editor who made the move. Views are encouraged. SilkTork *YES! 12:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Contentless sections[edit]

A problem I note with a lot of articles (for example, Milton Keynes Dons F.C.) is that when articles are split, people just cut-and-paste sections into new articles and leave the parent articles devoid of information. Obviously, this fails the spirit of WP:SUMMARY, as "summary style" means that a main article should give a summary and give links to "main articles" if it makes an article too unwieldy to combine all the information, but it seems not to be an important part of the policy. Should this be rectified or not? Sceptre (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There is never any reason to have a section with no content at all. or a section other than the EL section at the end that has nothing but links. So I would say yes, it should be rectified. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. As a longtime fan of the summary guideline, I have read this N quote as affirming that a breakout is "part of" its main article for N purposes. That is, we recognize that List of minor planets: 200001-201000, Later life of Isaac Newton, and List of centenarians (educators, school administrators, social scientists and linguists) are not notable in themselves, and yet they are clearly not deletable at AFD for N reasons, since their main topics (List of minor planets, Isaac Newton, Lists of centenarians) are notable. This N exception seems to be a natural corollary of the COMMONNAMES exception that breakouts enjoy.

In a content dispute, it has been raised by some that this might count as a backdoor to inherent notability, because it does "the same thing" as inherence. It makes all consensus breakouts "inherently article-worthy" (which sounds a lot like "inherently notable"). Clearly someone who did not understand the summary structure might easily raise a good-faith AFD, rightly arguing the topic is nonnotable but is being treated as if it were inherently notable solely because its notable main topic is sufficiently long. This happens particularly with lists. It would seem there would be a standardized method of communicating the structure to notability checkers. (Incidentally, I guarantee that if you look up the particular content dispute in my history, you will face a topic maelstrom largely irrelevant to these present sitewide questions; but feel free.)

Q1: Since WP:LISTs are articles, does this guideline apply equally to lists as it does to other articles, though lists are not mentioned herein? JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q2: What is the best way to handle the tension between the rightness of breakout articles vs. the objection, frequently met, that the breakout's title is nonnotable as a topic? (I see that N failures are not "encouraged" per AVOIDSPLIT, but this is accommodating language because the above demonstrates that sometimes there is no notable split and yet split is still indicated due to size.) JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q3: In particular, in a comprehensive list combining notable and nonnotable topics, I have observed the tendency for the notable ones to be broken out with short summaries and the nonnotable ones to accumulate long entries (especially if primary sources are involved), which seems to lean against guidance here for main-page balance. Is this guideline leaning more toward balanced breakouts, or is it toward imbalance (so as to indicate varying notability), or is this a local question? JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q4: Since breakout method itself should be decided locally, should choice of breakout method include consideration of whether individual breakout candidates "look notable" or "look nonnotable" if they are considered without reference to being broken out? (My answer is it doesn't seem that this should be a consideration.) JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q5: Should local method determination rely primarily on anticipation of the detail levels that various user cases would typically look for? JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q6: Since the guideline affirms breakouts must be able to stand alone, but only contextualizes this for V purposes, should we conclude that breakouts must stand alone for N (which would fail many articles like the above), or that they need not (which would indicate a clarification to the guideline)? JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q7: What are the best style methods of communicating in-article that an article is a breakout, to transcend argumentation over N? (Obviously I start with the "Main article:" link at top, the navtemplate(s) indicating a place in a series, and sufficient sourcing and weighting; "Previous article:" and "Next article:" come to mind; anything else?) JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability requirements apply to sub-articles. There are no special rules and there need not be any special rules that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
There is evidence N does not consistently apply to subarticles, for instance WP:NCLL, plus the above sample subarticles. I am looking for substantive discussion on this evidence. Logically, either all such subarticles need to be deleted or merged for N failure, or some subarticles need not be deleted for N failure. Substantive point-by-point answers from anyone would be appreciated. JJB 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes we say lists are articles but they don't follow quite a lot of a normal article's rules. Have you a real problem in mind? Dmcq (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, per the second OP graf, but these queries have long applied to many topic areas besides the presenting one. The challenge is to balance list-style or multiple-subtopic articles with spinoff articles that may be nonnotable. My understanding is that sometimes it's OK for a main article to have short summaries of notable topics interspersed with details sections of nonnotable topics that may be longer than the short summaries ("imbalanced"); and that sometimes it's OK to count all topics as not necessarily notable spinoffs of a list that would be too long if not spun out ("balanced"). The former is more common if the notable and nonnotable subtopics have a varying amount of sourceable data, as with the supercentenarians in various "list of" articles; the latter if the nonnotable subtopics have a relatively constant (usually programmed) amount of sourceable data, as with the thousand-count minor-planet sublists in list of minor planets. In other words I would like to make explicit a number of practices that have been implicitly accepted but not spelled out in guidelines. What would you say to a person who argued that House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 is wholly nonnotable as a topic and should be merged? JJB 20:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I would say that his life prior to the presidential campaign was a notable topic. The title of the article isn't ideal but that's the topic of the article. It is not an arbitrary point. Dmcq (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You have responded to the rhetorical question and nothing else, and you changed 1981-2000 to 1936-2000 making your response off-point. Accordingly I will be changing this page in attempts to clarify the ambiguities and answer Q1-Q7 in a consensus manner. JJB 12:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The question you asked as a test case was " What would you say to a person who argued that House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 is wholly nonnotable as a topic and should be merged?" and I said I believed the article was notable in its own right. I fail to see how you then think a reasonable course is to assume the complete opposite and stick it into the guideline. Your opinions do not count more than that of other editors and a conservative approach is far better if problems are pointed out in changes to policies and guidelines. New ideas are not automatically and intrinsically better than old ones which have been looked at longer. There is no requirement for another editor to produce rebuttals about every single thing you say with an automatic assumption that if there is a single thing left out then you are okay to stick something completely opposite to what another editor says in. Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, I called it a rhetorical question, not a test case, and your response to this one did not account for the other nonnotable items mentioned above, and your response also made a scope error that you have not corrected. Nor did I insert into this guideline the complete opposite, but I sourced my insertions in edit summaries, or explained their reasonable implications. The fact that we sometimes split arbitrarily indicates that some splits are technically nonnotable as such. The remainder of your generic observations about editing methods do not directly relate to improving this page. However, I don't mind interacting with your edits, such as by correcting grammar, as we seem to be converging on the same point; but please keep discussion to the merits of how current policy and practice should be described. JJB 15:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
You called it a rhetorical question after I answered and I don't see what was rhetorical about it. It was a good straightforward example as far as I can see of you thinking an article was split arbitrarily. It wasn't. There is no reason for you to say articles can be split arbitrarily. It isn't true. articles split off must be notable in themselves. This is the third time I've said that here, please take a bit of care with basic policy. I will leave it to somebody else to revert the change so they can complain too and then perhaps you might take account of WP:Consensus even if you think your one voice is worth more than any other one voice and go changing things like that against WP:PGCHANGE. Dmcq (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The example subtopics of McCain, planets, Newton, and centenarians are arbitrarily split according to seminatural divisions that do not have inherent notability. There are essentially no sources that discuss any of these subtopics independently from their main topics. The fact that these and many other articles exist indicates that often consensus favors a nonnotable split because its main topic is notable, not the subtopic; I am simply attempting to explain why this practice has arisen, on an appropriate page. JJB 17:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
It would probably be best if at least some of the fairly straightforward questions above can be pondered by those other voices. Investigations are best made rationally and not via repeating concluded opinions. Agent00f (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Main versus details[edit]

I think the main template is better for linking to detail articles. The point about te summary is to be a summary, not details. Saying more details is just wrong and it also encourages unnecessary details in the summary. Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The article World War 2 uses the main template, not details. Dmcq (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Clear from Template talk:Main that main should be used so changing details back to main and changing to main in the example. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Before I changed it, this page inconsistently used both templates, "main" and "details", for the same purpose, so I chose the one that was unambiguous. If the other is used ("main"), other pages will need to be changed per Template talk:Main to resolve the contradiction and ambiguity. JJB 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You should have checked first. Dmcq (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem with sticking in links[edit]

Links to world war 2 were stuck in where the context was as a title of an article or section. This is one of the problem when people do large trivial edits, they just stick in errors without helping. They should be confined to articles. It would also be better if one is really desperate to mess around to be very careful and separate the substantive edits out. Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Before I changed it, the link (not links) was in the example lead. I moved it to the example title, which was an improvement. Obviously in the real article the link appears in neither place, but here a link to the article is appropriate. Accordingly will try an alternate. Please do not charge me with sticking in errors when I am fixing an error with a compromise that is not necessarily an error. I affirm separating substantive edits out, but sometimes one doesn't anticipate what is substantive. JJB 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Section 'Lead section'[edit]

I didn't understand WP:SS#Lead section

Lead section
Further information: Wikipedia:Lead section
For planned paper Wikipedia 1.0, one recommendation is that the paper version of articles will be the lead section of the web version. Summary style and news style can help make a concise intro that works as a standalone.

