Wikipedia talk:Shrink, don't split

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When recently confronted with this issue, I was shocked to see that Wikipedia:Summary style suggests in its "This guideline in a nutshell" to split the page regardless. I figured I'd express the flip-side to that argument. → JARED (t)  02:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in many cases Wikipedians should shrink information about an aspect of a topic rather than splitting it off into a new article. I'm of the opinion that encyclopedia articles should be mere overviews of the subjects they discuss. Encyclopedia articles (and sub-articles) should never discuss a subject in anything approaching complete/full coverage. Librarylefty 07:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not? If we aim to create the "sum of human knowledge", then deliberately excluding information would be contrary to that aim. I think the real question to ask when creating a new subpage is, "is there enough verifiable information from which to create this page, and does it conflict with anything in WP:NOT (for instance, is it just an indiscriminate collection of information)?" If it passes those criteria, then a sourced article can be written containing information that can then be summarised on the main page. The problem I see with the essay is that it relies on very subjective judgements like what is "just cluttering up the page" or is "extraneous information" of "little value" - who is the arbiter on these issues? I believe firmly that we should not judge on what is "important" enough to be in Wikipedia - everything which satisfies the core policies should be included, and subpages are just a method to prevent articles getting too long. Trebor 14:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
And in the essay, I said that subpages shouldn't be the outlets for extraneous information! That it why I wrote this essay: because pages were getting too long, and users thought it appropriate to create subpages for each and every section, when they really should not have, for reasons in my explanation below. → JARED (t)  22:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
In what sense do you mean extraneous? Your explanation below seems to be saying that if something isn't the "meat and potatoes" of the main article, it doesn't doesn't deserve a subpage. I disagree. If there's lots of information on a topic, but it does not deserve a large section in the main article, a subpage is a way of keeping the information (which I can only see as good) without spoiling the main article. I'm sure there are people who want to read 10 pages on the etymology of the kangaroo, although I agree it shouldn't be the main focus of kangaroo. So 2 paragraphs will suffice on the main page, along with a link to an article that describes it further. Just so I understand you better, are you saying we should remove information rather than relocate it to a subpage? (In regards to a common sense policy - unfortunately the "common" sense of different people often disagrees.) Trebor 23:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I don't agree with your essay.In fact I think in most cases this is pure nonsense.

You say that people need to remember that a split article belongs to an bigger article and they should be aware of that.The fact of the matter is that almost 99% of all articles "belong" to a root article.From the article "earth" you can go down to "USA" and from there you should be able to go to "new york" ect..

