Talk:MGM Resorts International

History split
I would suggest that the history section, while absolutely core to the company's history to address @Toohool's concerns, is a bit too long with regard to article size. I'm concerned that the size issue could be split up. with a much more reasonable idea of keeping a more elaborate version of the history on History of MGM Resorts whilst retaining the core components here. Given that MGM has a much longer history than most companies, especially for ones founded in the last half-century, I would say that there deserves to be some split, no matter how much ultimately remains here. I think that how we have done Apple Inc's history could be a good model.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 16:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It needs to be edited, not forked. A separate article just becomes a junk heap that doesn't get many readers and doesn't get maintained as well as the main article. (Maybe not for a company with an intense following like Apple, but MGM is not in that league.) What's needed is to trim extraneous and redundant details, and to thematically combine and summarize related facts so that it's less of a proseline and retains the important facts in a more concise form. But that requires deep engagement with the material, something for which there are not many volunteers. Toohool (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that with the over 100K bytes of data, at least at first glance, a History fork could be executed in line with policies. I would say MGM Resorts is at least close to the league of Apple; it certainly hasn't received the same attention but that doesn't preclude sources from existing and making the fork able to work.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 16:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It just doubles the problem. If there are not enough editors interested in spending the time to whip the material into shape in one article, then there certainly aren't enough to whip two version of the material into shape. Toohool (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)