The links didn't help me at all. Dmcq (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is historical. Please rewrite as you see fit. Perhaps it can be folded into another section about news style. JJB 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Policy check[edit]

Dmcq has referred to this edit as warring and "absolutely definitely wrong". The significant parts of this edit were taken from other policy and guidelines:

  • WP:N: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list."
  • WP:SIZE: "If necessary, split the article arbitrarily."
  • WP:SS#Size (elsewhere on this page): "Judging the appropriate size depends on the topic."
  • WP:LSC: "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles."

The remainder of this edit enfolded or copyedited Dmcq's text. Warring does not refer to new insertion or new enfolding of noncontroversial content, but to reversion. Accordingly, Dmcq is free to express concerns with the extant quotes here or in the respective talk pages of the quoted pages. JJB 16:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

JJB's edits relevant to this section [1]
My revert trying to accomodate him [2]
His 'enfolding' [3]
I have repeatedly pointed out before this that bits split out of articles need separate notability they do not inherit notability. Splitting at an arbitrary point is simply wrong. Dmcq (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not about "bits" split out, this is about what editors have always done when splitting is necessary due to very long article size and when there is no clear subdivision. JJB 17:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Example? Dmcq (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Four examples are above. Many more are findable. JJB 17:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I already explained about John McCain, Newtons later life is also notable as a separate topic, and list articles are treated specially. Why don't you just acknowledge you can be wrong and work with WP:Consensus rather than edit warring? Dmcq (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

We can disagree about our views of the examples, but your view does not seem to object to the policies and guidelines I imported into this article. If you have a specific text objection, please propose a change with a substantive reason. JJB 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

' if necessary, split a very long article arbitrarily' I 've lisst count how many times I've pointed out about notability of articles.. Also less importantly the notability of a list has little to do with the notability of the items in the list. '(as when most of the listed items fail the notability criteria).', plus just leave the 'also' out when referring to the guideline for long lists - it is the primary source about that - not 'also' Dmcq (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

In re your charge that I am committing an "end run around WP:Notability", I found this interesting discussion in WT:N archives, with reference to this community RFC. At WT:N Dmcq seems to have said that objecting to List of Shakespearean characters (A–K) because it has no independent notability is not useful. That's almost exactly the point I'm trying to make: objecting that such a list does have independent notability is also not useful. These splits are arbitrary.

Since you object to the wording from WP:SIZE, you might take the objection there. Your second objection seems to relate to the wording from WP:LSC, but does not give a reason for deleting the parenthesis; the stated case is a significant case of disregarding notability for subsections. I have taken out "also", which was intended to mean "beyond subtopically", not "as a nonprimary source". JJB 18:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's another one I neglected, which might need to be worked in:

  • WP:INHERIT: "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an 'inherited notability' per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." JJB 19:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I see that bit in WP:SIZE.I will raise a question about it at WP:VPP. I do not believe guidelines should override policy. Dmcq (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I have raised this general question at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 96#Splitting_articles_arbitrarily Dmcq (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq has refused invitations to discuss this page here, continuing to discuss specifics of this page at VPP although the particular change only affects this page. To clarify the conversation, my latest edit was responsive to this*, and my next edit will be responsive to this (Dmcq charging my just-prior edit as "pointy and disruptive" in an edit summary), and to Dmcq's removal of the WP:N guideline as "inapproproiate synthesis". I grant that I didn't think of the fact that it's in WP:N, not WP:SIZE, but since Dmcq objects I will put it in a Notability section instead. The previous section I had it in discusses notability (so I will prepend instead of include), so the relevant N material is appropriate here, and there is no evidence of objection to the sentences themselves, only an unstated inference that Dmcq has not succeeded in communicating. If Dmcq believes this is still synthesis, it is recommended to discuss it on this page. It took several days to communicate the alleged synthesis last time, and when Dmcq finally succeeded in communicating a full allegation, I made the previous prompt change, which Dmcq just cut out; so I hope it does not take long to find the alleged syn this time. I think making these charges in an edit summary on a different, widely viewed page is starting to push the limits here, as there has been zero reason stated for excluding WP:N considerations from this page. JJB 00:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC) *Since Dmcq just (at VPP) asked for fuller response to the asterisked diff than my response via mainspace edit and summary, the answer is: it doesn't "obviously say" to me what you infer it does; my belief that N is always relevant is consistent with the fact that I don't infer what you do; and the reasons for including it are above (e.g., N is discussed here and N's nonlimitation on content is relevant). JJB 00:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Add: the perfected charge of syn is as follows: "'Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. If possible, split the content into logically separate articles' . This is obviously saying that one needn't bother about notability for spinout articles." Alleged syn can be fixed by separating the two synthesized pieces (separating the first two sentences from the third), which I did and Dmcq rejected. If, however, the first two sentences alone are "obviously saying that one needn't bother about notability for spinout articles", then they certainly are obviously saying that as they stand in WP:N (with the obvious given that WP does have size requirements), and thus the bogeyman syn that Dmcq believes I am making has been made for years by WP:N. JJB 00:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
And now, of course, Jclemens reverted Dmcq (reinserting) before I reinserted elsewhere, and Dmcq reverted my reinsertion but not Jclemens's, which is fine, because Jclemens's version is equally acceptable as mine. Dmcq has now charged me with vandalism in an edit summary and continued to not talk here. JJB 01:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC) And, of course, Dmcq has reverted the other reinsertion without talking, against consensus of 2, after two foul edit summaries. This could count as 3RR, but it's only 2 edit sets. Please discuss. JJB 01:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I have explained about synthesis on Jclemens page and pointed them at WP:SYNTH for a fuller explanation. Dmcq (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I have raised the question of this behaviour by JJB at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_edits_by_User:John_J._Bulten Dmcq (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe Jclemens didn't see the syn either. Please respond to my logic above that there is no syn. JJB 01:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The matter concerned a number of guidelines which were having bits taken out and stuck together, and so a centralized place was best. The discussion is already at VPP and should not be forked to other places. Dmcq (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
When you start reverting and you revert the wrong revert and find yourself immediately reverting again, (a) you may have a problem with reverting, and (b) you probably should be on the talk page too. I have linked your various arguments against my text from various pages, and when I could understand them I made accommodative edits. Your latest syn argument appears to be this from an arbiter's page. Near as I can tell, you're reading the existing AVOIDSPLIT as "ambiguous about whether notability is required" and the WP:N sentences, taken with it, as saying "it expressly is not required". I repeat that your interpretation of WP:N's placement here does not follow logically, and that Jclemens implicitly affirmed the same by repeating that the sentences (also a summary of WP:NNC) belong here.
Incidentally, the WP:N "edit battle" several of us were in was over the words, "Article and list topics must be notable"; I added them and you after consideration deleted them. If you want an implication that follows logically, the implication of your deleting the "must" statement is that you don't think topics must be notable! But that faulty conclusion suggests your deletion was mistaken, not that you are making a coach-and-six end run through or around N. (You can still self-revert safely as the last reverter.)
So at whatever page we continue to work this out, please answer directly the real remaining reasons, if any, that you disagree with N being quoted on a guideline that mentions N. JJB 04:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Also, Jclemens invited you to continue at talk after you announced unwatching; so feel free to continue there too (though I prefer here). JJB 04:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Oh, and Jclemens while supporting one of "my" versions also strongly encourages against edit-warring. Accordingly I do need to repeat my customary notice that if I should conclude discussion is not progressing to the stating and resolving of concerns I am free to bold again at a future date. JJB 05:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Dmcq is continuing to discuss on other pages without raising objections to my copy-paste from WP:N to here. Rather, Dmcq charges me with forking, though I have agreed to discuss the topic on any of the various pages Dmcq has selected and am only "summarizing" that discussion here for proper documentation. Accordingly, I may go ahead and boldly restore Jclemens's version as a 2-to-1 current preference without risk of being considered a warrior. There is still one other page that discussion may still validly "split out" onto later, viz., User talk:Dmcq. JJB 18:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown's reversion[edit]

Comments stricken that have served their purpose and need not be perpetuated. JJB 11:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Dennis saw fit to step into the consensus matrix here by cold-reverting backwards prior to a bunch of other agreed improvements to the article. Dennis's rationale at ANI continues the misstatements that my "central point is based upon a policy", that I'm "arguing how WP:SS is why [my] proposal is 'right'", that MMA is "a conflict that is based on it", that it is "central to dispute resolution". In fact, I said this is no central point but only one vague resolution possibility; I'm not arguing that SS favors the possibility but that practice (which I was trying to document) favors it; the MMA conflict is not based on SS (although my suggesting it to Agent00f has led him both to a basis in SS and a greater basis in policy interest generally); and resolution can proceed without SS changes.

