Talk:Split-system air conditioner

Page creation
I have created this page with content because until now it was a redirect to Air_conditioning and it seems to me to be a topic which deserves its own article. I hope this is a good start and I plan to come back and provide more content and links to cites. Also that others more knowledgeable may contribute. As the name was "split-system" I have left it that way although I think "split system", with no dash, might be better. GS3 (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi - I think this can be a standalone article, however, you really need to source it, so that it doesn't appear to be original research. Read the links I posted on the article's page. Good luck.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I am not pleased with your notes. Look, I spent some hours preparing this article. I do not think it is complete or perfect but to come in with non-specific criticism is not helpful. I am not paid to do this. I am very willing to discuss specific points but I do not consider your criticism helpful. I realize there is much to be done but I already spent some hours and I am hoping it is a good start for more work by me and by others. This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic. - Really?  Can you be specific? Where can you find my personal feelings? Frankly, I contribute less and less frequently because I hate dealing with this kind of criticism.  Why don't you contribute to the article instead of criticizing? GS3 (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * GS3—User:onel5969 is correct. This article will need sources in order to stay.  WP:V is a core Wikipedia policy, and WP:BURDEN makes it clear where responsibility lies to get material sourced.  I accept all you've said in good faith, but without any sources on a new article I would normally just revert the changes immediately.  It is precisely because of your demonstration of caring somewhat about improving the encyclopedia that I have not done so.  Other editors may happen along who might make the argument that the material, even if well-written (which I've not examined) and well-intentioned (which I assume), is unsourced, it should be immediately reverted from the article space, to not confuse our readers.  Then you can quietly improve the article in your WP:SANDBOX, and ensure all claims are sourced, before returning it to the article space.


 * So if you'd like that not to happen with your prose here, then it will be incumbent upon you to start right away adding sources to support the many statements you've made in the article about Split-system air conditioners. Cheers.  N2e (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Just revert it. I am done here GS3 (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

✅ Okay then, with no consensus on the Talk page to leave the unsourced material in the article space, and with no sources added one week after the last comment above, I have reverted the unsourced additions and returned the article to a redirect.

With sources, the article would be quite welcome to stay in Wikipedia. Interested parties can find the prose in the article history and use some/all of it if sources are ever found.N2e (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)