Wikipedia talk:Article series
project's impact scale. | ||
The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links. |
Wikipedia Help NA‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
|
||
Merge proposals
Please leave the merge proposal alone. If you do not like it please comment here. I think 2 weeks is an acceptable display time. Following this:
- If there is significant opposition I will leave the pages as is
- If there is significant support I will merge
- If there is apathy I will probably merge
Thank you -
- Almost two years have passed, but I'd like to point out that your change completely changed the subject of this guideline. This was very, very bold. (Guideline status: it wasn't marked a guideline at the time, but it was definately in the WP:SUMMARY, which is much more detailed.)
- My proposition is to drop all the WP:SUMMARY stuff from here, and then decide what to do about the actual topic of "article series": either demote this guide to historical/essay, or improve it. As an example, a wild bunch of article series boxes, the "right-side boxes", surely needs some standardization. They seem to be de facto deprecated (they are to wide for 800x600 or handheld devices), they do not appear on FAs, but I'm not aware of any explicit consensus on it. --Kubanczyk (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do whatever you like. Gareth Aus (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)]
- Do whatever you like.
Unconvinced
I still am not convinced that several articles is better than one large article (in case the article really is about one single subject, such as the
- For the most part, article series stem from the application of Wikipedia:Summary style. The idea is that an article that is just too long is dragged down by over detailing that is not necessarily linked to the overall topic. See for example the various subarticles of Baroque architecture (although that is not an official "article series", it is the same thing). The name might be inappropriate. If "article series" wasn't a standard element of these chronological templates and a few others, I don't think this page would even exist. Circeus 16:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
History of the petroleum industry in Canada
I am trying to rename the following three articles, so I can create a template and put them into a series. Unfortunately, I have made a bit of a mess of things.
Here is what I have tried (somewhat unsuccessfully) to do:
1. Create a useful template "Canadianpetroleumhistory. 2. Rename the article "History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part one" to "History of the petroleum industry in Canada" 3. Rename the article "History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part two" to "History of the petroleum industry in Canada (Oil sands and heave oil) 4. Rename the article "History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part three" to "History of the petroleum industry in Canada (Frontier exploration and development) 5. Rename the article "History of the natural gas liquids industry in Canada" to "History of the petroleum industry in Canada (Natural gas liquids)
The idea is that at the end of this process this will be a series of articles about Canadian petroleum history, each referenced within the series in the manner of the History of Brazil.
Can someone help me, please? If you just fix the template and insert it properly into the first article, I will do the rest.... 04:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Disputed
Marked "disputed". I provided arguments in #Merge proposals section above. I know this is bold and actually I expect a revert. --Kubanczyk (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There are differences of opinion
...on what a "guideline" is and what a page has to do to be one, but it's safe to say that this page isn't ready to be a guideline, at least not yet. Discussion is welcome. There was no discussion on making this page a guideline, no comments on the talk page since May, and it gets the main point wrong, confusing a "main" page with a "summary" page. - Dan
- The page was a guideline. The disputed tag was placed in May. Look at the post directly above this one.
- This discussion was over months ago, and so I restored the guideline tag.
- So the question is:
- Do you personally wish to make this guideline disputed? If so, then leave the disputed tag, and you can bring up your converns to attempt to start a discussion.
- But if not, then let's restore the guideline template. - jc37 01:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with your logic, and I was aware of all that. I also don't have a problem with my logic: per WP:SILENCE, if a page is demoted, and no one talks about it or does anything about it, it's not unreasonable to assume the page no longer has consensus to be a guideline.
- A guideline is something that has received a little care and attention, and has helped at least a few people get an issue resolved that they couldn't resolve without the guideline. The first sentence in the first section implies that a "main" page on Wikipedia is the same as a "summary" page, so this page hasn't any gotten care and attention, yet. For the second part: has this former guideline been helpful to you or others? If so, how? There are other pages that deal with these issues, such as send/receive) 01:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)]
- I don't have a problem with your logic, and I was aware of all that. I also don't have a problem with my logic: per
- Found another, a naming conventions page with a relevant example: send/receive) 01:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)]
- Found another, a naming conventions page with a relevant example:
- The answer to your first paragraph would be: "No, per WP:SILENCE)." The onus is on the one being bold to support the edit. Since there was no discussion to suggest that this is disputed by more than one editor, and several months of no discussion have gone by, the "disputed" tag should be removed, with the guideline restored. It's the same process used for "rejected" proposals.
- As for the rest, I'll comment more below, since Quiddity addressed it somewhat too. - jc37 00:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- The answer to your first paragraph would be: "No, per
- I'd like this to be (part of) a guideline, but I don't think it is one in its current state. It seems to only really cover "vertical series boxes", and the rest is just duplicated from elsewhere.
- That's the main problem, but corollary issues are: It doesn't separate the templates it covers into their own category.
- It often gets used to justify turning footer-navboxes into vertical-series-navboxes (because people who like/create templates often want them at the top of a page. (see Template:Video RPG and my too-subtle attempt to dissuade him at VPT)), sometimes starting edit-wars, or just redundant-duplication (see Template:Thelema and Template:Thelema series, or Template:European cinema and Template:Cinema of Europe).
- Actually, I'd rather see it get merged with a current guideline. We need to cut down on how many guideline pages there are, if possible (per ]
- Yes, I think you're right about cleaning this page up. Though I think it's more than just about navboxes (list pages come to mind), perhaps transforming this into a sort of WP:CLN for such templates (indicating in what instances it's more appropriate to use each type of template, or separate list pages) might be a very good idea. - jc37 00:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)]
- Yes, I think you're right about cleaning this page up. Though I think it's more than just about navboxes (list pages come to mind), perhaps transforming this into a sort of
- Maybe I'm wrong, jc. There's been a lot of grumbling in general in the last few months about the messy pile of guidelines; I'm detecting that people want us to be a little tougher. I do think the page needs cleaning up; please give me a shout when you guys have done some sweeping up, and best of luck. - Dan send/receive) 02:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)]
- Maybe I'm wrong, jc. There's been a lot of grumbling in general in the last few months about the messy pile of guidelines; I'm detecting that people want us to be a little tougher. I do think the page needs cleaning up; please give me a shout when you guys have done some sweeping up, and best of luck. - Dan
- SMcCandlish has just finished some work on send/receive) 01:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)]
- SMcCandlish has just finished some work on
- I'm a little late here, but I too agree that this page, at least in its present state, should not be a guideline. There should be a stricter definition of article series so that, as Quiddity says, the page will not be abused as justification for inappropriate usage of vertical series boxes. Waltham, The Duke of 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)