Because it's a cold revert, Dennis has also committed the metaphorical throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Dennis has thrown out a useful edit by uninvolved HueSatLum and also inappropriately reverted contrary to Jclemens's decision to step in. He has thrown out a very large number of grammar and style improvements that Dmcq and I agreed on. Dennis believes himself to be unbiased and sufficiently uninvolved to make this determination. And this is all to keep only two sentences out of this page that already appear in another guideline because an alleged, never-proven synthesis has been tendentiously held. Dmcq was not involved in MMA when this SS discussion began, and yet Dennis reverted from Dmcq's version, which contained all the interim improvements agreed to except for the last discussion about the 2 sentences. This is a bit punitive to me because Dmcq has no COI by Dennis's definition, and yet Dennis is removing Dmcq's version of a lot of work Dmcq and I agreed on.

I do appeal to Dennis, Dmcq, and Jclemens (and HueSatLum) to reach a talk consensus here that some amount of the interim work can be returned to WP space without insisting on the entire MMA world being resolved first. JJB 21:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  • The other editors are free to edit as they please. The revert was because both you and Dmcq are in disputes (MMA, Agent00f, VPP) that are centered on it, in particular you and MMA, and it is inappropriate to modify a policy when it is central to someone's arguments. I can link your discussion on my talk page archives again and it is clearly more than "an idea" as you were trying persuade me into representing with you on this point. It is clear that you are using it as a central theme, which is perfectly fine, but don't tinker with it while you do so. That is improper on principal alone. I would also say that changing the meaning of a guidelines is best if it isn't done so rashly anyway. Not every editor logs in every day, and there is no rush. I personally think an RFC is the proper way to make significant changes to any guidelines, as that lets everyone participate that might have an interest, not just those that have this page on their watchlist. I would note that it would have been improper to only revert you, which is why I reverted to a clean state, which was recent. If you do not think I am sufficiently removed from the subject matter to make this determination, you are welcome to have it reviewed. Since I haven't added content here, ever that I remember, and have only restored to the last version before the two of you began a conflicted edit, I'm pretty sure that qualifies as "uninvolved" and neutral. Dennis Brown - © 22:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • To be clear and above board, I have made it clear that I welcome review from any admin that cares to, at the ANI. Dennis Brown - © 22:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, most of your misstatements in the above have already been rebutted. I have no love lost for the MMA articles: what I do care about is that the stream of contentious AFDs, which has no reason whatsoever to end at any time because of constant new-event creation, be given such a reason to end. RFC/U doesn't do it. Maybe I need to try another alternative resolution just to show my bona fidae (I guess starting my own MMA AFD now would be pointy though). I also care about this situation ending in a number of other areas where it clearly exists, and you are thwarting that with a subtext that reads to me like a desire to use tools. You believe yourself uninvolved and neutral, but you also believe my edits are all about MMA. Frankly, that's a problem.

Your claim that I have a COI with any editing to this page until MMA is "concluded" and your hint, by calling it categorically disruptive, that you might use tools, is unjust to an editor whom you were thanking for his kindness last week. JJB 22:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Making it personal isn't going to push my buttons or help your case, and continuing to characterize my statements as "misstatements" is a thin veil and you know it. If that is what you really think, so be it, I'm much to old and grey to take offense so easily. It isn't personal, JJB, I have no issue with you, and actually enjoyed previous discussions with you. You raised some interesting ideas and all, but it does indicate (along with other venues) a predisposition, combined with your activities, that says you need to have a gap between these areas. And my "claims" haven't been disproved, only contradicted, and only by you. Feel free to disagree, but questioning my motives isn't nice or correct, and you know that. Anyone who knows me knows that I'm the last one to block people. I get yelled at because I WON'T block when others would have, and try to work things out with dialog. Ask around. I work ANI every day and don't do a single block most days. That argument is just hollow, JJB, and you should know that. I've never even worked in WP:AIV which is the blocking-est place on Wikipedia, instead I work in disputes trying to help people. I kept trying to hint to you that you shouldn't be editing due to the conflict, again and again, but you forced my hand until finally I had to play the role of admin instead of that of friend. Again, I've asked for review and if any admin has any problem with my actions, they will speak out and we will address it then. All I have done is freeze the edits for a short while, which is less obtrusive than adding full protection at WP:RFPP. Dennis Brown - © 23:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
See, you call it "freezing" the edits because I too am a polite editor and I take polite requests the same as I take RFPP. If you want to help people, then don't cold-revert, but at least rebuild as far as this version, which contains minor changes as agreed by Dmcq, HueSatLum, and I prior to any insertions relating to my unanswered questions Q1-7 on this talk relating to MMA and other disputes. The diff between your version and this request (edit-request template waived) makes clear that this is all minor and copyediting changes. Cold-reversion brings back bad memories for me. Thank you.
Now, to be honest, I can say that my earliest analysis at your talk (not my later analysis at VPP) seems not to take into account all the guidance I have read, so I recognize that the proposal has matured. (I haven't found anything requiring refactoring, but it's possible.) If you can restore the minor and copyedit changes, then we're back to the original point where you can do what Dmcq didn't and answer Q1-7 above. My first insertion of my answers to those questions only occurred after Dmcq revealed not having any answers. However, since on the primary disputed point I am not changing guidance (I am merely as Jclemens says highlighting one relevant guide within another, which is self-evident by comparing the exact quotes from versions where my edit summary makes reference to being verbatim), the argument would be the same whether this guide is changed or not: the change merely attempts to answer this question in one place. So (again) this page is not central, it merely seemed a good place to get it all together. If you are willing to take the time to interact with an essay page, that might be a better place. But if you are going to imply that you are watching this article, you are also responsible to interact with its talk, including taking one or more of the options I've just outlined. JJB 13:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Also Jclemens continues to affirm, "I do have a general agreement that WP:NNC should be added to WP:SS, because split/merge discussions should not degenerate into deletion, but rather un-splitting, merging, would be the preferred remedy." I would appreciate your interacting with this too. JJB 13:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I was not involved in the above incidents, but I believe these edits by John J. Bulten and this edit by me were constructive and should have not been reverted. Thank you. —HueSatLum 16:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain there's no special restrictions on your editing the guideline. Dmcq (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The restriction is on Dmcq and JJB only. There is no restriction on anyone else that I am aware of. Others should feel free to edit as usual. Dennis Brown - © 17:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Another admin has now put on full protection, I guess because that MMA dispute has got pretty nasty. If you have a change you believe should go in set up a new section here with it. You need to be accurate in your description of what you want done. If it has consensus - if it is obviously okay or you wait a day to see if there are objections or a longer talk otherwise and it seems okay - stick {{editprotected}} on it and someone will eventually come along and stick it in. For the record the latest version I'm fully happy with is [4]. Dmcq (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "The revert was because both you and Dmcq are in disputes (MMA, Agent00f, VPP) that are centered on it,". Can everyone please be more careful with naming me in disputes that I'm not part of. Far as anyone can tell, the only connection posted was done in error, and there's no reason to keep at it when it's already been cleared up days ago (at the RfC/U which everyone has seen). I'm not even involved in the MMA drama-machine anymore except to make these types of comments when it gets dragged back out like a bad habit. Agent00f (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Fix cold reversion[edit]

Per the reasons in the previous section, the unargued minor and stylistic improvements made by John J. Bulten, Dmcq, and HueSatLum should be restored, as the instance of cold reversion removed these changes that all parties have agreed to be improvements. The preferred version to revert to is Dmcq's, although if Dennis Brown believes there is inappropriateness in that version we could save the improvements without restoring the earlier questioned text I inserted by restoring this version instead.