I really don't see the point here.Articles are supposed to grow and information is supposed to be written.If your agenda is to get useless information out of wikipedia than you made the wrong opening argument.--Technosphere83 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, I'm not entirely sure you saw my point in the essay. I advocate Wikipedia's growth, but I do not think that pages should grow rampant with no basis of content. Sure, WP policy says what shouldn't be in an article, but it doesn't assert the common sense factor: if it's not as important as other stuff, don't elaborate on it. No one wants to read 10 paragraphs on the etymology of the word "kangaroo;" 2 paragraphs will suffice. Sure there's information out there to back up an entire page worth of etomology, but it's not the "meat and potatoes" of the article, and hence shouldn't deserve it's own page, let alone a large section!
I'm afraid I must disagree with you here. If there are ten paragraphs of things worth saying about the etymology of kangaroo, then there is no reason for Wikipedia not to say them. There are people who would want to read ten paragraphs on the subject: etymologists, for instance. Wikipedia need not be limited to being a reference source for the general public: it can also serve the professional scholars of the world. This is, in part, why splitting is so useful: if there are ten paragraphs to be said about the etymology of kangaroo, then split the full ten paragraphs (which would be of interest to etymologists) into their own article and leave the two paragraphs that are of interest to a layman in the original article. Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you think that "pages should (not) grow rampant with no basis of content." Do you mean that Wikipedia should not include things that are not factually based? If so, this is already policy. But in my opinion any fact that is verifiable deserves to be included in Wikipedia, no matter how obscure or unimportant to the average layperson. Quaerere 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
As for the "root article" thing, I may have worded it poorly, and I apologize. I was just addressing the articles that are directly and purposefully branched from another article, as Criticism of George W. Bush is from George W. Bush. → JARED (t)  22:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Common response. It seems that the people above disagree with the essay because they feel that it implies that we should not try to augment Wikipedia if it means filling it with "extraneous" stuff. That is not by far what I mean. Without putting words in my mouth, all I am saying in the essay is that information should not be expanded if it is in regards to something that is not generally notable. The etymology of the word "kangaroo" is definitely worth noting on the page, but the truth is that this is an encyclopedia. Is not a place for excessive definitions, or trivia, or news, etc. It reports useful information. And much of what is being added is useful, but some of it is not, and therefore a separate page of "nonsense" that will just go further off topic is not acceptable. I urge you, since I have placed this in public (for lack of a better term) space, to edit it to better word my thoughts. Essays are meant to show opinions, and I should hope that other people have the same opinions; this is a problem on a large scale, and it shouldn't go missed. → JARED (t)  23:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as an "excessive definition." Either a subject is properly defined from all angles, or it is not. If it is not, I see nothing wrong in creating a large subpage that does so. I also think that trivia and news are part of "the sum of all human knowledge." "Trivia" is really just exotic or unexpected bits of fact, which should be included in an encyclopedia. Clearly, news represents a change in the facts as we know them, so this also should be reflected in an encyclopedia. This is why pages should be split off from main articles. Subpages need to include all of these important elements that the main article cannot. --Danaman5 01:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
To use the cliche, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Trivia is exactly the only knowledge that should be excluded from Wikipedia. When JP06035 talks about the etymology of 'kangaroo', I think he's trying to think of something that's trivial, and coming up with a bad example.
It's a lot easier to add trivia to an article like Criticism of George W. Bush than it is to add trivia directly to George W. Bush, and that's why branches need to be keenly pruned. Wikipedia may want to become the sum of all human knowledge, but it should not become simply a regurgitation of all human knowledge. Good encyclopaedias represent a précis of knowledge — would you reach for an encyclopaedia if the articles inside were as long as every major textbook put together? — mholland 05:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the job of an encyclopaedia is to organise the knowledge, not to judge on worthiness to include it (provided, of course, it is verifiable and relevant). So yes, if I go to George W. Bush, I want a précis of him with the major facts included. But if I want to delve deeper, I may want a subpage on Criticism of George W. Bush. Or if I want more detailed information still, I may want a (sub)subpage on Domestic criticism of George W. Bush. I can choose the depth of information given by going to the appropriate page - none of the individual articles need to be really long.
I think there are two different issues here. Yes, before making a subpage, you should check that the information you're putting into it satisfies policy (i.e. it can be a proper article in its own right). You should check that the information already on the main page can't be written more succinctly and kept there - don't split for the sake of it. But I don't think you should remove information purely to avoid making a subpage. Trebor 09:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


"would you reach for an encyclopaedia if the articles inside were as long as every major textbook put together?"

-Yes I would,if it was organised well.Which is exacly a strong point of wikipedia.By having subpages you can choose how far you want to go into a certain topic.Wikipedia is not paper.Unless it's totally not notable it should be included. Otherwise were are you going to draw the line of stop splitting up a topic?How about we stop at the Universe article?I feel a slippery slope--Technosphere83 11:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why George W. Bush was chosen as a topic that shouldn't have subpages of subpages. The current President is one of the most notable subjects in Wikipedia, so almost anything about him is notable. A random page like Krokodilpoort would be a better example of a subject where a subpage of a subpage of a subpage would be a non-notable pothole in one of its roads. Art LaPella 06:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It was the first thing I came up with. If you want to change it, feel free. And it's not even because I don't like Bush—I'm a total Republican. → JARED (t)  20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)