| Revision as of 16:50, 19 October 2023 editWhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers122,145 edits →Tried to clarify the concept: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:07, 30 September 2024 edit undoSdkb (talk | contribs)Administrators81,311 edits →Answer to the question: Are "Introduction to" articles exempt from this policy?: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply | ||
| (27 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| |counter = 2 | |counter = 2 | ||
| |algo = old(30d) | |algo = old(30d) | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Content |
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Content forks/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archives}} | {{archives}} | ||
| {{centralized talk|Misplaced Pages talk:Content forking/Internal}} | {{centralized talk|Misplaced Pages talk:Content forking/Internal}} | ||
| == Jeffery McDonald case == | |||
| I was there on that date with the PMI section of the CID, and cannot believe so many commits on this case by people that were no there and have not a clue of what happened there. captain Jeffery McDonald is guilty. All there others who disbelieves need to read the evidence and not listen to idle gossip that people make up. ] (]) 23:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == SPINOFF vs SPLIT vs SPINOUT == | |||
| An editor claims that ] never moves any content to a new article or otherwise results in any change to the 'parent' article: {{xt|"Splitting an article moves some of the original text of the article into the child article. Spinning off an article leaves the parent article unchanged."}} | |||
| Who agrees or disagrees with this claim? ] (]) 19:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :(I don't know how well watched this page is, so I'm pinging some of its (few) active editors: ], ], ].) ] (]) 19:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think the claim might be true but should not be. Using ] as an example from the guideline, the material was created in September 2007 out of whole cloth and was not spun-out of ]. If the former story were legitimately spun-out of the latter biography then the parent absolutely would change. Evidence is found in the history for ] of material removed into other child articles and I am sure other examples could be found. If content in the parent article is becoming UNDUE, it makes sense a SPINOUT to child article would alter the parent article. Misplaced Pages has fetishized the raw number of articles so I think many an editor lacks the patience to develop content in a parent article and then SPINOUT, preferring the walled-garden of an independent article to truly fork. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">] (])</span> 22:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], so (in your opinion): | |||
| :::* If editors are doing everything correctly, then a spin out ''should'' result in the parent article. | |||
| :::* Merely creating an article about a sub-topic is not a spin out. | |||
| :::Do you think there is a material difference between what a ], a ], and a ] is, or are these all basically the same thing with slightly different emphases (i.e., copyrights for SPLIT, neutrality for SPINOFF, article size for SPINOUT)? ] (]) 22:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::: My thoughts so far (not having been immersed in whatever backstory led to this seeking of clarification) are that the ''outcome'', namely, a certain structure for the resulting set of articles, is a unifying theme common to all of them. Perhaps people may be arguing about whether there are several ''processes'' that can lead to that outcome, and they want to enforce a standard definition of the name for each of those processes. That's fine if so. All of these processes generate at least ''some'' change to the parent article, even if it is small, such as a "]" link at the top of a section, or a "see the ] for more information" type of link. ] (]) 00:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@], this is about ]. Its author is trying to convince me that bold ''splits'' are okay, but bold ''spinoffs'' are not. ] (]) 16:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::: {{U|WhatamIdoing}}, So far I am failing to see the point in these different descriptions of a split, and my first impression is that they are unnecessary instruction creep, but I am willing to consider reasonable arguments either way. I have done a lot of splitting, as articles get bigger and particularly when sections get big enough to be split out and stand alone. I did not even know there were "spinouts" and "spinoffs", and have not yet worked out what the difference is supposed to be. I look upon them all as "splits", more jargon is probably unhelpful, and makes Misplaced Pages harder to edit for new editors.<br />I have also created a few top/higher level articles based on the collected summaries of the set of more detailed articles. Misplaced Pages tends to have little top-down design, and not a lot of structural pre-planning so all of these things come up occasionally. Almost all of my work is on uncontroversial technical topics where it probably does not matter what one call the results of a split. <br />Another thing that bothers me slightly is that in my experience, shortcuts tend to get used by gatekeepers as bludgeons against inexperienced editors as a substitute for rational discussion and explanation of the actual problem, but like {{U|Quercus solaris}} I am not up to speed on this and may be jumping to conclusions.<br /> If a new article is created about something covered in an existing article, in more detail, then there should normally be a summary section in the original article, with a hatlink to the new article, but maybe there are circumstances where this does not apply. Offhand I cannot think of any, but there are more things in heaven and earth and Misplaced Pages than can be usefully covered by a manual of style. Making unnecessarily rigid rules often leads to disputes when the exceptions come up, and some nitpicking wikilawyer does not have the imagination to recognise the exception, or willfully misinterprets it to serve some illegitimate agenda. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 17:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@], I'm thinking that they all the same thing, too, and that we've duplicated a lot of information. I wonder how much of this could be replaced by a sentence like "See ] for advice on how to do this". ] (]) 01:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{U|WhatamIdoing}}, I don't know, possibly all? I have not spent much time analysing it, but it is rather confusing at first read. I thought spinout is what happens when one loses control of a vehicle... I often refer to ], and have not usually felt the need for more opinions on the matter. Cheers · · · ] ]: 01:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It seems these terms are also Wall Street jargon. I do not think that new or even established editors should be expected to be familiar with them in Misplaced Pages article content forking context. Labeling a thing does not explain it, specially when the label is not very clearly defined, and it may not be clear why, or even if, it applies. · · · ] ]: 05:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq| Spinning off an article leaves the parent article unchanged}}. A spin off will take some content, and expands it. A spin off that takes nothing would be better called a tangent. ] (]) 09:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::SPINOUT vs SPINOFF? What’s the difference? In English I don’t think there is, with the two being ENGVARiations of the same meaning. | |||
| ::I think a split means a major removal of detail, like 20-40% of the article. A spin off/out happens when a growing small section is not squarely in the theme of the article, and more detail would de-focus the article. ] (]) 09:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::That makes some sense. Whether it is necessary or useful to go that far into the detail is debatable. Either it is a split, and some content is removed from the original to the new article or it isn't. Both are acceptable ways of starting a new article. Both should be linked from the old article and summarised there where relevant. Cheers, · · · ] ]: 06:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::I guess a "spinoff" ''may'' leave the original article unchanged, if it already has a suitable summary section, and no-one bothers to add a hatnote link, but I cannot think of a case where this ''should'' happen.· · · ] ]: 06:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :Based on these discussions, I suggest that we add this text to the top of ]: | |||
| :"A "spin off" is when editors ] one or more existing sections of an article to a subarticle, leaving behind a link to the new subarticle and a summary of its text." | |||
| :Would it be helpful to include examples? ] and ] as well as ] and ] are spin offs. ] (]) 23:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::Frankly, I think this proliferation of jargon is unhelpful, but if we are stuck with it, it should be clearly and unambiguously defined. If defined sufficiently clearly, does it need examples? Conversely, if it needs examples, is it clearly defined? Cheers, · · · ] ]: 19:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also "Merely creating an article on a related subject is not automatically a spinoff." Examples of that would include ] and individual train stations or specific models of train engines. ] (]) 20:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hey, all: | |||
| ::::I started to make these changes earlier, walked away for a bit, and decided that the bigger problem was that we needed to ]. I have shortened the section substantially, and I think it could probably be cut even further. Above the ====Caution==== subsection, the only thing that really needs to be said is that article splits to promote a POV are bad, but article splits to maintain NPOV everywhere are good, with links to the pages on splitting. | |||
| ::::I hope that you will agree that this is an improvement. ] (]) 16:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent bold edit to SUBPOV during content dispute == | |||
| I don't agree is really a "clarification" as claimed, but rather goes against the prior version of the guideline. Moreover, it's not a good change. | |||
| So, I have reverted that edit to the guideline by ], because it doesn't make sense. Why would a Misplaced Pages article '''''about creationism''''' have to discuss "articles on other appropriate points of view" such as evolution, but a Misplaced Pages article '''''about a book about creationism''''' would not have to do so? | |||
| P.S. The bold edit to this guideline was made .] (]) 22:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :I have made by the same editor in the midst of a content dispute. ], please see ] which governs this type of edit to guidelines or policy. I do not agree with the edit for reasons given in edit summary, and of course the new material was not remotely implied by the pre-existing guideline.] (]) 23:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :: The was more about better grammar and clarity, not to change the POV. At least that's how I saw it. Why don't you make clear your new application of the topic which would allow every book article to become a Christmas tree of coatracked content for every topic mentioned in the book? Start a clear discussion of how you propose to go against current practice of requiring articles to stay on-topic. The focus of a book article, regardless of its topic, is the book. The article should not lose focus on the book. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 04:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am not suggesting to “allow every book article to become a Christmas tree of coatracked content for every topic mentioned in the book”. Misplaced Pages articles in general, and especially BLPs, should not rely heavily on primary sources, and if a Misplaced Pages article is about a book then that book is a primary source about itself. If a Misplaced Pages editor insists upon repeatedly using that primary source (i.e. using the negative book about a living person) to fill up our article with one-sided non-NPOV content about the living person, effectively turning the Misplaced Pages article into a non-NPOV version of a separate NPOV Misplaced Pages article, then in that narrow scenario I absolutely do consider it a content fork to which ] applies. We have lots of Misplaced Pages articles about books that manage to rely entirely upon secondary and tertiary sources, and that’s the best approach.] (]) 06:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Getting the new discussion tool to automatically provide guidance to discourage talk forks == | |||
| {{tracked|T337360}} | |||
| Watchers of this page may be interested in ] I just filed, following ]. Cheers, <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 06:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:SPINOFF 2nd case == | == WP:SPINOFF 2nd case == | ||
| Line 72: | Line 18: | ||
| == Proposal: Rename to "Content forks" == | == Proposal: Rename to "Content forks" == | ||
| {{archive top}} | |||
| This proposal is to rename the guideline to "Content forks". | This proposal is to rename the guideline to "Content forks". | ||
| Line 93: | Line 40: | ||
| : (pinging users from the discussions above) {{ping|WhatamIdoing|Chris troutman|SmokeyJoe|Valjean|Anythingyouwant|fgnievinski}} <span class="nowrap"> — '']'' </span> 08:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC) | : (pinging users from the discussions above) {{ping|WhatamIdoing|Chris troutman|SmokeyJoe|Valjean|Anythingyouwant|fgnievinski}} <span class="nowrap"> — '']'' </span> 08:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC) | ||
| : {{done}} <span class="nowrap"> — '']'' </span> 04:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive bottom}} | |||
| == Tried to clarify the concept == | == Tried to clarify the concept == | ||
| Line 103: | Line 53: | ||
| :It may not be perfect, but is probably good enough. · · · ] ]: 14:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | :It may not be perfect, but is probably good enough. · · · ] ]: 14:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | ||
| ::It's a lot longer, which is going to discourage people from reading it. Maybe try to split some of the new content into a ==Section==? ] (]) 16:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | ::It's a lot longer, which is going to discourage people from reading it. Maybe try to split some of the new content into a ==Section==? ] (]) 16:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | ||
| :::I haven't had a chance to look over the edits in detail, but I concur with @]. Conciseness for guidance pages ]. The impulse to respond to people not understanding the guidance by adding additional clarifying detail is ], and will make the problem worse by causing people not to read it. Examples never belong in guidance leads unless the topic is impossible to understand without them. Dumping the new material into a new section would at least get it out of the lead, but it'd still make the body longer, contributing to CREEP. I was inclined to revert when I came across these edits on watchlist but didn't because I didn't have time to sift through them to figure out what was just copyediting vs. expansion. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 17:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : Thank you for the feedback. So far, I've made the following changes in response to the above comments: | |||
| :: {{done}} – Move examples to sections, to reduce lead size | |||
| :: {{done}} – Add section links to lead, for ease of reference | |||
| :: {{done}} – Move etymology out of lead to its own section, to reduce lead size | |||
| :: {{done}} – Copy edit lead to reduce wordiness | |||
| : Also, thank you @], your edits are definitely an improvement. <span class="nowrap"> — '']'' </span> 20:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Are "Introductions to" articles exempt from this policy? == | |||
| Please see related discussion at ] <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 03:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : Note: That discussion was closed, with no new consensus reached. <span class="nowrap"> — '']'' </span> 23:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That discussion looks like it has a lot of argument, but if it was never promoted at the Village Pump or somewhere else that'd give it visibility, it's unsurprising it never had enough participation to make a consensus clear. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] Do you think it would be a good idea to do a VP or RfC? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 05:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd have to look into it further to say for sure, but my inclination is that it could be, yes. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 06:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] Take your time. A second opinion would be helpful to avoid the appearances of forum shopping. (I forgot about this issue anyway, but if folks find it interesting, I'd certainly support continuing the discussion to reach a consensus). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 03:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: {{ping|Piotrus}} A VP or RFC on this would likely be a waste of participants' time. This is a contentious issue, with very strong arguments for and against, which will very likely wind up "no consensus", but not before a lot of bluster and frustration. It wouldn't resolve anything and would create unnecessary stress for those who feel strongly one way or the other, and anyone caught in the middle. Therefore, I'd advise against it. Just my 2 cents' worth. <span class="nowrap"> — '']'' </span> 08:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Answer to the question: Are "Introduction to" articles exempt from this policy? === | |||