  • HueSatLum has affirmed that the hatnote should be restored, which is present in both proposed fixes but absent in the present version.
  • Dmcq is "fully happy" with the first fix, indicating a preference for that fix over the second one.
  • My concern about cold reversion would be fixed with either fix. In the first fix, the disputed text is neatly limited to only 2 sentences, while, in the second fix, there would be several sentences to be discussed at talk during the full prot.
  • Jclemens affirmed WP:NNC should appear, favoring the insertion side in the 2-sentence dispute. It also appears from editing that Jclemens prefers the first fix over the second.
  • In the section above I made this edit request without a template because it had not yet been protected. I point out that the second fix has this diff against Dennis's version, indicating that the second fix is completely minor and stylistic improvements. The first fix was the result of consensus about all points except the 2 sentences, so it has a greater diff from Dennis's version, but Dennis is the only one objecting to it, without providing a reason for undoing the improvements.

Since reversion by Dennis Brown demonstrably removed agreed improvements to the article, please restore one of the two versions linked above. JJB 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Any of those identified versions is fine by me. Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There may be some merit to JJB's concern. I don't have a preferred version and have no opinion or opposition to any changes that any admin decides is appropriate. You might consider asking the protecting admin, thumperward (aka: Chris Cunningham) for the change as he is uninvolved and is objective in the matter. His Protection of the page is completely independent of the prior sanctions. The Protection does not supersede the previous ban. He is a fair person and can determine whether the changes were consensus or not, and suggest the best course of action or make the changes himself, and I would trust his judgement in this. Dennis Brown - © 16:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I would note, JJB, that I'm not objecting to any version. The ban was placed on you and Dmcq as a matter of principal, not because I disagreed with any particular content. If I had a preferred version or a personal edit issue, I would not have placed the sanction, as I would have been too involved to do so. This is the same reason I have no opinion now. I don't care what WP:SS says as much as I care that it is the consensus of the community and doesn't contradict other policy, and it is not being edited by those with a direct, temporary, conflict of interest. Other admins, such as DGG, have expressed the same concern. My motives are quite different than you make them out to be, but that is fine, we all have a right to our own opinions. That doesn't make them true, but we all have the right. Dennis Brown - © 16:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Done I haven't read the ANI discussion, but there seems to be agreement here that the 494546510 version is appropriate, so I have reverted to this one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  • To be clear, there are currently no restrictions on the above editors now, and everyone agrees to a slow, measured way of making changes here to avoid any conflict concerns. Dennis Brown - © 11:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Next discussion[edit]

The next discussion during page-protection should focus on the question of insertion of the two sentences from WP:N as either here or here (ignoring edit conflict between these two). I favor insertion, Dmcq sees synthesis. Dennis Brown does not object to any version. Jclemens says, "I do have a general agreement that WP:NNC should be added to WP:SS, because split/merge discussions should not degenerate into deletion, but rather un-splitting, merging, would be the preferred remedy." To me this implies inserting the 2 sentences and more. Dmcq favors an RFC here advertised on 3 other pages, which I don't object to but have not coded it right now. That's just to give everyone the current status. JJB 11:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You said "Discussion about AFD merge results is off-point" about Jclemens reason. Dennis Brown was trying to stay univolved as an admin dealing with conflict about this. Please do not just choose soundbites to make out something that doesn't reflect reality. This is the sort of thing I mean by synthesis. Dmcq (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • To be clear, I have taken great pains to not read any particular version, to insure I have no preferred version. I also do not endorse any version. My only concern is that whatever version becomes the "current" version is based on the input of many people, and is a clear consensus of the views of the community, after a few weeks of discussion for any change that is substantive. At this time, I have opted to not participate in the decision making process as to remain uninvolved, but reserve my right to do so in the future if I ever feel so inclined. If someone has a question about procedure, they can ask me on my talk page, but nothing here should infer that I agree or disagree with any changes. I have no opinion. Dennis Brown - © 12:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq, yes, it was off-point at VPP (20:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)). My next sentence there was "Feel free to handle your preferred insertion as you see fit": I don't have a problem with discussion on additional text that you and Jclemens see fit, as it's not off-point here (though it will temporarily require an edit request). I also thought it would be appropriate to mention Dennis as well because he did edit in relation to the 2 sentences. Please do not charge me with synthesis in my own statements simply because you disagree with conclusions you infer from my statements because you haven't asked me to reconcile them: it makes it harder for you to demonstrate that you can spot synthesis in WP guidelines. What I am looking for is a linkage between how the 2 sentences anywhere in this page, taken with other statements in AVOIDSPLIT, can logically be combined to infer any of the synthetic conclusions you have alleged that I made. This demonstration would ideally have a syllogistic structure so that editors can judge whether it is a logical implication of the content and positioning of the sentences, or not. Thank you. JJB 12:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Just get on with the RfC if you want a change. There has been enough discussion at WP:VPP# Splitting articles arbitrarily already. Dmcq (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've now said at VPP, I kinda thought you'd want the ordinary BRD cycle to resume, where we two discuss why you think there's synthesis, and we agree on an edit that will enfold your concerns. I have been reading your charges of synthesis as they come, and (except for one occasion where I said so and made a responsive edit) I've never seen the connect between what the words say and the idea of inherent nonnotability or whatever the syn is. If you're still unwilling to discuss (here) why the two sentences should not be in, then it would seem that consensus favors including them. Those are the basic BRD paths. Jumping to lots of other pages is not demonstration of syn, sorry. Looking forward to productive protected discussion, thanks. JJB 17:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the summary style guideline quote WP:Notability and if so in what place[edit]

There seems to be a general consensus among those who are not the two main speakers here that this RfC is unclear, unnecessary, and unwanted. I'm going to close this as "no consensus" and I would add "per Jayron" (a solution in search of a problem). Drmies (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should this guideline contain the quote from WP:N " Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list". If so in which of these contexts is it okay?

The main discussion was at WP:VPP# Splitting articles arbitrarily. There is section below for discussion, please put only a short summary of your feelings about which are acceptable in the decisions section. Dmcq (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I have put in a new option D below for people who want to remove all notability requirements when splitting articles. This is even stronger than options A and B. Dmcq (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Your creating D based on your reading of Victor Yus's comment results in an option that nobody supports. This is not writing for the opponent and comes dangerously close to strawman. JJB 18:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Complaining about my interpretation of what they said based on your interpretation of what they said. I think it would be better to let them decide themselves if D is or is not what they want. I have not said they support it. Dmcq (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The presentation of this RFC disguises the fact that it's actually about the two of us working out a disagreement in wording. Others should recognize that you are working from C, I am working from (what I've now called) E, and we should work together to compromise between these. The rest is irrelevant. JJB 19:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Disagreement of substance not wording. I view A, B, and E as all trying to reduce the notability requirements for split out articles. A straightforward statement of the notability requirement would just quote 'Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"'. It would not go on about 'They do not limit the content of an article or list' in the context of splitting out parts of an article. D is for people who want to be straightforward about reducing the notability requirement. C uses the quote in a reasonable way as far as I'm concerned. Dmcq (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


Main page: Wikipedia:Article size
Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. Articles over a certain size may not cover their topic in a way that is easy to find or read. Opinions vary as to what counts as an ideal length; judging the appropriate size depends on the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up. Size guidelines apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table.


Other specifics
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability
Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list.
Avoiding unnecessary splits


Naming conventions for subarticles
Subarticles (not to be confused with subpages) of a summary-style article are one of a few instances where an exception to the common-names principle for article naming is sometimes acceptable.
Subarticle deletion
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability
Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. If a subarticle fails notability in an WP:AfD then it may be possible to merge the content into an article on a wider topic.
Subarticle navigation


Avoiding unnecessary splits
Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the main article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article. If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created.
Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. If possible, split the content into logically separate articles. If necessary, split the article arbitrarily. Long stand-alone lists may be split alphanumerically or chronologically or in another way that simplifies maintenance without regard to individual notability of the subsections (common selection criteria: lists created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles; short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group). However, a split by subtopic is preferable. Judging the appropriate size depends on the topic.


