Talk:List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle

Too big
This page - at 539,536 bytes - is currently the sixth largest on Wikipedia. How can it be reduced, or subdivided? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Splitting this article
Since this article is currently at 616,487 bytes, and is currently the largest on the wiki, I suggest we split this article. I propose splitting it by decade: To be honest we could even merge some of them together.
 * List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (1940s)
 * List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (1950s)
 * List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (1960s)
 * List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (1970s)
 * List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (1980s)
 * List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (1990s)
 * List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (2000s)
 * List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (2010–present)

Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, but we should wait until Abbasulu finishes adding all of the content into the article. zsteve21 (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm done. I've added all her songs in this article which is 7,820 songs. You may now split the article. Abbasulu (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for thinking this. I don’t disagree. But this idea didn’t come to mind before that, although there is a similar group of articles on Mohammed Rafi. But there should be a mother article which will contain all those sub-articles. Abbasulu (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That is usually the case when splitting articles. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the article be split into one for the 1948-59, 1960-69, 1970-79, 1980-present. I can do this if nobody else wants to do so before I do. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I have a better idea. How about leaving it the fuck alone? The template says This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. But no one "reads" this page -- it's just a gigantic list. As far as "navigating", the most likely way someone will want to navigate it is to, say, search for a vaguely-remembered title. Why the fuck should they have to open 8 different pages to do that? Or maybe the reader's interested in all those songs recorded by this singer which were written by Hansraj Behl -- again, why should they have to jump around among 8 different pages to find that info?I've got no problem say thing that these page-split busybodies are some of the biggest net negatives we have on the project. What you're doing is worse than useless. You're wasting your time and others' time while impairing the reader's ability to find out what he wants and learn new things. Jesus, it's incredible. EEng 23:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles are routinely split and merged for the benefit of readers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it doesn't benefit readers when it's done by people who just look at raw wikisource character counts. EEng 23:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have split the list into two for now. The 1948-79 part could probably itself be split in two, but I will leave that to others. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And I have undone that. Pinging a couple editors with common sense:, , . This mindless splitting nonsense stops here and now. EEng 23:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. All participants should be mindful of Canvassing and be cautious when notifying other users. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Tell you what: open an ANI thread and we'll have a little community discussion about your relentless, mindless preoccupation with splitting stuff. EEng 03:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No answer. Huh. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 14:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅I think so too. 3point1415 (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no readability issue to justify splitting it. That would be a disservice to readers who would have to repeat searches of each article when trying to find something. Splitting makes it much harder to find info and perform research. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Why hasn't 123IP been topic banned from splitting articles? This OCD obsession is really disruptive, and edit warring is bad. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The entire list is too difficult to read and navigate, which is why editors have supported splitting the article. Virtually all topics are split between many pages, and splitting this article would add one or two more while greatly improving readability. Your claim that I have a mental disorder is a personal attack, and does not belong on an article talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Stricken. Your obsession with long articles and splitting them is still a problem at times, especially list articles with no obviously specific undue topic that should be split off because it creates an undue issue. Those splits just make it more difficult for readers. Readers don't "read" these lists. They look for specific mentions and search for them, and splitting makes it harder for them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Tsk, tsk, you said "obsession"! You're not allowed to say that even if it's true. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 03:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The reflection on a fellow editor still does not belong on an article talk page, which is for discussing the article. Though readers may not read list articles in their entirety, they do not read list articles by looking for specific mentions of entries either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, splitting narrows down the specific page search. They can easily find what they are looking for in one of the articles. So splitting actually helps readers find what they are looking for easier. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's completely ridiculous, and pretty much epitomizes the mindless illogic of this splitting obsession.
 * Let's say I'm looking for the song, "Chale Hain Teer Nazar Ke". With a single page, I just open the page and use -F to search. With a split, I have to do that over and over on several pages. So how did splitting help?
