This editing guide was renamed as a MoS guide last year on an understanding that an agreement had been made during a discussion on this page. As this has always been an editing guide, and the advice here is still about making an editing decision rather than a style or formatting one, I feel it should be returned to an editing guide, and the previous name of WP:Summary style restored. The discussion linked above referenced this guideline in order to make editing decisions during the MoS consolidation drive, but there was no discussion regarding bringing the guideline itself into the MoS. I have informed the editor who made the move. Views are encouraged. SilkTork *^YES! 12:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A problem I note with a lot of articles (for example, Milton Keynes Dons F.C.) is that when articles are split, people just cut-and-paste sections into new articles and leave the parent articles devoid of information. Obviously, this fails the spirit of WP:SUMMARY, as "summary style" means that a main article should give a summary and give links to "main articles" if it makes an article too unwieldy to combine all the information, but it seems not to be an important part of the policy. Should this be rectified or not? Sceptre ^(talk) 23:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There is never any reason to have a section with no content at all. or a section other than the EL section at the end that has nothing but links. So I would say yes, it should be rectified. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. As a longtime fan of the summary guideline, I have read this N quote as affirming that a breakout is "part of" its main article for N purposes. That is, we recognize that List of minor planets: 200001-201000, Later life of Isaac Newton, and List of centenarians (educators, school administrators, social scientists and linguists) are not notable in themselves, and yet they are clearly not deletable at AFD for N reasons, since their main topics (List of minor planets, Isaac Newton, Lists of centenarians) are notable. This N exception seems to be a natural corollary of the COMMONNAMES exception that breakouts enjoy.

In a content dispute, it has been raised by some that this might count as a backdoor to inherent notability, because it does "the same thing" as inherence. It makes all consensus breakouts "inherently article-worthy" (which sounds a lot like "inherently notable"). Clearly someone who did not understand the summary structure might easily raise a good-faith AFD, rightly arguing the topic is nonnotable but is being treated as if it were inherently notable solely because its notable main topic is sufficiently long. This happens particularly with lists. It would seem there would be a standardized method of communicating the structure to notability checkers. (Incidentally, I guarantee that if you look up the particular content dispute in my history, you will face a topic maelstrom largely irrelevant to these present sitewide questions; but feel free.)

Q1: Since WP:LISTs are articles, does this guideline apply equally to lists as it does to other articles, though lists are not mentioned herein? JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q2: What is the best way to handle the tension between the rightness of breakout articles vs. the objection, frequently met, that the breakout's title is nonnotable as a topic? (I see that N failures are not "encouraged" per AVOIDSPLIT, but this is accommodating language because the above demonstrates that sometimes there is no notable split and yet split is still indicated due to size.) JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q3: In particular, in a comprehensive list combining notable and nonnotable topics, I have observed the tendency for the notable ones to be broken out with short summaries and the nonnotable ones to accumulate long entries (especially if primary sources are involved), which seems to lean against guidance here for main-page balance. Is this guideline leaning more toward balanced breakouts, or is it toward imbalance (so as to indicate varying notability), or is this a local question? JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q4: Since breakout method itself should be decided locally, should choice of breakout method include consideration of whether individual breakout candidates "look notable" or "look nonnotable" if they are considered without reference to being broken out? (My answer is it doesn't seem that this should be a consideration.) JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q5: Should local method determination rely primarily on anticipation of the detail levels that various user cases would typically look for? JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q6: Since the guideline affirms breakouts must be able to stand alone, but only contextualizes this for V purposes, should we conclude that breakouts must stand alone for N (which would fail many articles like the above), or that they need not (which would indicate a clarification to the guideline)? JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Q7: What are the best style methods of communicating in-article that an article is a breakout, to transcend argumentation over N? (Obviously I start with the "Main article:" link at top, the navtemplate(s) indicating a place in a series, and sufficient sourcing and weighting; "Previous article:" and "Next article:" come to mind; anything else?) JJB 21:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Notability requirements apply to sub-articles. There are no special rules and there need not be any special rules that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