Naming conventions for subarticles
Subarticles (not to be confused with subpages) of a summary-style article are one of a few instances where an exception to the common-names principle for article naming is sometimes acceptable.
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability
Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. However, if only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about a subtopic, that subtopic does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead remain within, or be merged into, the article about a larger topic or relevant list.
Subarticle navigation


  • None or C: The options A or B quite explicitly imply that the subarticles do not need to satisfy notability. Dmcq (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • A or B: We could also make a compromise based on C if the text is appropriately changed per discussion. JJB 19:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • None Solution in search of a problem. I don't see this as a widespread or common issue. --Jayron32 19:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Per the VPP discussion linked above, a number of editors find clarifying spinout notability to be a widespread concern. Commenters should review context. JJB 20:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Per the VPP discussion linked above, a lot of editors have made emotional arguments that the vehemently feel about something, but have provided little evidence that there exists a problem. --Jayron32 21:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Whichever option means that notability isn't a requirement for split-out articles. We don't want people running around trying to enforce such arbitrary and purposeless rules when others are working on finding the most convenient and usable ways to present information. Victor Yus (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • None of the options makes notability explicitly required. There is a bit in the existing guideline about splitting articles which cautions about splitting out articles if they wouldn't meet notability which could be taken by some as implying notability is required. If you are saying you want to say that notability is explicitly not required then probably saying A or B here is a first step and put something in the discussion below. Dmcq (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


Please note: the quote is technically from WP:N lead rather than WP:NNC, which it summarizes; italics are unimportant; the "explicitly imply" has been disputed as undemonstrated, as no such implication appears prima facie; and Dmcq going to all this work to simply say that there needs to be another sentence about deletion is IMHO a bit misguided.

That said, I did invite discussion about deletion, and I don't mind a moderating statement about deletion being added for balance. I think a new heading "Subarticle deletion" would be a bit much, in part because it would be creating a new guidance topic (as I have been accused of doing), and in part because it would tend to overencourage subarticle deletion. Second, when placed in proposal C it is not a summary of N, as it says quite a bit more than N says (failing to summarize is another accusation I've faced). As to the sentence itself, "fails notability in an AfD" is a dramatic misconception of the nuances of AFD discussion, and "may be possible to merge" really contradicts the assumption of this page, that the article was already split due to size, which leaves the reader guessing as to whether size can now be ignored, WP:PRESERVE can be ignored, or what the tenor of the sentence may be.

I haven't begun working on alternatives to C yet, as I see nothing significant in other guidance to work from, so I don't have an alternate proposal, and it may take some discussion to figure out exactly what Dmcq means by C. The closest thing is in WP:N as "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger article or relevant list.", which would need to be prefaced as "However, if" when placed after the other two WP:N sentences. But this doesn't address the other problems mentioned. JJB 19:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I put in option C to cover the reason Jclemens wanted notability mentioned. I have informed them about this RfC. Dmcq (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Ick... but C isn't even the right way to go about it. If someone splits something, and it doesn't meet notability guidelines, merge it back. While I would prefer AfD become "articles for DISCUSSION", that's been defeated multiple times, such that a number of admins and non-admins all think that keep or delete are the appropriate outcomes in an AfD. In case of content that's been split out of another article that is almost never true, per WP:ATD. I think A or B or a revised version of C with some cleaned up discussion of AfD would all work. I just want it mentioned somewhere. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
By all means stick A or B as your preference above if that is your decision, but I see absolutely no correspondence with what you say you want. Do you not see how A and B are saying the subparts of an article need not be notable, you may split them out as you wish? Do you simply not see the two sentences besides each other in those two options above? And how does the current version which warns unless the bits are notable plus C which says if the bit is shown not notable it can still be merged back not correspond with what you say you want? I am totally failing in seeing the connection between what you say you want and the wording you support. Dmcq (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
To take the liberty of answering for another, it's clear from prior comments that neither A nor B says "subparts need not be notable" to Jclemens: it's an inference that you alone are making, and you have now revealed that you're making it because you're improperly using the general to override the specific. The two sentences are next to each other in WP:N already; if they are syn by themselves, they have been syn in N for ages, and nobody ever thought so until you began to object. Or, if the syn is between the 2 sentences and the local sentences they are placed with, that is resolved by placing them elsewhere (thus A, B, or D). The "current version which warns" is not in dispute (it's only in dispute if your misinference about my views is true). I grant that your statement about merging is responsive to Jclemens and thus is good as starting the negotiation going, but it has the flaws I already outlined. So your stated failure to understand Jclemens may arise from not getting over the misinference hump. JJB 13:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Synthesis says 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.' Yes I believe the two parts together imply something not said by either.. I see no point of the phrasing in A or B except if it is supposed to be relevant to splitting the bits out. Yes that is an inference. Synthesis is about the inference that people take from such juxtapositions. The impression it coveys is what is relevant, not what you say you meant by putting it in. Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Note that the current guideline says
Avoiding unnecessary splits
Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the main article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article. If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created.