 * Or let's say I'm looking for songs written by Hansraj Behl. Once again, with a single page I just open the page and use -F to search. With a split, I have to do that over and over on several pages. So how did splitting help?
 * So what in the world are you talking about? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 22:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You do have a point there, but it also depends on how the article is split. If the article is split alphabetically (as many articles are) it narrows down the search by looking for the specific letter of the alphabet. Also, it depends on how many articles it is split into. The current article was split into three articles, which isn't many. Splitting by decade also helps if you already know what year the song came out in. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 13:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * EEng, I couldn't have put it better. Unless there is a clear "undue" issue, with some subtopic getting inflated importance/coverage in relation to the whole topic such that splitting it off into a proper sub-article, most list articles should not be split based solely on size. For example, if all of Trump's lying were put in his biography, that would clearly overwhelm the article, so the current splits are proper, and the bio has links to those articles.
 * Blubabluba9990, we have to assume that a reader is ignorant, so their search of just one article is best for them. It's all right there and not located in other, to them unknown, locations. Experienced editors can navigate this stuff much easier than visitors to Wikipedia, and we must write for readers and create articles for them. Splitting makes it more difficult for readers. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really. Unless you are illiterate, you can easily understand where an article would be located. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Where an article would be located"??? – What does that even mean??? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 02:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean where it would be listed, regardless of which page. Blubabluba9990 (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your meaning remains elusive. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 02:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You would search "Chale Hain Teer Nazar Ke" in the Wikipedia search bar. If a reader wanted to find this particular song, they would not be finding this article to then search for the song. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to decide whether your strategy in these discussions is to adopt a deliberate pose of obtuseness. Obviously the use case is a desire to execute searches such as those hypothesized in the specific context of songs recorded by Asha Bhosle: "Chale Hain Teer Nazar Ke" as recorded by Asha Bhosle; songs by Hansraj Behl recorded by Asha Bhosle. If you think all searches can be done via the search bar then you may as well not have list pages at all. DUH! <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 02:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Searching for "Chale Hain Teer Nazar Ke" leads to this article as the first result, and would lead to whichever article the list entry would be contained in. That is much easier for a Wikipedia reader than somehow finding this particular article and then searching for the song. Clearly, that is not the "use case" for this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So deliberate obtuseness it is. 12:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Given this is a list from a well-defined and quite singular topic, what is the existing issue with readability or navigability? CMD (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The extreme length and size make it difficult to read and navigate the article. It is certainly not unusual to split large list articles, particularly for songs by Indian playback artists, Mohammed Rafi being another prominent example. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You just keep parroting the same meaningless pseudo-justifications. LISTS AREN'T "READ"; NAVIGATION, IF ANY, IS BY THE T.O.C. AND/OR TEXT SEARCHING, BOTH OF WHICH WORK JUST FINE; THERE'S NOTHING TO FIX. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 03:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Chipmunkdavis' question was broad and I answered it. Navigation of a list article like this is by the table of contents and by scrolling, both of which are extremely large, even for a list article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So the TOC is extremely large. SO WHAT? It's easier to bounce among a bunch of pages than to scroll through a TOC? You're just obsessed with the idea that whatever's big must be cut down, period. Find something useful to do. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 14:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The article can be split into two articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As usual, you haven't answered the question, merely stated a tautology. I'm beginning to think a topic-ban really is needed for you. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The questions seemed to be rhetorical, so I responded to the suggestion that I was proposing to split the article into "a bunch of pages", when two or three would be adequate, at least for now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OK then: It's easier to bounce among a bunch of page bounce between two spearate pages than to scroll through a TOC? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 16:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of those are particularly relevant to the issue of this article being too large. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the natural split though? This is already a split into language, which is understandable. Music in a certain language seem a natural category. There doesn't seem to be a natural split in the current article, which is arbitrarily split by decade. CMD (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We all know the answer: the natural "split" is to leave it as is. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 03:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, splitting by language is not ideal in this case. Asha Bhosle's works are predominantly in Hindi, with relatively few works in other languages, none of which in my opinion are numerous enough for their own list except for the Hindi works. It is worth mentioning that the artist's songs are already split, so anybody arguing that this particular list article should not be split is still arguing that the entire list of songs should be split.
