Wikipedia talk:Article series
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] 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 - Gareth Aus 06:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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 Category:Wikipedia style guidelines). The problem is that sudden change of the subject made the title inappropriate. The term "article series" intuitively refers to a situation where you have a group of loosely coupled "sister" articles, that are not suitable for Wikipedia:Summary style. And this article provides guideline exclusively for the latter now! (By the way it unnecessarily duplicates 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)
[edit] 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 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict). What are really the benefits of having multiple articles? I don't find that the readability is impeded by an article being long; rather, it becomes one easy point of reference since you don't need to look in other articles for certain information, and the context that the surrounding information can provide a paragraph may also be very desirable. I did split up an article I'm actively contributing to (Speedrun), because it seems to be the default practice and it was asked for on the talk page, but I'd personally prefer monolithic articles over this approach. So maybe you could help me out here a little? I think that this project page should also address my question, since it doesn't really explain why pages need to be broken up sometimes. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 07:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
