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)

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)

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. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Watchers of this page may be interested in this Phabricator task I just filed, following discussion here. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

(pinging users from the discussions above) @WhatamIdoing, Quercus solaris, Pbsouthwood, Chris troutman, SmokeyJoe, Valjean, Anythingyouwant, and Fgnievinski:

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,    — The Transhumanist   07:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It may not be perfect, but is probably good enough. · · · 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. {{u|Sdkb}} ^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:

 Done – Move examples to sections, to reduce lead size

 Done – Add section links to lead, for ease of reference

 Done – Move etymology out of lead to its own section, to reduce lead size

 Done – Copy edit lead to reduce wordiness

Also, thank you @WhatamIdoing, your edits are definitely an improvement.    — The Transhumanist   20:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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)