 * As for the natural split, a time-based split would be the most natural, to split the works reasonable into two (or more) articles, with decades being the least arbitrary. The article is already separated into yearly and decade sections, and sections are the standard measure of natural splits of articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What makes the decades unarbitrary? Were there some changes to her career or themes or musical style that coincide with those years? CMD (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This is the problem with someone running around slicing things up who knows nothing about the topic. If there was some need to split the article (which there isn't), someone with topic-area knowledge might know some sensible fault line along which to make a useful split. Instead we just have a butcher slashing randomly. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 14:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Splitting by decade is still an arbitrary point and I wouldn't say otherwise. It's simply the least arbitrary but still meaningful point to split. Splitting list articles at such points is routine, as most historical topics are split at months, years, decades or centuries according to the scale of the given topic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Huh. I guess I'll just repeat what I said earlier: This is the problem with someone running around slicing things up who knows nothing about the topic. If there was some need to split the article (which there isn't), someone with topic-area knowledge might know some sensible fault line along which to make a useful split. Instead we just have a butcher slashing randomly. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In most cases where there is not such "fault line", as in this case, the article is split by units of time. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But you wouldn't know since you know nothing of the topic area. In your mind that gives you the excuse to be the butcher slashing randomly. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Splitting at 1970 or 1980 would be the most natural way and least arbitrary way to split the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're like a broken record. Why don't you move on to enwp's second-largest page and mindlessly propose that it be split, so we can repeat the process? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 08:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're really addressing whether a list article like this should even exist. I feel it somehow violates our PAG as an exhaustive list, but I'm not sure how. I don't think we are supposed to be thorough to this extent for something like songs. It should be possible for the list to link to outside sources where the lists exist, and thus reduce the size of the list. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Official splitting proposal
Seeing as this is now the largest article on Wikipedia, let's discuss splitting this article without back-and-forth bickering. The discussion above got nowhere.

Per @Blubabluba9990, I agree that the songs should be split into decades--there is no need for this absurdly huge article when it'd be easier to navigate in terms of decades (i.e., List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (1940s), List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle (1950s) and so forth).

I'm asking for simple Support, Oppose, Neutral, or Comment replies, with discussion to be expanded under each person's initial vote. Ghost pinging those involved in the initial discussion for inclusion of their comments, ideas, and suggestions. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 16:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This would not be easier to navigate by splitting it up, it's scrolling down either way. The decadal splits seem entirely arbitrary and would require knowledge of both a song name *and the decade in which it was released* in order to find it easily here. In concept, this is a single list with an understandable unified purpose and theme. It isn't an article of prose for which we want to provide a crafted overview, it's a simple list. The size is not important to the function of the page. CMD (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't a "single list", unless the split articles would also be described as single lists. There is nothing particularly whole about this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with CMD. Size alone is not a sufficient reason to justify splitting this type of list article. Such a split would make the information less accessible for readers and more difficult for them to find. No one reads a list like this in the same way they would read a prose article, so "readability" is a red herring. Readers should be able to find information with a single search. They can do that now, and a split will not benefit them. They do no care about any "size" guidelines. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Valjean and CMD's arguments. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose, there is already two split-up of this article available in Wikipedia. And many people love to search all the songs of a specific singer under a single music director or lyricist. So, it'll be difficult for them to find all the songs of Asha Bhosle which she sang under the music direction of Kalyanji–Anandji, which are 297 songs in total, they'll have to go through 5 or 6 different articles (since she sang some songs for them in every decade). Or, If anyone wants to collect all the duets of Asha Bhosle and Mohanmed Rafi, they'll have to go through 6 different articles. And this is irritating for any user. Abbasulu (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that this article should be split, due to its incredible size. This should primarily be seen as a credit to the creation of this content, which is clearly worthy of multiple pages. To say that this article, the largest of Wikipedia, should not be split, would be to say that there are no articles left on Wikipedia that should be split. This would be absurd given that the list of Asha Bhosle songs is already split by language. The arguments that readers of this list search for individual songs are not based in evidence, and ignores that readers generally search Wikipedia using the in-built search bar rather than their browser's search function. There is no evidence that readers are using this article to search for specific songs.
