Wikipedia talk:Content forks

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Done. fgnievinski (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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 ^(talk): 13:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(pinging users from the discussions above) @WhatamIdoing, Chris troutman, SmokeyJoe, Valjean, Anythingyouwant, and Fgnievinski: — The Transhumanist 08:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done — The Transhumanist 04:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

It may not be perfect, but is probably good enough. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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}} ^talk 17:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Are "Introductions to" articles exempt from this policy?

Note: That discussion was closed, with no new consensus reached. — The Transhumanist 23:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^talk 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I'd have to look into it further to say for sure, but my inclination is that it could be, yes. Sdkb ^talk 06:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The question at hand is more what it ought to say than what it currently says. Sdkb ^talk 09:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the WikiProject process fork move review and RfC?

Wikipedia: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 [1]. 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)[reply]