I don't see how explicitly implying notability is inapplicable is consistent with this and I would have though this would have to be very much altered before sticking in something which implies the exact opposite. Thus I think options A and B are incompatible with the current content.Dmcq (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's close to what I'm asking for. Rather than try to state your logic (not easy), we might do better to attempt alternate versions. What would be wrong with taking C, changing the title to "Notability", and moving to the sentence I suggested, slightly edited as follows? JJB 20:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC) (Another sentence from WP:N added.) JJB 18:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. However, if only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about a subtopic, that subtopic does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead remain within, or be merged into, the article about a larger topic or relevant list. JJB 20:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Dmcq, why are we creating version D based on a misinference you took from Victor Yus, when the above is an actual proposal and you have not created it as a version? I must repeat that your methods of structuring discussion and your ability to infer others' meaning correctly are both problematic. JJB 18:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I did believe it reflected what they said but I never said it reflected their view, I put it in as a general option. I left them to figure out if they wanted to support it or not. Anyway if you are so hot on not misinterpreting people could you lay off saying things like "This hypothetical gets closer to the logic Dmcq sees" thanks. Dmcq (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
That change to C to remove about AfD and merging and changes the title to Notability and duplicates a bit in the section about avoiding unnecessary splitting but in a way that even more implies the split off bits need not satisfy notability. It is just B made worse as far as I'm concerned. Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • We dance around the subject so much, but ultimately notability as a concept exists so we don't have a proliferation of articles about garage bands, neighborhood businesses, and fan fiction authors. I am wholly unconcerned when people split large articles on obviously notable topics for the sake of length and readibility, and I don't believe we need notability to deal with how to split articles, if they really need to be split. --Jayron32 21:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Which I think is why the bit I copied above about 'Avoiding unnecessary splits' is just slightly ambiguous about it in case an AfD decides things differently from a guideline. People should be splitting up logically rather than worrying too much about notability. But when the limit is at 100k as far as I can see whenever you do split up an article like that the bits do turn out to be notable. It might be an idea to have an explicit notability criterion for spun out articles but I really don't see the need, what we have seems to cover the cases quite well enough unless we have to explicitly cover what I can only call some attempts to game the system.
The insertion about notability in A and B is as far as I can see trying to imply that notability is explicitly not a consideration at AfD. I believe the impetus behind this is the Mixed Martial Arts debate going on where individual events are being deleted at AfD. They are allowed to continue existence when put back into an omnibus article under something like option C above. The trick is to say since they are split out from this omnibus article they only need to satisfy content guidelines and not the notability guidelines of WP:Notability (sports). That if you want to find a problem behind all this is where the problem lies. Dmcq (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't see that implication, at all, in either A or B. I hear what you're saying, and agree that we don't want to imply that... but I don't think either statement does. Plus, even if you think either one does, that should be a pretty straightforward fix. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I see it as WP:SYNTH of the form 'the parts of an article do not need notability. The parts of an article may be split out'. This is like saying 'It is legal to drive a lorry if you have a heavy goods vehicle licence. Lorries may be used to transport high explosives or nuclear waste'.
Why are you talking about A and B? Do you see C and the existing section noted above about avoiding unnecessry splits as not fully satisfying your concerns "I've seen people split things out, and then someone else asserts non-notability and argues for deletion of the spinout article because it's not notable. In fact, things spun out prematurely and without sufficient notability for the subtopic should be merged back into the parent article.", or have you some other concerns. Dmcq (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
This hypothetical gets closer to the logic Dmcq sees. A general statement of legality can be misconstrued as overriding a specific statement of illegality (such as one that would be expected to exist about particular illegalized transport of nuclear waste). However, this misconstruction has been deprecated since 1884, as per the canon Generalia specialibus non derogant. In the present case, it is solved by repeating the specific in place. That specific is at WP:N as 'Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice".' I have added it to the proposal above. The fact that Dmcq has misconstrued "N does not apply to content" as "some topics themselves need not be notable" is not solved by perpetuating this misconstruction across five or six discussions, but by stating it (as Dmcq now has) and agreeing on compromise text that addresses the concern (as I have now done).JJB 18:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
At least you're finally acknowledging that putting two correct sentences together can imply something that is wrong. That is what synthesis is about. Or maybe you're not acknowledging that, if you could be briefer and clearer it really would help. Dmcq (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I misplaced the above. I think it's correct to say that, when you propose a logic-based hypothetical for the first time, that it "gets closer" to the logic that you intend it to illustrate. I've always acknowledged that placement of correct sentences can be syn. The question is, is the inference reasonable to a "neutral" third party? The above very briefly demonstrates that it is not reasonable, it is a misinference. Nobody reads a general statement (N does not apply to content of topics) to overrule a specific (article topics must be notable). Period. It also illustrates the path forward; see below. JJB 13:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Any wording away from WP:GNG's using "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and toward using material from fan sites and material connected with the subject isn't a positive move in the right direction. If you only use "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," then you are less likely to run into problems of having to split articles. So yes, notability guidelines encourages limiting the content of an article or list to coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So does Wikipedia:Splitting requirement that each standalone article meet WP:N. Of course, a good way to delete material from an article that some goofy editor insists on keeping within Wikipedia is to split it off into its own article and then list the new article at AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
What exactly are you supporting or opposing? It might help if you say in the section above which of the options you do or do not support. Dmcq (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Uzma, I'm surprised to hear this view from you; I think splitting for the purpose of later AFD is a bit impolite even if you announce that you're doing it; it's a "phased" approach. If the goofy editor fails core policy, we push that; if there is a marginal compliance with core, merging seems more community-approved than splitting (keep all the goofiness in one article). JJB 18:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I have added an option to even more explicitly remove notability guidelines. This seems to be definitely supported by some people who find that articles on individual games have been deleted at AfD on notability grounds but that they are allowed to merge them back into an omnibus article. Dmcq (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Every article on Wikipedia should be about a notable subject. A splitout from a larger article should only be on subtopics that are notable independent of their parent topics. If a subtopic doesn't have the sourcing and coverage to make it a notable subject, we shouldn't be giving it a description lengthy enough to require a spinout. Our wording should clarify that the notability guidelines apply to all articles, regardless of their origins. ThemFromSpace 17:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    Thinking about this some more, I'm confused as to why we're arguing about this specific wording. I think most editors are in agreement that articles should be on notable topics, but nonnotable topics can be discussed within the context of articles. Where's the disagreement at? ThemFromSpace 17:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    I don't think people are saying split out subjects need to be notably different, for instance a particular era of American history would be counted as a spinout which is notable in itself but it is also a subtopic. There isn't an option above saying everything must be notable, but I would definitely count the none option as being fairly firm about requiring notability, A and B as significantly weakening the notability requirement, C as strengthening it, and D as practically removing it altogether. Dmcq (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
IMHO Dmcq is committing a misstating of the question (not the first time here either). The disagreement is whether copying the two sentences from WP:N is synthesis (Dmcq) or not (me). The proper solution is for Dmcq to attempt to explain the syn (which may have now happened) and for compromise text to occur (which C and my responsive proposals are a means of doing). A and B are former attempts to address my concern in a way satisfactory to Dmcq, to which Dmcq replied that they were still synthetic; D is supported by nobody; and "no change" does not address my (and Jclemens's) concern about the linking of the subject of WP:NNC from this article. JJB 18:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
My answer was based on the questioner's "Every article on Wikipedia should be about a notable subject" and wanting to know which if any option corresponded with that aim. I have said why I see synthesis in A and B and you have said you do not see what I am saying. I have tried a couple of times and you say the same and I now see no point flogging a dead horse as far as you are concerned. I think we just have to agree we disagree. Dmcq (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
You made a good stab with your lorry example, and I responded above. We could certainly agree to disagree about interpretation, if we can agree on a wording solution. I have no problem with C if the title is changed to "Notability" and the contents better reflect WP:N, as I proposed above. Perhaps you didn't see it inserted up there. I am, however, repeating the request for you to interact with the version above, as working from C is the best path to consensus. JJB 01:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Changing C so the title is Notability and then removing the bit in it about merging as per your statement at VPP "Discussion about AFD merge results is off-point.", plus a little rearrangement moving it up for logical order, gives option B which is already listed above and supported by you. I don't see the point of listing B twice. Dmcq (talk) 10:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
You are not responding to my statement that it was off-point at VPP but not off-point here: I don't require removing the bit about merging, I quoted guidance about merging in my version as you can see. I then added another sentence to respond to the lorry example. Yes, compromise between B and C will look partly like B and partly like C; the fact that I am compromising from B by repositioning and by adding 2 more sentences to give the context you demand should not be discounted by saying it looks partly like B.
Now here's part of the problem. My versions are all based on consensus guidance. Your versions include a sentence about deletion taken from no guidance that I can see; you also proposed version D, claiming the principle of writing for the opponent but striking a full graf of long-accepted guidance because you (and nobody else) believe some editors support striking it; and you're objecting that 2-4 sentences that I quote from N are synthetic, either in themselves or combined with SS, but nobody else has objected to this at N! (Yes, there are attempts to delete "worthy of notice", but I thought you fully support that sentence.) I point out that your section in C presenting itself as a summary of N does not summarize N and has a misleading heading, and you totally thwart the principles of this page, SS, by affirming the misleading heading and summary! In all this you are the one having difficulty with current guidance, and also failing to demonstrate a logical basis for your difficulty in these yards of text; yet you accuse me of being the one fighting against current guidance (I do admit the yards of text). You even responded to a paragraph charging you with migrating this to 5 or 6 talk pages by objecting to my verbosity.
I have given you much slack to encourage you to follow BRD and other editing conventions, and you have moved very slowly in the actual discussion of changes, continuing to allege a synthesis that, if you have nothing more to say, has been wholly disproven by canons of statutory construction known in the 19th century and still used today. Accordingly, I think I must limit my interaction with you to (a) textual improvements and (b) correction of errors. Let's start with stylistic as it's easier. In version C, can you agree to change "an WP:AfD" to "a deletion discussion", in accord with the general principle of avoiding alphabet soup (I don't remember the principle's link)? I think that's a straightforward improvement that does not undercut your principles behind C. Then we can discuss what C is summarizing and (if it's N) what title C should have, and other differences. JJB 13:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
BRD is about bold, revert, discuss. You did bold, revert discuss, reinsert into the guideline even with opposition shown, finally get it removed by an admin after long dispute. Dmcq (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Answer the question please. Is it an improvement to change "an WP:AfD" to "a deletion discussion"? While you're at it, you might answer whether it's an improvement for C to retain the original italics from WP:N and a link thereto (as in E). Thank you. JJB 19:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
You set up E, you fix it as you like. A and B are straight copies of the last two things you stuck into the guideline, I made no changes to them. Dmcq (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm finding this RFC hard to follow. But I don't think it's a good idea to ignore the GNG or imply it can be ignored. I also think the statement on avoiding unnecessary splits is a good one, and the general notability guideline is one of the best controls on spinout articles with undue weight on primary sources and other kinds of synthesis. I'd say leave the wording as it's stood for a long time. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I let Dmcq write the RFC. If you look for my italicized version, you'll see the basic principle of WP:N is included; and nobody is arguing for deleting parts of AVOIDSPLIT, option D is probably a strawman. The additions do not contradict GNG, they merely incorporate longstanding parts of N here to make the interaction clear. If the original SS wording stays, the ambiguity about how the controls of GNG apply to spinouts remains, and that's what I'm trying to clarify in my version (which Dmcq has not acknowledged as a version yet). JJB 13:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I asked you to write it but you wouldn't. My interpretation of the options is that the current guideline indicates notability of sub-articles is needed but doesn't definitively say so. Options A and B are synthesis which put in the notability guideline besides what follows so as to imply notability is not required for split off articles. Option C strengthens the notability requirement for sub-articles. Option D is for people who really don't think notability should apply to sub articles at all though it is not absolute in that - basically it is a mirror of the current state. Dmcq (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The current guideline WP:N definitively says some form of notability of subarticles is required: "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'." Since I have already proposed this, I made it option E above. Option C does not require notability for subarticles because it uses the word "may", not "must", among other problems. Further compromise can be made between C and E until we understand each other. JJB 19:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Here is the 'may' in context. "If a subarticle fails notability in an WP:AfD then it may be possible to merge the content into an article on a wider topic." I don't changing that to must would be a good change. Dmcq (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Another proposal[edit]