 * Instead of being instinctively against splitting this article, this discussion should be constructive. We could quite simply have one entire list of the works of Asha Bhosle in a less detailed format across all languages, while also splitting the extended detailed list of Hindi songs into two or three articles. This way there is still an entire list of every Asha Bhosle song, there wouldn't be a burdensomely large page doing so, and the extended detail would still be preserved. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How many ducking times does it have to be explained to you that your assertion that this is the "largest page" on WP is based on the character count of the wikisource, which is completely and utterly irrelevant. Yet you keep referring to it as if it matters. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no problem specifying that I am referring to the character count when saying this is the largest article. No matter the measurement, this is an extremely large article. I have said much more than to point out the size of this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't. You've done plenty of handwaving (faulty handwaving, that is) to try to convince us that little split-up articles are no harder to use that a single comprehensive one, but your only justification for why you'd want to split it in the first place is that its big. And I think it's great that you admit that you're using a character count as a criterion; now if you'd only acknowledge that it's the wikisource character count, and that therefore it's totally irrelevant to what the reader sees or experiences (you do know that, don't you?) then we'd be getting somewhere. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 18:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No answer. Huh. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have a question, I can answer it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do have a question, and I asked it, but you didn't answer. Here, let me repeat it for you: the wikisource character count [is] totally irrelevant to what the reader sees or experiences (you do know that, don't you?). Now go ahead and answer please, as promised. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The character count is not irrelevant, it is indicative of size. It is one of the metrics used to measure the size of an article, and the size of an article is relevant to the reader's experience. This has been well-established for at least twenty years on Wikipedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You really, really don't understand that difference between wikisource size and prose size? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 04:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Prose size" is a size measure for prose articles which counts the readable characters excluding elements such as tables and infoboxes. "Wikisource size" measures the amount of characters used to format and write a particular article, which excludes the full size of templates. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So you do understand that wikisource size isn't a measure of anything the reader sees? Then why do you keep referring to it? <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Contrary to what the OP says, the prior thread got exactly where one would expect it to: numerous demonstrations of why splitting makes things harder, countered by endless repetitions of the bare assertion that big pages should be made smaller, as if that was self-evident. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral I can see the reasons why you would keep the article as it is. However, many of the songs listed here are uncited. There are also a good amount of films featuring her music that don't have any citations either. My proposal is to add even more citations to the songs that she's recorded, especially since her most notable songs are trapped in a sea of lesser-known songs.  Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 17:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support As original proposer. This article is over 600,000 bytes long, and is the largest article on the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubabluba9990 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow. This discussion has been going on for almost two months now, and we've still got participants who think the size of the wikisource is somehow relevant. Amazing. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Does this list need to be on Wikipedia? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a directory of indiscriminate data? I would propose removing everything except the songs that are for films with articles, and stand-alone songs that have articles themselves. But if you think this belongs on Wikipedia, I support the proposal of splitting the list per original proposal. Betseg (talk) 11:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with the proposer of the split. The article is unnecessarily long and it would be better to split it into decades. Also I agree with Betseg, the article as a whole might not even be relevant to be on Wikipedia as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE (but that's another discussion). DemianStratford (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for any justification for splitting beyond "It big!" and, specifically, for any explanation of how splitting helps the reader. Plenty of examples have been given of how it hurts the reader. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The problems with pages being as large as this one have been explained on this talk page and in many other places across Wikipedia for a very long time. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, if circular logic along the lines of "big pages are bad because they're big" counts as explaining. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, in case that's not obvious. See my post immediately above. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 19:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Only one vote per user is allowed in polls. I would kindly advice to please remove this second vote in bold in order to prevent confusion in the future or edit the bold type and comment so things are clearer. Thanks. DemianStratford (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the only vote this user has cast. The previous ones were comments to different users and none of them had any vote in bold font. Abbasulu (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's accurate. EEng's first vote in bold is clearly right above Yoshiman6464's neutral vote. This is the second vote and should not be allowed. It's confusing in a poll when a user votes twice. DemianStratford (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * DemianStratford is referring to the 11 October vote. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies. This idiotic discussion has been dragging on so long that my faculties have been numbed and befogged. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – This article is sluggish on my older computer. Splitting for the sake of size is well-established in policy (WP:NCLONGLIST). Ovinus (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Older computer? Is that any logic? And how did you become interested in an Indian singer's songography? If it was songs of different languages, I myself would go for split for each language. Abbasulu (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Splitting by language doesn't provide much benefit, as the vast majority of the work has been in one language. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hm. Is it still "sluggish" after loading? 3point1415 (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This article is 642,960 which is SIX TIMES the top limit where WP:TOOBIG suggests an article be split. But what is most baffling to me is how emotional editors are getting about what should be a routine page management discussion. It's like you think the reputation of the project is at stake. And that you are assuming bad faith on the part of editors who just think it would actually serve our readers if the article was viewable in mobile devices. THe majority of our readers use mobile devices, not laptops or desktop computers, and pages that are overly large like this one can be difficult to read or navigate. Some folks are so concerned about readers searching for a particular song but how about having pages that will actually load? And please stop the personal attacks and snide remarks about each other. This is a decision about one article's readability, not a struggle for the soul of Wikipedia. Whether this article gets split or stays as it is, editing work on the project will continue. Let's collaborate & discuss, not swear and attack each other. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 00:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm astounded at you, . The number you're quoting is the size of the wikisource, not the download size, "readable prose size" (what TOOBIG is talking about), or anything else relevant to the reader's experience. Where do you get that it's not viewable on mobile devices? -- it loads no problem on my rickety old iPhone 6. Furthermore, in a small way this really is a struggle for the soul of WP. We have a determined group of people who run around tagging stuff for splitting based on completely mindless formulas (which themselves, it has been repeatedly shown, are just some arbitrary figures someone made up one day) with no regard for what best serves the reader -- this preposterous proposal's ghost still alive as seen at WT:Article_size. Such nonsense is the sort had in mind when he wrote about...
 * editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all ... Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article ...
 * <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, ma, I'm famous! Thanks for the cite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if the 600,000 figure is only the source size, the readable size of this article is over 400,000 characters, and the download size is always larger than the source size, therefore exceeds 600,000. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, according to Prosesize, the readable prose size is 11 bytes. Lists aren't read. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 04:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All the words and punctuation readable in the article exceed 400,000 characters. Lists are obviously read, as the vast majority of readers open Wikipedia articles in order to read the articles. This is not a prose article, so "readable prose size" doesn't apply, or else you would find yourself claiming that this article is only 11 bytes large, making this Wikipedia's largest stub article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Lists are obviously read. you would find yourself claiming that this article is only 11 bytes large – I'm claiming that exactly. The function of a page like this is to be consulted (or skimmed for patterns, or searched for particular things); they're certainly not "read" in any meaningful sense. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 20:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support At 643,140 bytes, this article is now the largest outright, according to Special:LongPages. The previous thread was marred by repetitively arguing with every participant, including personal attacks directed at, and most other users seem to support splitting. There is no reasonable split that doesn't leave a too-large or too-small sublist other than by decade. Splitting by decade is a fairly straightforward and standard way of dividing long chronological lists — and definitely no more arbitrary than the decades themselves. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 03:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If repeatedly rebutting nonsense is spoiling the thread, then I'm guilty. "It's the largest" is absolutely no argument for splitting at all. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 04:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no instance of splitting a singers songd by decade. All the articles have a complete list of songs in a particular languages. Only vbecause the article's size is large, it shouldn't be split by some ground new standard.Abbasulu (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support This article is way too big to be read confortably in one go. Trying to scroll all the way down using the wheel of my mouse took me multiple minutes. It is simply too uncomfortable to try and read this article. Splitting at the very least in half is for me a necessary. Maxime12346 (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's split into 8 articles, then the only change for the hypothetical person who wants to read the list of every Hindi song recorded by Asha Bhosle who you are modelling is that they will have to click into 8 pages instead of 1. It will not help them at all.
