User:B. Wolterding/New subarticle concept

It has been discussed for long whether and when to “spin out” subarticles from existing articles, and how this relates to notability. I want to sketch a new solution in this respect. It allows, to a limited extent, for topics to span multiple articles, without each subarticle having to prove notability individually. This involves some changes to the way in which Wikipedia is organized and maintained.

The role of the article in Wikipedia
Wikipedia's primary level of organization is the article. This applies to several levels:

First, an article corresponds to a readable amount of information, as much as a reader can reasonably digest at a time.

Second, it is the base of navigation: Categories, the alphabetical index, lists of topics allow the reader to navigate to individual articles. The same is true for internal links (with some exceptions) and interwiki links.

Third, it is the base for our maintenance procedures. Processes such as Good Article assessment or AfD, work on a per-article level. Also, "to-do" like maintenance categories all work on the level of articles.

Fourth, the division into article also has technical reasons, relating it to a page in the WikiMedia software. This implies some technical restrictions, although these are reached only in exceptional cases.

Topics spanning multiple articles
In some situations, however, the above division into articles fails. Some topics receive so extensive coverage on Wikipedia that one article is not sufficient, both for reasons of readability and for technical reasons. Two cases should be clearly distinguished here:


 * 1) The topic can be split into two or more related, but clearly distinct subtopics. Each subtopic has independently received coverage in reliable sources and therefore passes the notability criteria.
 * 2) One topic is covered (for reasons of size) in more than one article, with one main article as a summary. This is known as summary style.

Both cases seem relevant to Wikipedia. In the first case, the result is several distinct articles which do not need an extension of concepts. For the second case, it needs to be clarified how Wikipedia's processes and procedures apply – to the individual subarticle or the entire collection A new solution to that end is proposed here.

Articles and subarticles
I propose here to introduce a "secondary class" of articles, or subarticles, that are subject to some restrictions. This allows a topic to be covered in several Wikipedia articles: One of these is a main article with a concise summary. Subarticles can provide further details. Technically, this is realized using the subpage feature of the MediaWiki software.

Wikipedia should treat these main article – sub article combinations as one topic. This implies that it is listed only once in the alphabetical index, categories, or disambiguation pages. It also implies that processes, like AfD or Good Article review, only treat it as a whole. Notability criteria apply to the entire topic, not to individual subarticles.

Main article and summary style
If coverage of one topic requires so much space that it cannot be covered in one article, the topic can be split into multiple articles: One main article and several subarticles.

Per WP:SUMMARY, the main article contains a self-contained description of the topic. It should be concise, self-contained and comprehensible. Subarticles are linked from the main article and can contain additional details. The principle can be described as follows:


 * If somebody made a copy of Wikipedia, but left out all subarticles, he would still have a meaningful encyclopedia about the same topics, however with less detailed coverage.

Subarticles are realized as subpages of the main article, using the subpage feature of the MediaWiki software. They are thus clearly distinguished from "full" articles.

Notability of the subject
The concept of notability refers to topics, not articles or pages. Thus, the notability guideline does not apply to the subarticles. The distribution of content between main articles and subarticles is a matter of the manual of style, not of notability.

Content
Subarticles allow to add more content on a topic than would be feasible in only one page. However, subarticles do not serve as a blanket for adding unencyclopedic content. Policies such as WP:NOT also apply to subarticles. In particular, neither the main article nor its subarticles should contain


 * original research and other unverifiable material,
 * excessive amounts of plot summary or purely fictional information ,
 * material that gives minority views undue weight,
 * large amounts of statistical data,
 * detailed instructions and tutorials.

While there is no fixed limit on the number of subarticles for a topic, new subarticles should be created only when sufficiently much (appropriate) material is actually available to fill them.

Linking and referencing
An encyclopedia should be organized by topics. References that are made within Wikipedia should refer to topics, not articles, where the two notions fall apart. Therefore, the following restrictions should be applied to subarticles:


 * They are not listed in the alphabetical index (if technically feasible).
 * They are not reachable via the “random article” function (if technically feasible).
 * They are not organized in categories (other than maintenance categories).
 * Outside the immediate topic, no internal links (nor interwiki links) refer to subarticles. Links should rather point to the appropriate summary in the main article.
 * They do not appear on disambiguation pages. (For disambiguation pages should primarily list notable topics, not their subaspects.)