Doesn't answer. Look, let's just make this simple for the sake of ending this crazy thread, since you have demonstrated difficulty with accepting the proposals of others. Just take C and reinstate the italics and links as I suggested stylistically and a comma, and let's agree to make it an edit request. Then my only objection would be that your (wholly new) sentence does not accurately summarize N and you can try to explain to me why it does in a separate section. Here goes: JJB 20:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Subarticle deletion
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability
Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. If a subarticle fails notability in a deletion discussion, then it may be possible to merge the content into an article on a wider topic. JJB 20:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not own this RfC. It is open and other people have contributed. How about just waiting for it to end and see what people have said? Dmcq (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
This troubles me. You are now declining to comment on a specific proposal that gives you everything you're bargaining for except for a bit of stylization. Frankly, this looks not like consensus-building but like stalling the improvement process. Since you're not one to argue over style, you are either in agreement with the above draft (which is more identical to C than E is to B), or your support of C is not wholehearted. Please answer: is the draft above acceptable to you or not? JJB 23:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
You said 'Then my only objection would be that your (wholly new) sentence does not accurately summarize N and you can try to explain to me why it does in a separate section.' Put in another option that you really do have no objections to besides or instead of E if you want. I think the best course is to let this RfC follow its path, decide a solution and avoid any objections to be settled afterwards. That will clean the whole business up with no possible dispute afterwards. Dmcq (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
This troubles me again. Your refusal to budge, even refusal to admit that you agree with a solution not essentially different from your own, is not building the encyclopedia but thwarting discussion. If we reached an interim compromise now, it would allow us to discuss my remaining concern about C now, rather than have a random close and have either of us potentially object later. You have said only that you prefer the current version or your obviously flawed C version and refused to discuss improving the obvious flaws, as well as to discuss any other version. If I proposed yet another version, you could ignore it just like you're ignoring E and my rewrite of C. You are postponing this discussion to the 30-day presumed course of the RFC, after which someone[who?] decides a solution, after which - are you actually claiming you won't have any objections to be settled if you disagree with the solution? You'll trust a random closer with this in a month rather than talk it out now? This is an excessively problematic tying-up of the article.
A simple guideline search shows that WP:STONEWALLing is contraindicated and the essay Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling describes your behavior in great detail (no substantive discussion (filibuster), ignoring good-faith questions, charging verbosity, starting new diverting discussions, edit-war lockdown and admin manipulation). If documentation of this charge is necessary it's very easy.
Please demonstrate the ability to work toward an interim compromise by proposing any substantive, responsive change to C, as I have. Thank you. JJB 00:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
We had a very long debate before and were unable to agree. Best to let other people decide over the options above or suggest something else if they like. Dmcq (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
We never had a discussion about C except in this section. Thank you for providing further evidence of lack of substantive discussion, ignoring my good-faith request, and charging me with disruption (below). Please demonstrate the ability to work toward an interim compromise by proposing any substantive, responsive change to C, as I have. JJB 01:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
If you have some change you would like in C then propose your preferred version above either as a new option or to replace E which I believe is your current preferred version. I believe that would be far better than talking about not liking it and wanting changes. If the consensus prefers it then I will accede to the consensus. Dmcq (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Have requested admin closure[edit]

In the light of the request below and the lack of recent activity and the unprotection tomorrow and the past history of dispute I have requested that an admin closes this RfC at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Wikipedia_talk:Summary_style.23RfC:_Should_the_summary_style_guideline_quote_WP:Notability_and_if_so_in_what_place

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.

Edit request[edit]

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.

Please insert the subsection shown in version C, repeated below. Dmcq proposed it; I do not disagree with its text, though it is not the best or best-formatted solution; and we are the only two commenting in detail here. I have also posted my belief at #Another proposal that Dmcq is WP:Status quo stonewalling or WP:FILIBUSTERing. Given my belief, it would be better to work from C as a baseline than to wait a month for edits as Dmcq seems to propose.

For completeness: Jayron32 and Shooterwalker prefer status quo but do not address the concerns stated on this talk; Victor Yus favors change generically; Jclemens supports the change that C was intended to address, though would not stop at C; Uzma Gamal and ThemFromSpace did not clearly support or oppose a version but do support GNG, so might support version E, which was built from C. If there's consensus on anything, it's that the RFC was confusingly presented. However, none of these editors have stuck with the conversation (feel free to chime back in), so this is primarily a two-editor discussion where one is willing to take the other's baseline to enhance further discussion.

It is not necessary to make a judgment on the stonewalling evidence, merely to comment on whether consensus between Dmcq and myself is sufficient to make the change to version C. The brown text is to be added below:

Naming conventions for subarticles
Subarticles (not to be confused with subpages) of a summary-style article are one of a few instances where an exception to the common-names principle for article naming is sometimes acceptable.
Subarticle deletion
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability
Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. If a subarticle fails notability in an WP:AfD then it may be possible to merge the content into an article on a wider topic.
Subarticle navigation

Thank you. JJB 00:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this request. JJB said above 'Then my only objection would be that your (wholly new) sentence does not accurately summarize N and you can try to explain to me why it does in a separate section.' They do not fully agree with what they are proposing and are planning to start up discussion again. Better to wait for a consensus decision. I see this proposal as disriuptive. Dmcq (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that version C is an accurate statement; I don't agree that it is a summary of WP:N or that it is the best version. You have refused to explain why C summarizes N and I am attempting to get you to do so, or to do anything other than continue arguing for status quo without substantives. Agreeing on temporary baselines is consensus-building. Please do not charge me with being "disriuptive" when I am agreeing with your version. JJB 01:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The RfC is 'RfC: Should the summary style guideline quote WP:Notability and if so in what place'. What you are talking about is abandoning the RfC and setting up a new discussion on the same topic. If you have an option you want then stick it in the RfC and let the consensus decide about it. I believe you want option E, if so then give a good argument for it in the RfC rather than giving the opinion you don't support it by supporting C with the intention of then disputing what you proposed for insertion. I would like to see an end to this dispute. Dmcq (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
To admin - I'd be very happy if you could hide some of the RfC discussion above which is repetitive and not very relevant to the decision thanks. I think the long text is putting off contributors. Dmcq (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I have reiteratede the request for closure of the RfC by some admin. There's no ants in the pants reason for sticking in a change until that happens, especially not for someone to stick in a change they disagree with and want changed. Dmcq (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:RFC, you can close the RFC yourself. There is nothing that says I can't either. The purpose of RFC is to obtain consensus, not to stonewall, nor to revert away from your own proposal. Writing for the opponent is part of consensus-building from a baseline that all agree is an improvement. Further, many RFC's are not closed by admin anyway but by bot. Since I have provided evidence above that I see no way to read except as your stonewalling, you have not contradicted the evidence, you have not closed the RFC, and your latest reversion confirms the evidence, it appears it is now time for me to take the discussion to a different page. JJB 18:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not appreciate personal attacks. Take it to WP:AN/I if you wish to complain about me. Dmcq (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Observation - Most RfC's run 30 days, some much longer, some a bit shorter. This has gone on just one week. Why the hurry to close? One week seems way to short to close, in my opinion. Some people are on vacation, school finals, etc. Dennis Brown - © 20:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
As I explained in the request to close people just don't seem to be contributing and JJB was very insistent on changing the text without any extra waiting. The best way of allowing change is to end the RfC properly early and get the best decision we can out of that. I don't see how either of us can close the RfC in a way that is visibly neutral, an admin would be needed for that. Is what you are saying that I should withdraw the request and we leave the RfC to close naturally, in that case what should be done about this change then? Dmcq (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:List of Arcade Video Games Navbox[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:List of Arcade Video Games Navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Template main versus template details (again) and for what purpose(s) to use template main[edit]

This seems to be a perennially controversial issue, so I've started a RfC at Template talk:Main#RfC. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple mains[edit]

I've just removed a new section that was added yesterday. It read in full:

Multiple mains
In many cases a subarticle is only referenced from a single parent article. However, it is not uncommon that a subarticle is 'mained' from two or more different articles. Where this occurs each parent article may have their own summary of the subarticle while the subarticle does full coverage. Do not split or duplicate the subarticle simply to avoid multiple mains.