| {{ping|Sdkb|Piotrus}} All content forks in the encyclopedia are subject to this guideline, which defines which types of content forks are acceptable (should be kept) and which types of content forks are unacceptable (should be deleted). So, no, "Introduction to" articles are not exempt. That leaves the question "What type of content fork is an "Introduction to" article? The answer is that it is a ], a type of ]. <span class="nowrap"> — '']'' </span> 08:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The question at hand is more what it ought to say than what it currently says. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 09:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Where was the WikiProject process fork move review and RfC? == | |||
| {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Content_forks/Internal|Process forks}} has {{tpq|one project trying this caused a tremendous amount of disruption over several years until a move review and an RfC reversed them}} from {{diff||848260232}}. Which? I am looking for a wikilinked footnote, especially to verify the potentially exaggerated wording {{tpq|a tremendous amount of disruption over several years}}. ] (]) 15:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:07, 30 September 2024
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 | To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Misplaced Pages talk:Content forking/Internal redirects here. |
WP:SPINOFF 2nd case
In WP:SPINOFF, the 2nd case (meta-articles) seems to be actually a consequence of spin-off rather than a cause for spin-off. So, I'm inclined to rewrite it as follows:
The main situation where spinoff articles frequently becomes necessary is when the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem, for example: (...) The resulting article often becomes a summary style overview meta-articles composed of many summary sections, e.g.: (...) Summary sections are used in the broader article to briefly describe the content of the much more detailed subarticle(s).
fgnievinski (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Proposal: Rename to "Content forks"
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.
This proposal is to rename the guideline to "Content forks".
The guideline now predominantly describes content forks rather than the editing activity of creating content forks, i.e., "content forking".
When applying the guideline, editors are primarily concerned with identifying the actual content that may need fixing, rather than the behavior that resulted in it. It is simpler to say "this is a content fork", rather than "this is an example of content forking".
Most of the subsections describe a type of content rather than a type of content editing.
The lead section was changed to "Content fork" years ago.
Maybe it's time for the title to be changed to "Content forks" to match the focus of the guideline.
- Support - as proposer. — The Transhumanist 02:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- (pinging users from the discussions above) @WhatamIdoing, Quercus solaris, Pbsouthwood, Chris troutman, SmokeyJoe, Valjean, Anythingyouwant, and Fgnievinski: — The Transhumanist 12:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Consistency with the lead section is generally desirable. On that count I weakly support at this point, having seen no counterarguments. Other than that, a redirect would be valid and useful whether the move is done or not. Ping me if there is any serious debate. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood : 13:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- No objection to the results (forks) of the unintentionally deficient activity (forking) being the focus of the chosen phrasing, as long as the fact of how forks are typically produced — by forking — is not perversely obscured. I'm not saying that anyone intends that, I'm just stating the condition of my "no objection". In other words, forks are typically produced by a failure to think of checking for existing content; to think of linking a term (such as a synonym, antonym, coordinate term, or related term) and finding out whether the link is blue or red and then following a bluelink to learn what's behind it before one writes any "wall of dupe"; to not forget to (at least) try to avoid duplicating existing content; and so on. As long as that fact (how forks happen and thus how to prevent them) remains clear in the text's explanations, I'm fine with focusing on results ("fork" and "forks") as the predominant nouns in the chosen phrasing (with gerund "forking" being less commonly mentioned albeit not "banned from utterance"). Quercus solaris (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- (pinging users from the discussions above) @WhatamIdoing, Chris troutman, SmokeyJoe, Valjean, Anythingyouwant, and Fgnievinski: — The Transhumanist 08:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Tried to clarify the concept
- (pinging users from the discussions above) @WhatamIdoing, Quercus solaris, Pbsouthwood, Chris troutman, SmokeyJoe, Valjean, Anythingyouwant, and Fgnievinski:
I've edited the lead and a couple sections to help clarify what types of content forks are or are not acceptable, and what is or is not a content fork. For example, transcluded templates aren't content forks, as the copy can't diverge from the original, even when the original is modified. The guideline didn't mention pages of different types that cover the same subject, even though they fall under the definition of content forks (pieces of content about the same subject), so I've added that in.