 * For the people who want to find a particular song by year, this is fine already - there are sections for each. For the people who want to ctrl+F for a song, this is far better than the split version.
 * I can't identify a use case better served by splitting. CharredShorthand (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * By your same argument, we should fuse all articles of list of wars :
 * List of wars: before 1000
 * List of wars: 1000–1499
 * List of wars: 1500–1799
 * List of wars: 1800–1899
 * List of wars: 1900–1944
 * List of wars: 1945–1989
 * List of wars: 1990–2002
 * List of wars: 2003–present
 * If I need to find a war, I am not going to look for it on Wikipedia but on Google. Maxime12346 (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Merging those war lists together is a fine idea. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 13:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Except that it would make the article a whopping 888,148 bytes ! Editing the article on list of battles by geographical location is already very hard for me because my computer keep running out of memory. This is the same thing for this article, it is so big that editing it become an issue for those with less powerful computers. Splitting would make it easier in terms of load time. Moreover, saying that leaving all of the songs together in one list is absurd. As if I am looking for a specific song, that means I know its name and if I know its name that also means I know when it was created. So there would be no issue in splitting as I would know in which of the list to look for a specific song. Putting every song together is just making it HARDER to find a specific song as similar results can be find during one research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxime12346 (talk • contribs)
 * if I know its name that also means I know when it was created – That is, of course, ridiculous. As for your editing difficulties, see WP:SECTIONEDIT. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 15:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's break down your argument. You say that keeping all of those songs together is necessary to find a specific one with CTRL + F. Now if you're looking for a specific song, it obviously means you know a least one of its characteristics. Let's break them down :
 * - Year :
 * - List of Hindi songs by Asha Bhosle by date (Which can be split by date)
 * - Film it is from :
 * - List of Hindi songs by Asha Bhosle by film of origin (Which can be split by letters [ex : (A-L) and (M-Z)]
 * - Song name :
 * - List of Hindi songs by Asha Bhosle by alphabetical order (Which can also be split by letters [ex: (A-L) and (M-Z)]
 * - Music director :
 * - List of Hindi songs by Asha Bhosle by music director (Which can also be split by letters [ex: (A-L) and (M-Z)]
 * - Lyricist :
 * - List of Hindi songs by Asha Bhosle by lyricist (Which can also be split by letters [ex: (A-L) and (M-Z)]
 * - Co-singer(s)
 * - List of collaborative Hindi songs by Asha Bhosle
 * Would you agree that splitting this article along these characteristics would make it easier to find a specific song ? Since that seems to be your prime objective. Maxime12346 (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We're not going to have six redundant presentations of the same information, each split into subpages, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Nor is "to find a specific song" my primary objective; tn fact, the use case repeatedly invoked is that one in which a reader wants to search on fragmentary information (a partial title, for example), in including searches that would find multiple songs. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my reply to the above. CharredShorthand (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support: Articles of this length can cause technical issues for many users and should be split (WP:SIZESPLIT). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking duplicate vote. Oppose splitting. It would make information much harder to find. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a duplicate of a vote from 10 October. I would kindly advise to remove the vote from the comment. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that. That's a long time ago. I thought this was a new RfC. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Characteristics as which to split this article.
