This page is within the scope of theWikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visitthe project page, where you can join thediscussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see theHelp Menu orHelp Directory. Orask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp
This page is within the scope ofWikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact ofWikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join thediscussion. For a listing of essays see theessay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
Almost two years have passed, but I'd like to point out thatyour change completely changed the subject of this guideline. This was very, very bold. (Guideline status: it wasn't marked a guideline at the time, but it was definately in theCategory:Wikipedia style guidelines). The problem is thatsudden change of the subject made the title inappropriate. The term "article series" intuitively refers to a situation where you have a group of loosely coupled "sister" articles, that arenot suitable forWikipedia:Summary style. And this article provides guidelineexclusively for the latter now! (By the way it unnecessarily duplicatesWP:SUMMARY, which is much more detailed.)
My proposition is to drop all the WP:SUMMARY stuff from here, and then decide what to do about the actual topic of "article series": either demote this guide to historical/essay, or improve it. As an example, a wild bunch of article series boxes, the "right-side boxes", surely needs some standardization. They seem to be de facto deprecated (they are to wide for 800x600 or handheld devices), they do not appear on FAs, but I'm not aware of any explicit consensus on it. --Kubanczyk (talk)09:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still am not convinced that several articles is better than one large article (in case the article really is about one single subject, such as the2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict). What are really the benefits of having multiple articles? I don't find that the readability is impeded by an article being long; rather, it becomes one easy point of reference since you don't need to look in other articles for certain information, and the context that the surrounding information can provide a paragraph may also be very desirable. I did split up an article I'm actively contributing to (Speedrun), because it seems to be the default practice and it was asked for on the talk page, but I'd personally prefer monolithic articles over this approach. So maybe you could help me out here a little? I think that this project page should also address my question, since it doesn't really explain why pages need to be broken up sometimes. —msikma <user_talk:msikma>07:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, article series stem from the application ofWikipedia:Summary style. The idea is that an article that is just too long is dragged down by over detailing that is not necessarily linked to the overall topic. See for example the various subarticles ofBaroque architecture (although that is not an official "article series", it is the same thing). The name might be inappropriate. If "article series" wasn't a standard element of these chronological templates and a few others, I don't think this page would even exist.Circeus16:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to rename the following three articles, so I can create a template and put them into a series. Unfortunately, I have made a bit of a mess of things.
Here is what I have tried (somewhat unsuccessfully) to do:
1. Create a useful template "Canadianpetroleumhistory.2. Rename the article "History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part one" to "History of the petroleum industry in Canada"3. Rename the article "History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part two" to "History of the petroleum industry in Canada (Oil sands and heave oil)4. Rename the article "History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part three" to "History of the petroleum industry in Canada (Frontier exploration and development)5. Rename the article "History of the natural gas liquids industry in Canada" to "History of the petroleum industry in Canada (Natural gas liquids)
The idea is that at the end of this process this will be a series of articles about Canadian petroleum history, each referenced within the series in the manner of theHistory of Brazil.
...on what a "guideline" is and what a page has to do to be one, but it's safe to say that this page isn't ready to be a guideline, at least not yet. Discussion is welcome. There was no discussion on making this page a guideline, no comments on the talk page since May, and it gets the main point wrong, confusing a "main" page with a "summary" page. - DanDank55 (send/receive)20:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The pagewas a guideline. The disputed tag was placed inMay. Look at the post directly above this one.
This discussion was over months ago, and so I restored the guideline tag.
So the question is:
Do you personally wish to make this guideline disputed? If so, then leave the disputed tag, and you can bring up your converns to attempt to start a discussion.
I don't have a problem with your logic, and I was aware of all that. I also don't have a problem with my logic: perWP:SILENCE, if a page is demoted, and no one talks about it or does anything about it, it's not unreasonable to assume the page no longer has consensus to be a guideline.
A guideline is something that has received a little care and attention, and has helped at least a few people get an issue resolved that they couldn't resolve without the guideline. The first sentence in the first section implies that a "main" page on Wikipedia is the same as a "summary" page, so this page hasn't any gotten care and attention, yet. For the second part: has this former guideline been helpful to you or others? If so, how? There are other pages that deal with these issues, such asWikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) andWikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Subsidiary articles, and a relevant wikiproject,Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. Has this guideline taken the other guidelines into account? Has the relevant wikiproject been notified? (These are of course process questions, and perWP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, you don't have to answer.) - DanDank55 (send/receive)01:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your first paragraph would be: "No, perWP:BRD, among other places (includingWP:SILENCE)." The onus is on the one being bold to support the edit. Since there was no discussion to suggest that this is disputed by more than one editor, and several months of no discussion have gone by, the "disputed" tag should be removed, with the guideline restored. It's the same process used for "rejected" proposals.
I'dlike this to be (part of) a guideline, but I don't think it is one in its current state. It seems to only really cover "vertical series boxes", and the rest is just duplicated from elsewhere.
That's the main problem, but corollary issues are: It doesn't separate the templates it covers into their own category.
Yes, I think you're right about cleaning this page up. Though I think it's more than just about navboxes (list pages come to mind), perhaps transforming this into a sort ofWP:CLN for such templates (indicating in what instances it's more appropriate to use each type of template, or separate list pages) might be a very good idea. -jc3700:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm wrong, jc. There's been a lot of grumbling in general in the last few months about the messy pile of guidelines; I'm detecting that people want us to be a little tougher. I do think the page needs cleaning up; please give me a shout when you guys have done some sweeping up, and best of luck. - DanDank55 (send/receive)02:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little late here, but I too agree that this page, at least in its present state, should not be a guideline. There should be a stricter definition of article series so that, as Quiddity says, the page will not be abused as justification for inappropriate usage of vertical series boxes.Waltham,The Duke of14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
