Wikipedia talk:Content forks

Recent bold edit to SUBPOV during content dispute
I don't agree this recent bold edit to the guideline is really a "clarification" as claimed, but rather goes against the prior version of the guideline. Moreover, it's not a good change.

So, I have reverted that edit to the guideline by User:Valjean, because it doesn't make sense. Why would a Wikipedia article about creationism have to discuss "articles on other appropriate points of view" such as evolution, but a Wikipedia article about a book about creationism would not have to do so?

P.S. The bold edit to this guideline was made in the middle of a content dispute.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have just reverted a second bold edit made by the same editor in the midst of a content dispute. User:Valjean, please see WP:PGBOLD which governs this type of edit to guidelines or policy.  I do not agree with the edit for reasons given in edit summary, and of course the new material was not remotely implied by the pre-existing guideline.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The second edit was more about better grammar and clarity, not to change the POV. At least that's how I saw it. Why don't you make clear your new application of the topic which would allow every book article to become a Christmas tree of coatracked content for every topic mentioned in the book? Start a clear discussion of how you propose to go against current practice of requiring articles to stay on-topic. The focus of a book article, regardless of its topic, is the book. The article should not lose focus on the book. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 04:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting to “allow every book article to become a Christmas tree of coatracked content for every topic mentioned in the book”. Wikipedia articles in general, and especially BLPs, should not rely heavily on primary sources, and if a Wikipedia article is about a book then that book is a primary source about itself.  If a Wikipedia editor insists upon repeatedly using that primary source (i.e. using the negative book about a living person) to fill up our article with one-sided non-NPOV content about the living person, effectively turning the Wikipedia article into a non-NPOV version of a separate NPOV Wikipedia article, then in that narrow scenario I absolutely do consider it a content fork to which WP:SUBPOV applies.  We have lots of Wikipedia articles about books that manage to rely entirely upon secondary and tertiary sources, and that’s the best approach.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Getting the new discussion tool to automatically provide guidance to discourage talk forks
Watchers of this page may be interested in this Phabricator task I just filed, following discussion here. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPINOFF 2nd case
In WP:SPINOFF, the 2nd case (meta-articles) seems to be actually a consequence of spin-off rather than a cause for spin-off. So, I'm inclined to rewrite it as follows: "The main situation where spinoff articles frequently becomes necessary is when the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem, for example: (...) The resulting article often becomes a summary style overview meta-articles composed of many summary sections, e.g.: (...) Summary sections are used in the broader article to briefly describe the content of the much more detailed subarticle(s)." fgnievinski (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Done. fgnievinski (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Rename to "Content forks"
This proposal is to rename the guideline to "Content forks".

The guideline now predominantly describes content forks rather than the editing activity of creating content forks, i.e., "content forking". When applying the guideline, editors are primarily concerned with identifying the actual content that may need fixing, rather than the behavior that resulted in it. It is simpler to say "this is a content fork", rather than "this is an example of content forking".

Most of the subsections describe a type of content rather than a type of content editing.

The lead section was changed to "Content fork" years ago.

Maybe it's time for the title to be changed to "Content forks" to match the focus of the guideline.


 * Support - as proposer.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   02:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * (pinging users from the discussions above)   &mdash; The Transhumanist   12:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Consistency with the lead section is generally desirable. On that count I weakly support at this point, having seen no counterarguments. Other than that, a redirect would be valid and useful whether the move is done or not. Ping me if there is any serious debate. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 13:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No objection to the results (forks) of the unintentionally deficient activity (forking) being the focus of the chosen phrasing, as long as the fact of how forks are typically produced — by forking — is not perversely obscured. I'm not saying that anyone intends that, I'm just stating the condition of my "no objection". In other words, forks are typically produced by a failure to think of checking for existing content; to think of linking a term (such as a synonym, antonym, coordinate term, or related term) and finding out whether the link is blue or red and then following a bluelink to learn what's behind it before one writes any "wall of dupe"; to not forget to (at least) try to avoid duplicating existing content; and so on. As long as that fact (how forks happen and thus how to prevent them) remains clear in the text's explanations, I'm fine with focusing on results ("fork" and "forks") as the predominant nouns in the chosen phrasing (with gerund "forking" being less commonly mentioned albeit not "banned from utterance"). Quercus solaris (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * (pinging users from the discussions above)   &mdash; The Transhumanist   08:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅  &mdash; The Transhumanist   04:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Tried to clarify the concept

 * (pinging users from the discussions above)

I've edited the lead and a couple sections to help clarify what types of content forks are or are not acceptable, and what is or is not a content fork. For example, transcluded templates aren't content forks, as the copy can't diverge from the original, even when the original is modified. The guideline didn't mention pages of different types that cover the same subject, even though they fall under the definition of content forks (pieces of content about the same subject), so I've added that in.

Please look it over, and revert, remove, or revise as you see fit. Sincerely,  &mdash; The Transhumanist   07:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It may not be perfect, but is probably good enough. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 14:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a lot longer, which is going to discourage people from reading it. Maybe try to split some of the new content into a ==Section==? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't had a chance to look over the edits in detail, but I concur with @WhatamIdoing. Conciseness for guidance pages is absolutely essential. The impulse to respond to people not understanding the guidance by adding additional clarifying detail is understandable but exactly the wrong approach, and will make the problem worse by causing people not to read it. Examples never belong in guidance leads unless the topic is impossible to understand without them. Dumping the new material into a new section would at least get it out of the lead, but it'd still make the body longer, contributing to CREEP. I was inclined to revert when I came across these edits on watchlist but didn't because I didn't have time to sift through them to figure out what was just copyediting vs. expansion. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the feedback. So far, I've made the following changes in response to the above comments:
 * ✅ – Move examples to sections, to reduce lead size
 * ✅ – Add section links to lead, for ease of reference
 * ✅ – Move etymology out of lead to its own section, to reduce lead size
 * ✅ – Copy edit lead to reduce wordiness
 * Also, thank you @WhatamIdoing, your edits are definitely an improvement.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   20:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Are "Introductions to" articles exempt from this policy?
Please see related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_understandable Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)