I believe this is controversial and should be discussed before it is included in the guideline. For example, it seems to contradict the usage defined for Template:Main in its documentation. My major concern is that this may become a recipe for summary-style content forks. --Stfg (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be controversial, and it can never do that.
As an example of why you need it, if you have two major topics, they can both need the same subtopic as part of them. To make up a fictitious example assassination and JFK could both require a subtopic of JFK assassination. So all you do is put a quick summary section in both JFK and assassination and add the main template to the top of that section in each place.
The alternatives are mostly just bad, you either duplicate the material in both assassination and JFK or you create two different subarticles.
Another example could be a car engine; if two cars share the same car engine, then it's wrong to have two different articles for the same engine.
In some cases you can just do a wikilink, but if the subarticle is important enough and you have a whole section in each of the parent articles, then it's appropriate to do this.
This is already done in several places in Wikipedia.GliderMaven (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The template you need, I believe, is {{See also}}. --Stfg (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that isn't the right template for the JFK/assassination type example. A 'see also' is intended for use to refer to something that is similar, but different; for example 'Lego' and 'Meccanno' could be a 'see also'. In this case JFK Assassination is an actual example of both JFK and Assassination. Do you see the difference?GliderMaven (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't patronize me. Of course I see the difference, but I don't find the documentation of {{See also}} so restrictive. The documentation of {{Main}} does restrict its use, as I have pointed out elsewhere. Other templates that would serve in particular cases include several linked from these. It happens that John F. Kennedy#Assassination invokes {{main|Assassination of John F. Kennedy}}, and that is fine because that event is truly a sub-topic of JFK. And it happens that Assassination doesn't have such a section. But if it did, the {{Details}} template might be best for the section hatnote, rather than using {{Main}} in a way for which it isn't intended, because the JFK assassination is an instance of an assassination rather than a sub-topic of it. (There are other options too.) --Stfg (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Details is another valid option rather than main, and can be used in very much the same way as it. However, the documentation for 'see also' reads: Note: use only when OTHER TOPIC PAGE is related to current article..., which is telling you should only use it for relateds, not for further detail/mains.GliderMaven (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
OK with relateds for See also. --Stfg (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary section names[edit]

When a section is written in summary style, should it's name closely reflect the title of the article? This was the subject of a dispute (here) over a summary-style section in the article Embassy of the United States, Mogadishu about its evacuation, for which the main article is Operation Eastern Exit, and whether the section title should be the operation name or a descriptive term such as "Closure and evacuation". There isn't explicit guidance for the section name of a summary-style section on this page, MOS:LAYOUT#Section templates and summary style, or WP:HAT and I think something should be added to this page about that. But before proposing any specific phrase, what should be the position on this issue? How close should the section name be to the name of the main article? AHeneen (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What to do with citations while summarising[edit]

Take the case when I want to summarise an article A in my article B. A is very well sourced but I do not have access to its sources; do I have to right to summarise it and/or use its inline cites? WP:CWW comes to mind but I doubt it applies here, and I remember WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Shouldn't this be mentioned in this page too? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistency with WP:Article Size[edit]

A portion of this guideline is in direct conflict with Wikipedia:Article size. The following text currently appears in the "Rationale" section of this (Summary style) guideline:

This style of organizing articles is somewhat related to news style except that it focuses on topics instead of articles. The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details, thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of details they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic. Breakout methods should anticipate the various details levels that typical readers will look for.
This is more helpful to the reader than a very long article that just keeps growing, eventually reaching book length. Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front, by summarizing main points and going into more details on particular points (subtopics) in separate articles. What constitutes "too long" is largely based on the topic, but generally 30 kilobytes of readable prose is the starting point at which articles may be considered too long. Articles that go above this have a burden of proof that extra text is needed to efficiently cover their topics and that the extra reading time is justified.

— Wikipedia:Summary style#Rationale (emphasis added)

However, the "Size" subsection of WP:Article size says (emphasis added;I can't place the table in the quote should be obvious the quoted content is between the dashed lines):

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

Readable prose size What to do
> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
> 50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 kB Length alone does not justify division
< 1 kB If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded, see Wikipedia:Stub.

The 30kB rule on WP:Summary style apparently goes back to 2006 and at that time it was consistent with WP:Article size, based on two discussions in the archives for this page (Wikipedia talk:Summary style/Archive 1#How to determine size for summary style and the adjacent section Wikipedia talk:Summary style/Archive 1#30kb of prose):

See Wikipedia:Summary style#Size, which links to Wikipedia:Article size. On that page there is, among other things: ">30KB - May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size; this is less critical for lists)".
Whatever the improvement you propose, I think consistency with Wikipedia:Article size would best be persued. If you feel that that page might benefit from updating, best to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Article size. --Francis Schonken 13:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears the change on WP:Article size was first proposed in this 2008 discussion. At the time articles over 30kB readable prose size "[p]robably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)".

Almost a year later, Wikipedia talk:Article size/Archive 4#Rule of thumb again brought up the issue of increasing the size from 30 to 40. There was no clear consensus explicitly agreeing to the increase, but it was changed changed by one of the editors to the discussion with the edit summary: "restoring split recommend number to previously used 40; range consistent with number below. Greater than or equal to sign. See talk". Note that the change was made on 21 April 2009 (mid-point in discussion), but the discussion continued until 23 April.

There was a tangential discussion about article length at Wikipedia talk:Article size/Archive 5#Discussion about split of large articles at an arbitrary point, which discusses a couple points but mainly points to a then-ongoing discussion at the village pump Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 96#Splitting articles arbitrarily (this discussion is long...skimming through it, it mainly relates to whether articles should be forced to be "arbitrarily" split and whether the split article needs independent notability).

Both WP:Summary style and WP:Article size are editing guidelines and the relevant part of both guidelines has been unchanged for 7 years.

My thoughts (divided and numbered to ease discussion):

  1. 40 kB "readable prose size" is more appropriate.
  2. WP:Summary style and WP:Article size substantially overlap and could be merged. Both have been around for a long time, but a redirect from the page name that isn't kept (assuming the combined guideline would use one of the two titles) would be a redirect and all anchors would be changed to redirect to the correct location, so editor familiarity with these guidelines wouldn't be substantially harmed. That said, I am not interested in performing this task or working out the details of how the merged guideline would be structured & worded.
  3. The "Rationale" section is important to understanding this guideline (WP:Summary style) and should be the first section after the lead
  4. The structure of the "Rationale" section should be reversed: "Levels of desired details" should be the section name and its content should begin the section, "Rationale" and the content presently before the "Levels of desired details" subsection should be a subsection (but see next suggestion)

AHeneen (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Tx for quoting what I wrote 10 years ago, however that has little further relevance after the article size guidance has changed.
Re. your points
  1. updated
  2. the focus of this guideline is a technique of splitting (how to split, and several considerations when doing that), the focus of the other guideline is when to split. I'd keep that basic thought, and thus two separate guidelines.
  3. per #2, the rationale is largely in the other guideline, thus not the focus here. I grouped the rationale (and the clear link to the other guideline) in the rationale section, without moving that section, for the time being.
  4. the rationale section may benefit from some further rewriting (not just update 30 → 40 and groupe "size" and "rationale"), it is material that originated long ago, and got crufted a bit. I don't think I necessarily agree with the reversal you propose. Well, maybe propose your rewrite, I'd have to see what it would look like before making up my mind. It may work better than what we have currently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
When these guidelines where created page size was quite important to the reader for reasons of download time, and to Wikipedia for reasons of bandwidth. The first reason is far less salient today.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC).
What do you understand by "The first reason": readable proze size? download time? Wikimedia server bandwith? – these are somewhat different reasons:
  • readable proze size is gaining momentum w.r.t. smartphone users, who take a much larger share now than in Wikipedia's early years. When the page size guideline says 40kb is the point where a split should be considered, then that's what it is as far as I'm concerned. Like I wrote in 2006, cited above: "...I think consistency with Wikipedia:Article size would best be persued. If you feel that that page might benefit from updating, best to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Article size."
  • download time: an argument still made, see e.g. Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Three-article proposal, "This article is too long to be loaded,...". However that rationale is no part of Wikipedia:Summary style, so I see no reason to discuss this rationale any further here. It's not part of this guideline, and nobody proposes to introduce it here. Download time is also in most cases more influenced by images and other media, large sortable tables, excessive number of and/or complex template calls, etc. than that it would be influenced by proze size as such. Apart from super-simple pages (that have no download time issues, nor readable proze size issues) prose size has no correlation with download time.
  • Wikimedia server bandwith is not part of the rationale on this page, nobody proposes to introduce it here, so I can't quite follow why such strawman-like argumentation is introduced here.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)