Please look it over, and revert, remove, or revise as you see fit. Sincerely, — The Transhumanist 07:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- It may not be perfect, but is probably good enough. · · · Peter Southwood : 14:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's a lot longer, which is going to discourage people from reading it. Maybe try to split some of the new content into a ==Section==? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't had a chance to look over the edits in detail, but I concur with @WhatamIdoing. Conciseness for guidance pages is absolutely essential. The impulse to respond to people not understanding the guidance by adding additional clarifying detail is understandable but exactly the wrong approach, and will make the problem worse by causing people not to read it. Examples never belong in guidance leads unless the topic is impossible to understand without them. Dumping the new material into a new section would at least get it out of the lead, but it'd still make the body longer, contributing to CREEP. I was inclined to revert when I came across these edits on watchlist but didn't because I didn't have time to sift through them to figure out what was just copyediting vs. expansion. {{u|Sdkb}} 17:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's a lot longer, which is going to discourage people from reading it. Maybe try to split some of the new content into a ==Section==? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback. So far, I've made the following changes in response to the above comments:
Done – Move examples to sections, to reduce lead size- Done – Add section links to lead, for ease of reference
- Done – Move etymology out of lead to its own section, to reduce lead size
- Done – Copy edit lead to reduce wordiness
- Also, thank you @WhatamIdoing, your edits are definitely an improvement. — The Transhumanist 20:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Are "Introductions to" articles exempt from this policy?
Please see related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Should_the_seciton_on_"Introductiont_to"_articles_be_depreciated_(removed)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Note: That discussion was closed, with no new consensus reached. — The Transhumanist 23:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
- That discussion looks like it has a lot of argument, but if it was never promoted at the Village Pump or somewhere else that'd give it visibility, it's unsurprising it never had enough participation to make a consensus clear. Sdkb 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Sdkb Do you think it would be a good idea to do a VP or RfC? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd have to look into it further to say for sure, but my inclination is that it could be, yes. Sdkb 06:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Sdkb Take your time. A second opinion would be helpful to avoid the appearances of forum shopping. (I forgot about this issue anyway, but if folks find it interesting, I'd certainly support continuing the discussion to reach a consensus). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: A VP or RFC on this would likely be a waste of participants' time. This is a contentious issue, with very strong arguments for and against, which will very likely wind up "no consensus", but not before a lot of bluster and frustration. It wouldn't resolve anything and would create unnecessary stress for those who feel strongly one way or the other, and anyone caught in the middle. Therefore, I'd advise against it. Just my 2 cents' worth. — The Transhumanist 08:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd have to look into it further to say for sure, but my inclination is that it could be, yes. Sdkb 06:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Sdkb Do you think it would be a good idea to do a VP or RfC? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- That discussion looks like it has a lot of argument, but if it was never promoted at the Village Pump or somewhere else that'd give it visibility, it's unsurprising it never had enough participation to make a consensus clear. Sdkb 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Answer to the question: Are "Introduction to" articles exempt from this policy?
@Sdkb and Piotrus: All content forks in the encyclopedia are subject to this guideline, which defines which types of content forks are acceptable (should be kept) and which types of content forks are unacceptable (should be deleted). So, no, "Introduction to" articles are not exempt. That leaves the question "What type of content fork is an "Introduction to" article? The answer is that it is a WP:DIFFFORK, a type of WP:GOODFORK. — The Transhumanist 08:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- The question at hand is more what it ought to say than what it currently says. Sdkb 09:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Where was the WikiProject process fork move review and RfC?
Misplaced Pages:Content forks/Internal § Process forks has one project trying this caused a tremendous amount of disruption over several years until a move review and an RfC reversed them
from . Which? I am looking for a wikilinked footnote, especially to verify the potentially exaggerated wording a tremendous amount of disruption over several years
. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)