Forum:Splitting pages

Is there a policy on splitting pages? If so, where? If not, can we work one out? Even if it's just "A PNA notice is required before information from one page can be split off (removed) to create another page." Might save a lot of trouble. --StarFire209 14:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Er... context helps. "It depends on the circumstance" is the big thing.  But yes, it should be brought up on a talk page no matter what.  Each time.  Always. -- Sulfur 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you and I (now) know that doesn't help the next guy. The Riker early life thing might have been less dramatic if there was a policy people could point to that said "you need a PNA and discussion before you remove more than X-number of lines from this page to create a new page." The Riker article wouldn't have been split in the first place which added some extra heat to the discussion that followed. We still would have the discussion but it would have taken place before the changes were made. Everything might have been exactly the same but maybe not. Just trying to find a way to make this move more smoothly. – StarFire209 17:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that simply "splitting some page in two" was the issue in that case - so yet another policy dealing with just that probably wouldn't help much. What was the issue was a very drastic change to an article that had been brought into exactly that form by dozens of editors during nearly 3.5 years.
 * That doesn't necessarily mean that "be bold" no longer applies in any case - but that a page history like that (plus FA status, even) might be considered as something at least similar to an existing consensus, and should not simply be ignored without discussion. -- Cid Highwind 18:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How is the new or inexperienced archivist supposed to know any of what you just said beforehand? There's no place that says "STOP! Talk this over before you make that kind of change." Which is why I think even a simple rule on splitting pages would help. – StarFire209 19:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't make it a rule... more of an actual guideline. I think we've had complaints in the past about over-regulating the site. When moving pages, there is already a disclaimer stating "WARNING! This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding." Perhaps have something similar on a policy page, saying it might be best to bring it (splitting up a page) up for discussion before actually doing it. I don't think an actual rule saying "Don't do this!" is necessary, though; if it's done without discussion, it can all be easily reverted. By the way, have you seen our James T. Kirk and Worf pages? Talk about something in need of a few splits. :P Not sure how we could go about it though... --From Andoria with Love 02:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant rule in a general sense. Guideline, disclaimer, something to wave a flag that says "wait a minute!" Yeah, it's easy to revert but not having to revert is easier. I understand the issue with over-regulation. (I've written programming guidelines several times over the past 20 years. Too much, people complain you're stifling creativity.  Too little, your software isn't consistent or doesn't work well.  All you can do is hope to find a middle ground.)  BTW, I'm not recommending any changes for those two. You got some third tier Klingon warrior's page that needs splitting? :) – StarFire209 03:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A third tier Klingon page... hmmm... not off-hand, but if I find one, you'll be the first to know. ;) But, yeah, a disclaimer like the one you propose probably wouldn't hurt. --From Andoria with Love 03:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)