Wikipedia talk:Content forks

message: 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. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent bold edit to SUBPOV during content dispute 

message: Watchers of this page may be interested in this Phabricator task I just filed, following discussion here. Cheers,  talk 06:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting the new discussion tool to automatically provide guidance to discourage talk forks 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done. fgnievinski (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:SPINOFF 2nd case 

message: 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.    — The Transhumanist    02:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (pinging users from the discussions above)     — The Transhumanist    12:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

text: 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, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

text: (pinging users from the discussions above)     — The Transhumanist    08:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

text: — The Transhumanist    04:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Rename to "Content forks" 

message: Please see related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Should_the_seciton_on_"Introductiont_to"_articles_be_depreciated_(removed)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are "Introductions to" articles exempt from this policy?