Template talk:Split article

Merge
This template is a merge of Split from and Split to made similar to Copied after this TfD. I find the merged template names ironic. —PC-XT+ 10:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Notes for improvement

 * I'd like to document that for the simple case of one part of a page split to another, the exact same code can be used on both talk pages, and that merging them requires the same from. ✅ —PC-XT+ 04:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to change the history link so that it can link to a point in the history from around the time the edit was made by extracting the year and month using something like
 * If merged with Copied, I'm leaning towards Luafication to allow reduction of repetitive code. —PC-XT+ 10:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk:List of impact craters on Earth uses collapsed, in case we want to look at a usecase. (I'm working on issues with that parameter, now.) —PC-XT+ 05:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder how page moves should be handled, as with Talk:List of impact craters in Australasia and Antarctica; I would think it's been discussed, before (though it wouldn't be an issue if the redirects always point to the content, or better yet, if there are diff links) —PC-XT+ 05:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC) 05:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion moved from TFD Holding Cell
Well, I found an interesting problem which we might want to solve (we could always ignore it though). On pages like Talk:History of Sierra Leone (1961–78) we need two transclusions of the template to show two splits to the page. This would mean we'd have to add in multiple "from" params, which would basically look like. While I don't want to convert to Lua, the fact that articles with >10 splits exist (and this issue) might necessitate it. Primefac (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * with Split to to create Split article
 * Where are we on this? Someone commented on the TfD page... —PC-XT+ 04:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * needs to hold their horses (and change their username link to a colour other than red), as there are a ton of templates that still need work done. Using the old templates isn't the end of the world - as soon as the new template is up and running all old transclusions will undoubtedly be shifted over. created split article but it looks like that work stalled. If it's super-time-critical I can make it my next priority, but I wasn't planning on it. Primefac (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If I understood the plan better, I'd try to help. It looks like the documentation could use updating? Maybe I'll wade in there... I've been too busy to do much for these templates in a while, unfortunately. I don't mean to exaggerate the importance of this one. Thanks for the reply and all you do. ;) —PC-XT+ 05:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly haven't looked at the situation so I have no idea what needs doing. Do what you can, no worries if you don't have time. It will get done eventually ;) Primefac (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I found the template wasn't quite ready for use. Per the TfD, I made it a little more like Copied to help standardize its usage. The parameters tend to be used in various ways, probably due to the confusion mentioned in the discussion. I think a bot could sort out most of the transclusions, even filling in or correcting some items while it's there. Diffs would have the most information, dates and times could help find diffs, and if only given page names, the younger page may have a relevant diff in its early history. If we have the resources, revisions could be verified by checking for resemblance in material removed from one and added to the other, (perhaps with something like a copyvio checker?) Just my thoughts for now... —PC-XT+ 11:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * With 1875 pages using these two templates (757/from 1100/to) I think that finding diffs is going to be problematic (even with a bot). Fortunately split to only had three params, so I've made it into a wrapper for split article. Also, given how this is turning into a conversation, I'm going to move it to Template talk:Split article. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrapping is fine with me. I'd started thinking about it, myself. Thanks for doing that one. I'll try to look into the other if it's not done yet when I get a chance. I might try to do a few api edits or reads separately to see how hard it is to check for problems. I think these wrappers could be bot substituted before then, as there are other ways to remember which pages have been checked and I don't know of another reason to keep them longer. —PC-XT+ 17:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * However, in some good news, I've managed to get it to the point where the only pages left transcluding split from are ones that only have one split listed (which will make substitution much cleaner). The only issue (for it and split to) is the potential for the wrong diffs to be assigned, but honestly there's no good way to check 1500 articles (people will just have to figure it out). Primefac (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Does not work with Template:Diff - change request
Since I made the split in multiple edits for two article, I had to use Template:Diff at Talk:Baptism of blood. However, as you can see, the parameter  of Template:Split article does not handle Template:Diff properly. Can anyone update Template:Split article so that it can work properly with Template:Diff? Veverve (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the short answer is "no", because there is a better way that uses existing architecture. I will say, though, not many folks seem to know you can define a start and end point of a diff, so good on you for attempting something that (on the surface) should work. Primefac (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)