 | This is aninformation page. It is not anencyclopedic article, nor one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels ofconsensus andvetting. |
 | This page in a nutshell:
|
If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it may be appropriate for some or all of the article to besplit into new articles. In some cases, refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating ageneral overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficientlynotable to be included in the encyclopedia).
The two main reasons for splitting material out from an article are size and content relevance. If either the whole article, or the specific material within one section becomes too large, or if the material is seen to be inappropriate for the article due to beingout of scope, then a split may be considered or proposed.Consideration must be given to size, notability and potentialneutrality issues before proposing or carrying out a split.
Articles should be neither too big nor too small.
It may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to new articles and replace them with summaries perWikipedia:Summary style. Consideration, however, needs to be given to the amount and quality of material to be moved. If the material for the new article istoo short to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject, or would simply duplicate the summary that would be left behind, then it may be too soon to move it. Unsourced material shouldn't be used to create new articles as it may have notability or verifiability issues.
Word counts can be found with the help ofXTools (also accessible via Page History from Page Statistics link at the top) under "Prose" in the "General statistics" section;Shubinator's DYK tool; orProsesize.
These preferences apply somewhat less todisambiguation pages and do not apply toredirects. They also apply less strongly tolist articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up asortable table.
Too large after templates are expanded:
After alltemplates andtransclusions are accounted for, the resultingpost-expand include size may reach a limit. This can look like templates lower in the page, such as the{{reflist}} ornavigation templates, not displaying properly. One solution is to split the article.
Since undoing a split may be labor-intensive if significant editing happens to either page after the split, try to avoid splitting until after a community discussion. If there is another way to reduce the "post-expanded size" that is easier to "undo" than a split, consider doing it first, then opening a discussion to see what the long-term fix should be.
Likewise, if a split would be controversial, try to find a less controversial way to temporarily reduce the "post-expanded size" then open a discussion to find consensus for a long-term fix.
However, if splitting the page is the easiest-to-undo solution and such a split would not be controversial, considerbeing bold and splitting the page, then immediately opening a discussion to see if the community accepts the split or if it offers alternative solutions. In this case, be prepared to undo the split.
Sometimes two or more distinct topics may share the same base title or similar titles, such as "light", which may refer toelectromagnetic radiation,a component that produces light, orspiritual illumination. Sometimes the distinct topics may be closely related, such asCoffea (the plant) andcoffee (the product), orthermal energy andheat.
When two or more distinct topics with the same or a similar titles are being written about on the same page, even if they are closely related, a content split may be considered, and adisambiguation page created to point readers to the separate pages. Before proposing a split, consideration must be given both tonotability of the offshoot topic and to potentialneutrality issues. If one or more of the topics is not notable on its own, it may be more appropriate to simply remove the material from Wikipedia than to create a new article.
If unsure, start a discussion on the article's talk page using atemplate.
For disambiguation pages, use{{Split dab}} instead of{{split}}. If section to be split out is known, use{{split section}}.
If an article meets the criteria for splitting and no discussion is required, editors canbe bold and carry out the split. If unsure, or with high-profile or sensitive articles, start a "Split" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject(s). Additionally, adding one of the splitting templates will display a notice on the article and list it atCategory:Articles to be split. This will help bring it to the attention of editors who may assist in establishing consensus, in deciding if a split is appropriate, or in carrying out the split. Templates used without an accompanying rationale, and where there is no obvious reason for the split request, may be removed at any time.
To comply withWikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that all content contributors receive attribution, the page receiving the split material must have anedit summary noting "split content from [[article name]]". (You mustn't skip this step or omit the page name.) A note should also be made in the edit summary of the source article, "split content to [[article name]]". The{{Copied}} template can also be placed on the talk page of both articles. For further information, refer to the mainCopying within Wikipedia guideline.
Skip tostep 5 if making abold split.