Maintenance
Wikipedia maintenance is usually organized by article. For topics split into main articles and subarticles, rules need to be clarified. The general principle proposed here is:


 * Normal editing activities apply to main articles and subarticles as usual. This includes a change to the number and structure of subarticles.
 * Wikipedia processes typically apply to topics. They should consider main articles and subarticles as a joint object.

Cleanup templates can be added to main articles or subarticles. E.g. subarticles can be flagged for wikification, or as lacking reliable sources.
 * Cleanup

Any editor can reorganize an existing topic, assuming consensus. This includes creation of new subarticles, mergers between subarticles, and reducing the number of subarticles. Subarticles which are no longer needed may be redirected to the main article; a formal deletion process is not required. However, editors who implement such changes should leave a note on the talk page of the main article. If inappropriate material is found in subarticles, it may be removed by any editor per WP:BOLD. This is facilitated by the fact that no topic-external internal links point to the subarticles; see above.
 * Editing and reorganizing topics

For purposes of the Articles for deletion process, an article and possible subarticles are considered as one topic. A nomination for deletion would always apply to the entire topic, including all subarticles. The nomination tag would be placed on the main article. Nominators should note in the AfD nomination that subarticles exist. The proposed deletion process should not be used for articles that have subarticles, due to the potential complexity of the problem. The speedy deletion process may apply to subarticles under the G criteria (e.g. G12, copyright violations) but not under the A criteria.
 * Deletion

Quality assessment systems such as the good article / featured article system should also work on a per-topic basis. The entire topic would be promoted or demoted. It remains to be clarified whether quality assessment would focus on the main article, or would also take the subarticles into account.
 * Quality assessment

WikiProjects should typically declare their interest in the entire topic, not in individual subarticles. Project banners should be placed on the talk page of the main article.
 * WikiProjects

When to create subarticles
In the following situations, it seems appropriate to add subarticles to an article, rather than splitting into several "full" articles.


 * Where a long article cannot be split into clearly separated, notable subtopics. (As a quick check: Would one expect to find the title of a proposed part in an alphabetical index? If no, it's probably not a separate subtopic, but may be appropriate for a subarticle.)
 * For long tables, lists, and other supporting material
 * For detail coverage of fictional work. Wikipedia contains a lot of in-universe coverage of fictional concepts, and it is often disputed whether style and depth of coverage is appropriate. Bundling the detail articles as subarticles below the article about the fictional work may assist in organizing the material, find an interim solution, and facilitate later cleanup.

When not to create subarticles
In the following cases, creating a main article/sub article structure may not be appropriate.


 * If the number of subarticles would be extremely large. It's hard to give a numerical limit, but when it comes to hundreds of articles on a single topic, the material might be better suited for WikiBooks.
 * For content forks, which would violate the neutral point of view policy.
 * For establishing walled gardens, i.e. collections of material that is of interest to a very small group only.
 * For moving inappropriate material away from the main article.
 * For material that is irrelevant for describing the main topic. While subarticle content is not directly limited, one should keep in mind that the purpose of subarticles is an encyclopedic coverage of the main article's topic in a concise way; it's not the purpose of an encyclopedia to present as much detail material as possible.
 * Biographies should not be represented as subarticles under a larger topic. They should rather show notability individually. The same applies to companies, unless they are divisions of a larger organization covered in the main article.

Good Examples
The following examples show where creating subarticle would be very reasonable.


 * Coverage on George Washington is very detailed and, as of today, split into several (well-sourced) articles, such as George Washington's early life, George Washington in the American Revolution. Although sufficiently many sources exist to show individual notability, these might well be subarticles under George Washington.
 * List of 30 Rock episodes, a featured list, provides detail information to the article 30 Rock. This might well be done in a subarticle. (Quick check: No one would expect to find “List of 30 Rock episodes” in an alphabetic index, nor "Epsiodes of 30 Rock"; at most, one would find "30 Rock, List of episodes".)
 * Janie Fricke discography is not really a separate encyclopedic topic from the artist's biography, rather it's broken out for reasons of length. It might well be a subarticle of Janie Fricke.
 * The Animorphs book series is notable. For encyclopedic coverage, it seems reasonable to provide a list of books of the series. However, for the sheer volume of material (50+ books), this needs to be covered on a different page. On the other hand, there do not seem to be substantial independent sources for the individual books, so the list might fail the inclusion criteria. It would best be made a subpage of Animorphs. Further, Wikipedia contains pages with plot summaries of individual books from the series. It is disputed whether these are appropriate in view of WP:NOT. Independent of the WP:NOT issue, no independent sources have been found for the individual books, so these articles might become subarticles of Animorphs until cleanup (e.g. merging) has occurred.
 * Leaving aside any questions of notability, List of cover versions is an example for a list that is too long to fit onto one page, and has therefore been split. However, List of cover versions N-Z is not an independent encyclopedic topic from List of cover versions. The subarticle approach would fit naturally in this case.

