Talk:Radzyner Law School

Untitled
I removed a prod that seemed frivolous to me. I think prod placers should comply with WP:BEFORE. As for the utility or lack thereof, of merging this material into a broader article. I realize some quality control volunteers favor trying to cram smaller articles that can stand on their own into larger articles. But they are forgetting that Wikipedia is not paper. This is a grave disservice to readers, for several reasons: So, lets give more thought to whether merging is a good idea? Geo Swan (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) frivolous and unnecessary merging degrades the utility of watchlists.  Someone should be able to have just the Radzyner Law School on their watchlist, without being advised of every edit to the institution to which it is attached.
 * 2) our readers navigation to the information they want is more convenient when that information is spread among richly-linked single topic articles, than when unnecessary and frivolous merges shoehorn multiple topics into a single omnibus article.
 * 3) Clicking on a wikilink is a more convenient scrolling, or searching within a large, omnibus, multi-topic article.
 * 4) When a reader checks out a small, single-topic article, by clicking on its wikilink, and decides it did not contain the information they were reading, they can return to where they were simply by clicking their back button.  This is not possible when we force our readers to navigate within an article via scrolling or searching.
 * 5) frivolous and unnecessary merging also undermines the utility of the "what links here" feature.  When one is looking for elusive information, on related topics that are a work in progress, it can be very useful to use the "what links here" button.  Even if the article you are currently looking at doesn't link to the article that contains the information you really want, the article that contains the information you really want may link to the article you are currently reading.  Again, as with watchlists, this works best when we can rein in the enthusiams of those who engage in frivolous and unnecessary merging.
 * Sure wikipedia isn't paper, but the WP:GNG requires in depth coverage in independent sources, which is currently completely lacking. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)