As the current consensus seems to support the splitting of this article (5 opposed to 8 supporting), I believe it is time time to proceed with the split of this article. Now as explained in my comment above, it is important to decide upon the characteristic which with we will proceed to do the split. I propose we split the article based either on the date the songs were made or on the title alphabetically. Please respond to this with your thoughts. Maxime12346 (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused about the nature of Wikipedia's WP:Consensus process, which does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Consensus springs from arguments based on guidelines and policty, not head counts. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 00:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Right. To split a singer's songs list in same language is not permissible in wikipedia rules. There isn't any previous example they could show in favor of splitting this article. So, my vote would go for retaining the article as it is. Abbasulu (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As you are surely aware, List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi is split into fifteen articles. We only need to split the Asha Bhosle list into a few articles. Since this article is already written chronologically, the simplest option would be to split the article chronologically. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that discussions are decided purely by amounts of editors, but the support for splitting this article is even larger, at 11 in support to 6 against, unless I have missed someone. Pigsonthewing, Blubabluba9990, Zsteve21, Onetwothreeip, Betseg, DemienStratford, Ovinus, Liz, LaudryPizza03, Maxime123456 and CharredShorthand Thebiguglyalien support splitting, while EEng, Valjean, Chipmunkdavis, ReneeWrites, Abbasulu and Thebiguglyalien CharredShorthand have expressed opposition. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Onetwothreeip In fact I oppose splitting; make that 10 to 7. Though... not a vote. CharredShorthand (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's problematic when you want to search for a song in a specific year of that singer, but then go through another article for getting that. Abbasulu (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I misplaced your opposition with Thebiguglyalien's support. Still 11 to 6, I just had the last two the wrong way around. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So, it's still 8 vs 7 result including your late opposition. So, I think this article should remain as it is. Abbasulu (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As I listed, there are clearly eleven editors in favour of splitting and six against it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that it's a vote or anything. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 21:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct, not a vote. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There has been some kerfuffle over this close, during which one of my reverts deleted a comment from User:Onetwothreeip, made after the close (which the same user believes is invalid). By request, I have restored the comment, which should be considered a reply to the closing statement, as the first reply to this comment below. I have done this as placing it in the position it was originally would require myself removing the close templates and moving the closing statement, which I do not want to get into. CharredShorthand (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * There are a few different measures of article size, and readable prose size is one of them listed in the main size guideline. While the readable prose size is not strictly applicable to this article if defined as readable content outside of the tables, I've stated previously that the readable size of the article is over 400,000 bytes, which is certainly enough to merit splitting. The consensus here is not that any policy should be overturned, it is that splitting this article would be well within established policy and guideline. The list of Asha Bhosle songs is already split over four articles, so we should be beyond discussing whether this article should be split, and consider how. Wikipedia:AS exempts lists from "readable prose size", being not prose articles, but very explicitly endorses splitting lists, Very large articles should be split into logically separate articles. Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically., and Splitting makes multiple mentions regarding splitting list articles. I don't think this discussion needs to be officially closed either, but it wouldn't be done by an editor previously involved in the editing dispute. Either way, I am willing to continue having this discussion open. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm all for continuing the discussion as long as you want, since that will reduce the time available to you for opening even more obsessive, absurd split proposals elsewhere. The amount of community time spent on dealing with a small number of editors who do little or nothing but go around proposing that stuff be split, for no reason other than their personal ideas that big is bad, is unbelievable. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 22:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Another Splitting Discussion
This article is ridiculous, with a crappy computer I can barely even load this article, that is completly unnacceptable, it violates the article size policy by a large amount, give me one good reason why this SHOULDN'T be split, yes going into multiple articles might be a minor inconvience, but it is better than barely being able to load the page, multiple users have expressed concern but it keeps getting shut down with the same reason "Multiple aricles are inconvient" so is a 30 second loading time, this has no reason to be this long. ~With regards, I followed The Username Policy (Message Me) (What I have done on Wikipedia) 03:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