Bad Examples (or good counterexamples)
These are a few examples where a structure of main articles and subarticles is not warranted.


 * Mildred Gale (the grandmother of George Washington) should not be covered in a subarticle to George Washington. It is a separate biography that is only remotely related to the larger topic.
 * Firienholt (a minor place in the fictional world of Middle-Earth) should not have a subarticle under Lord of the Rings. While referenced in the trilogy, it is so minor an aspect that coverage in an own subarticle would most likely not be warranted.
 * Old Lucy's Tavern, a pub in Chippenham, North Wiltshire, England without claim to notability (and thus failing the criteria for an own article), should not be covered in a subarticle of Pub nor of Chippenham, Wiltshire. To both topics, it does not constitute a relevant contribution (and would, in fact, be rather a strange selection of example since there certainly are dozens of similar pubs in that town).

Rationale
There is a longstanding and ongoing debate regarding the application of notability criteria to summary-style articles and “spinout” articles, usually related to articles about fiction. In fact, the debate has become very heated at times. There seems to be consensus that some topics can in fact go beyond one article; in fact this situation is apparently widespread on Wikipedia, and has long been part of the manual of style (WP:SUMMARY). Leaving aside any policy questions e.g. around WP:NOT, the controversial questions seem to be as follows:


 * If an article is split into subarticles, is it necessary to show notability for each subarticle separately?
 * If subarticles have deficiencies, and reductions become necessary, should these be dealt with via normal editing, or is a central process like AfD necessary?

More abstractly, one might trace it to this core question: When a topic grows beyond one article, and is split into several articles, is this a pure presentation question (governed by the manual of style) or a question of scope (governed by inclusion criteria)?

The above proposal offers the following answer: A topic can span multiple articles, but still be regarded as one encyclopedic item, in all respects. Within the topic, only the manual of style applies. The entire topic, as one item, underlies the inclusion criteria.

Virtues of this approach are:


 * Flexible editing is possible within the topic. There is no large process footprint where it is unnecessary.
 * Impact of the “inner structure” of a topic to the overall encyclopedia is minimized.
 * There is a clear distinction between the main encyclopedia matter and supplementary material. This is important for maintenance: Consolidation of detail material, which may be necessary at times, becomes less critical.
 * Detail material can be added flexibly, while casual readers can still “ignore the subarticles” and be left with a consistent encyclopedia.

An important aspect is the use of the subpage feature for the subarticles. This allows a clear distinction between supplementary information to an existing topic, covered in subarticles/subpages, and truly independent (but related) topics, covered in individual (main) articles. This is important since the two cases should be handled differently in many respects. It also facilitates automation in maintenance.

It is often argued that the addition of detail articles, also on possibly non-notable topics, “does no harm”, since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and has virtually unlimited storage space. This is only partially true. While there may be no technical restrictions on the number of articles, there are impacts to navigation and to maintenance. For example, disambiguation links to notable topics are an appropriate help for the reader; but having a large number of such links to non-notable topics may distract the reader, and is detrimental to a reasonable organization of Wikipedia. By separating main articles and detail information, the proposal tries to reduce this impact.

Implications and dependencies
If the concept sketched above would eventually be implemented, this would mean changes and additions to a number of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and procedures. While a centralized discussion would be preferable, the following sections list the individual elements to be changed.

Technical
Technical changes needed for the proposal to be implemented:
 * Enable the subpage feature in article namespace; it is currently disabled.
 * Articles with “/” in titles would need to be renamed first.


 * Check whether subpages can be excluded from alphabetical index and random pages

Policy and guidelines
Policies and guidelines that need to be updated if the changes are implemented:


 * Notability
 * Deletion policy
 * WP:AFD, WP:PROD, WP:CSD
 * Manual of style
 * Several places
 * Subpages