Talk:Cerebellar ataxia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Proposing redirection to a more-complete article

I don't want to be the third party to anyone else's edit war, but as someone who just stumbled into this article today, it seems to have considerably less information on the subject than does Ataxia. Barring some immediate expansion that's waiting in the wings, I propose that this article be changed to simply redirect to Ataxia. The BBC NEWS link that seems to be the only unique thing here can be added to Ataxia. --CliffC 22:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Cerebellar ataxia is a well-defined and distinct condition, as the links in the infobox make clear. Within a year this page will be far better than the content currently in ataxia. The ataxia page has no references, and it provides a laundry-list of possible causes, without relating the causes to the results of a Romberg's test. We need content that is more granular, more precise, and in compliance with WP:MEDMOS. But we'll never get there if we keep redirecting to ataxia. We need to make more precise distinctions in the other neurology pages, and we need this page to support those distinctions. (You can see the pages that used to link to cerebellar ataxia before they were removed this morning.) If this page isn't much longer in a year, I'd remove my objection to a merge, but I don't think it would come to that. --Arcadian 00:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

You say "Within a year this page will be far better than the content currently in ataxia." While I agree wholeheartedly with the goals you state, it seems that in the interim users doing a simple direct search for cerebellar ataxia will find less information on the subject immediately presented than they would have found yesterday. I suggest that until your article is complete you simply copy the cerebellar ataxia section from Ataxia into it so that users seeking information don't get shortchanged, or develop your article in a private sandbox until its content meets or surpasses what's currently in Ataxia. --CliffC 21:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If you support a merge, please add the proposed merge tag to the page, to facilitate further discussion. --Arcadian 13:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that what I 'm asking for would be classified as a merge. If by "a merge" you mean some action that would get the missing information back into one place quickly, then I'm all for it. However, I don't know how to make such a proposal and I fear that if it's done wrong some wiki-door will slam and it will no longer be possible to raise the subject. Perhaps some editor observing this who is more experienced than I will volunteer to cast the plain English words that I have written above into a proper merge tag or proposal? Or perhaps you would be so kind as to do this yourself, since you are an admin and presumably would know the proper format. --CliffC 20:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Arcadian, you have been asked repeatedly to gain consensus for splitting / branching out before proceeding. I agree with your stated goal of expanding on the main article, but creating a new article with less information than the main page is not the way to do that, and makes searching for that info more difficult (as CliffC remarked). Again, if you want to develop an article that is more extensive than the current one, feel free to do it either in a sandbox or by adding information to the main page. If you instead wish to split, meet the request for consensus first. --Nehwyn 16:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)