And still growing
The article has now reached 649,440 bytes of markup code. This is ridiculous. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * this seriously needs to be split. I'll see if I can start up a discussion on it. List be darned, there's good reason a page should not exceed 256K. I can barely access the main page without it hogging my internet for a good minute. - MountainKemono (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I should also specify, the list of ISO standards went through a similar issue back in 2018 which was solved with naught much fuss. It's odd how this article out of all of them hasn't been split yet. - MountainKemono (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * It hasn't been split because we're finally holding the line against people mindlessly calling for splits based on someone's vague intuition 20 years ago. I guess for the 1000th time we're going to have to explain to people the the byte count of the sourced text has nothing to do with anything. I'm using an iPhone 7 on 4G right now and the article loads on 2 seconds. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 16:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * respect where due, that's not quite an argument to keep an article at its current size. Wikipedia is not built with sound rules in mind, but we should still compensate for both readers and editors where connections are slow. Case in point, I get about a solid 15mbps upload and download. - MountainKemono (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The same with Sexton Blake books. Abbasulu (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed, nearly 650k is excessive. And and others are certainly right to question the quality of the lists and show concern about lack of sources. The big grey tables with films highlighted first isn't a good look.  I personally would prefer a A-Z condensed list of the most notable songs with some sourced information summarising them, though I know that many of our Indian editors would object to this and want them to be as comprehensive as possible. If we continue with this big list then it badly needs to be revamped I think. ♦  Dr. Blofeld  15:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Make that 101 explanations. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 18:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I never realised it was so big. I had no impression of the size of it, when I looked at it, before the Afd. Its massive. I'm definently pro big-article, if you don't know. Broadband and 5G support them it the west and most of asia. Many of the films here are non-notable as are the songs. Even on the notable films, there is many songs that are not notable. In any case, it needs to checked and rigourously filtered to take out the dross.   scope_creep Talk  16:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that regardless of if we trim out the fat on this article we may need to be split it regardless. Asha Bhosle has written so much music its about 50% the way of hiting MediaWiki's size limit. - MountainKemono (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Request to split this article.
For as long as I have been on wikipedia (which is 2018 if you include my older now deleted account) this article has been the largest one on the website. This seriously needs to be split. Me, along with multiple other users have argued for the article to at least be split into 2, or into corresponding decades. We are far overdue a discussion for this. let us try and do this formally, without being massive pillocks to each other in the process. Thanks - MountainKemono (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The massive pillocks approach has worked well so far, so I don't know why we'd tamper with success. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 15:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a massive violation of WP:CIVIL, that's why it isn't acceptable. We need a general consensus, not just one or two people shouting over a majority to get their way. The article's network data alone is 1.73mb in traffic, excluding all the other elements the webpage loads. Other lists are about 300K-600K in size for network traffic. This list at least needs a dedicated section to the 70s and 80s to shave 300K off. MountainKemono (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * How about a list of songs before 1980 and one from 1980 to present? Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If we can get a proper consensus? I give that the thumbs up. - MountainKemono (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said long ago, I support the splitting of this article based on that characteristic (see above). So I support that idea. Additionally, we could do on top of that split another split based on alphabetical order. Maxime12346 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I got done splitting Glagolithic Scripts a few days ago. I'm more than happy to aid in the splitting of this page. A larger page size takes much longer to load, impairs accessibility, and decreases navigability. Sink Cat (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Has anyone ever thought to use Template:Excerpt? One could split this article into edit-manageable sizes, then use Template:Excerpt to knit them all back together for a reader. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Mohsin Raza shah
mohsin 2404:3100:1C04:3DC9:1:0:7063:3EA (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)