Create a discussion on the talkpage of the page that content is to be split from. Include what sections are to be split and what the new page name should be. Example:
== Splitting proposal ==I propose that the section about blinker liquids be split into a separate page called[[Blinker fluid]]. The content of the section is only marginally related to the main article, and this section is large and well-sourced enough to make its own page.~~~~
To generate a discussion and to notify people who know a lot about the topic, it is recommended to contact involved users. These users can be: frequent contributors, the creator of the page or users who have a lot of posts on the talk page. You can notify them by{{ping | USER1 | USER2 | ...}} or by using a notice for their talk page{{Subst:Splitnote | ARTICLE NAME | NEW ARTICLE NAME | TALK PAGE}}.
Failure to reach a consensus, whether the result of a split discussion or a bold split that was contested, usually results in the article remaining whole. A contested bold split may be reverted; however it is not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old as the new article may stand on its own, even if the main article that it came from is not split.
Use{{split}} to notify users of the proposed split. On the article (not the talkpage) add{{split|Article 1|date=October 2025}} or{{split|Article 1|Article 2|...|date=October 2025}}. This template adds a box to notify users about the split. If the new page name is unknown, use{{split}} by itself with no parameters.
In many cases, a hybrid discussion/straw poll is used, but remember thatpolling is not a substitute for discussion. Example formatting:
*'''Support''' – <insert reason for supporting split here>~~~~ *'''Oppose''' – <insert reason for opposing split here>~~~~
During discussion, arough consensus may emerge to proceed with the split. If there is a consensus to split and you don't intend to perform it immediately, replace the{{split}} notice at the top of the article with{{being split}} (keeping all other parameters), to notify users about the result of the discussion.
Any user, including the user who first proposed the split, may close the discussion and move forward with the split if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and therehas been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to split. Closing of split discussions differs fromclosing of requested move discussions in that closings of uncontroversial split discussions byinvolved users are allowed. Admin tools are not needed unless page protection prohibits editing.
In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to split has or has not been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the split proposal or the discussion. If necessary, a request that an administrator, who is notinvolved, close the discussion can be made at theRequests for Closure noticeboard.
To close a split proposal discussion, the{{Discussion top}} and{{Discussion bottom}} templates are used in the following manner:
== Split proposal =={{Discussion top|result=The result of this discussion was to ...~~~~}}<Start of discussion>...<End of discussion>{{Discussion bottom}}
The following procedure can be used for splitting from a single source article to a new article. These instructions are provided for guidance, but some steps may not be necessary in all cases and these instructions may not cover every eventuality. It is advisable to read through the whole of this procedure before starting.
Contents [[WP:SPLIT]] from [[Source article name]]; please see its history for attribution. and save the new article.{{Main|new article name}} (use the order: image, main tag, text). If all the content of the section is being removed (e.g. in the case of a list) use the "See" template instead of the "Main" template. Use the edit summaryMaterial [[WP:SPLIT]] to [[New article name]]" and save the edit.{{Excerpt|Page title}}{{Copied|from=|from_oldid=|to=|to_diff=}} to source article talk page, and paste the diff URL into it, add the title of the new article and the date, add a descriptive edit summary and save the edit.{{Copied|from=|from_oldid=|to=|to_diff=}} to the new article talk page, and paste the diff into it, add the title of the source page and the date, add a descriptive edit summary and save the edit.If material is split from an article, consider whether asummary section should be created, and whether a{{Main}} template should be placed at the top of the section to link to the new page. In general, if the split is due tosize, then a summary section is required; if the split is due tocontent (orscope), then a summary section is unlikely to be required. On the talk page of the new and old articles, include the template{{Copied}}.
If you or another editor split an article without adding the correct attribution, add it afterwards following the procedure atWikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia § Repairing insufficient attribution.
Articlesplitting templates | |||
|---|---|---|---|
{{split}} | |||
{{Split portions}} | |||
{{Section move from}} | Split content to an existing article (WP:SECMOVE)
| ||
{{split dab}} | Use on original article if disambiguation
| ||
{{split section}} | |||
{{being split}} | Use on both articles after consensus is reached
| ||
{{Copied}} | Record split on talk pages of the source and targetThistemplate is misplaced. It belongs on thetalk page:Wikipedia talk:Splitting.
| ||
{{splitnote}} | Notify users though their talk page about proposed split | ||