There is evidence N does not consistently apply to subarticles, for instance WP:NCLL, plus the above sample subarticles. I am looking for substantive discussion on this evidence. Logically, either all such subarticles need to be deleted or merged for N failure, or some subarticles need not be deleted for N failure. Substantive point-by-point answers from anyone would be appreciated. JJB 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes we say lists are articles but they don't follow quite a lot of a normal article's rules. Have you a real problem in mind? Dmcq (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, per the second OP graf, but these queries have long applied to many topic areas besides the presenting one. The challenge is to balance list-style or multiple-subtopic articles with spinoff articles that may be nonnotable. My understanding is that sometimes it's OK for a main article to have short summaries of notable topics interspersed with details sections of nonnotable topics that may be longer than the short summaries ("imbalanced"); and that sometimes it's OK to count all topics as not necessarily notable spinoffs of a list that would be too long if not spun out ("balanced"). The former is more common if the notable and nonnotable subtopics have a varying amount of sourceable data, as with the supercentenarians in various "list of" articles; the latter if the nonnotable subtopics have a relatively constant (usually programmed) amount of sourceable data, as with the thousand-count minor-planet sublists in list of minor planets. In other words I would like to make explicit a number of practices that have been implicitly accepted but not spelled out in guidelines. What would you say to a person who argued that House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 is wholly nonnotable as a topic and should be merged? JJB 20:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say that his life prior to the presidential campaign was a notable topic. The title of the article isn't ideal but that's the topic of the article. It is not an arbitrary point. Dmcq (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You have responded to the rhetorical question and nothing else, and you changed 1981-2000 to 1936-2000 making your response off-point. Accordingly I will be changing this page in attempts to clarify the ambiguities and answer Q1-Q7 in a consensus manner. JJB 12:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The question you asked as a test case was " What would you say to a person who argued that House and Senate career of John McCain, until 2000 is wholly nonnotable as a topic and should be merged?" and I said I believed the article was notable in its own right. I fail to see how you then think a reasonable course is to assume the complete opposite and stick it into the guideline. Your opinions do not count more than that of other editors and a conservative approach is far better if problems are pointed out in changes to policies and guidelines. New ideas are not automatically and intrinsically better than old ones which have been looked at longer. There is no requirement for another editor to produce rebuttals about every single thing you say with an automatic assumption that if there is a single thing left out then you are okay to stick something completely opposite to what another editor says in. Dmcq (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, I called it a rhetorical question, not a test case, and your response to this one did not account for the other nonnotable items mentioned above, and your response also made a scope error that you have not corrected. Nor did I insert into this guideline the complete opposite, but I sourced my insertions in edit summaries, or explained their reasonable implications. The fact that we sometimes split arbitrarily indicates that some splits are technically nonnotable as such. The remainder of your generic observations about editing methods do not directly relate to improving this page. However, I don't mind interacting with your edits, such as by correcting grammar, as we seem to be converging on the same point; but please keep discussion to the merits of how current policy and practice should be described. JJB 15:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You called it a rhetorical question after I answered and I don't see what was rhetorical about it. It was a good straightforward example as far as I can see of you thinking an article was split arbitrarily. It wasn't. There is no reason for you to say articles can be split arbitrarily. It isn't true. articles split off must be notable in themselves. This is the third time I've said that here, please take a bit of care with basic policy. I will leave it to somebody else to revert the change so they can complain too and then perhaps you might take account of WP:Consensus even if you think your one voice is worth more than any other one voice and go changing things like that against WP:PGCHANGE. Dmcq (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The example subtopics of McCain, planets, Newton, and centenarians are arbitrarily split according to seminatural divisions that do not have inherent notability. There are essentially no sources that discuss any of these subtopics independently from their main topics. The fact that these and many other articles exist indicates that often consensus favors a nonnotable split because its main topic is notable, not the subtopic; I am simply attempting to explain why this practice has arisen, on an appropriate page. JJB 17:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It would probably be best if at least some of the fairly straightforward questions above can be pondered by those other voices. Investigations are best made rationally and not via repeating concluded opinions. Agent00f (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the main template is better for linking to detail articles. The point about te summary is to be a summary, not details. Saying more details is just wrong and it also encourages unnecessary details in the summary. Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The article World War 2 uses the main template, not details. Dmcq (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Clear from Template talk:Main that main should be used so changing details back to main and changing to main in the example. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Before I changed it, this page inconsistently used both templates, "main" and "details", for the same purpose, so I chose the one that was unambiguous. If the other is used ("main"), other pages will need to be changed per Template talk:Main to resolve the contradiction and ambiguity. JJB 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You should have checked first. Dmcq (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Links to world war 2 were stuck in where the context was as a title of an article or section. This is one of the problem when people do large trivial edits, they just stick in errors without helping. They should be confined to articles. It would also be better if one is really desperate to mess around to be very careful and separate the substantive edits out. Dmcq (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Before I changed it, the link (not links) was in the example lead. I moved it to the example title, which was an improvement. Obviously in the real article the link appears in neither place, but here a link to the article is appropriate. Accordingly will try an alternate. Please do not charge me with sticking in errors when I am fixing an error with a compromise that is not necessarily an error. I affirm separating substantive edits out, but sometimes one doesn't anticipate what is substantive. JJB 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand WP:SS#Lead section

Lead section

Further information: Wikipedia:Lead section

For planned paper Wikipedia 1.0, one recommendation is that the paper version of articles will be the lead section of the web version. Summary style and news style can help make a concise intro that works as a standalone.

The links didn't help me at all. Dmcq (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is historical. Please rewrite as you see fit. Perhaps it can be folded into another section about news style. JJB 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq has referred to this edit as warring and "absolutely definitely wrong". The significant parts of this edit were taken from other policy and guidelines:

• WP:N: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list."
• WP:SIZE: "If necessary, split the article arbitrarily."
• WP:SS#Size (elsewhere on this page): "Judging the appropriate size depends on the topic."
• WP:LSC: "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles."

The remainder of this edit enfolded or copyedited Dmcq's text. Warring does not refer to new insertion or new enfolding of noncontroversial content, but to reversion. Accordingly, Dmcq is free to express concerns with the extant quotes here or in the respective talk pages of the quoted pages. JJB 16:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

JJB's edits relevant to this section

My revert trying to accomodate him

His 'enfolding'

I have repeatedly pointed out before this that bits split out of articles need separate notability they do not inherit notability. Splitting at an arbitrary point is simply wrong. Dmcq (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is not about "bits" split out, this is about what editors have always done when splitting is necessary due to very long article size and when there is no clear subdivision. JJB 17:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Example? Dmcq (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Four examples are above. Many more are findable. JJB 17:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I already explained about John McCain, Newtons later life is also notable as a separate topic, and list articles are treated specially. Why don't you just acknowledge you can be wrong and work with WP:Consensus rather than edit warring? Dmcq (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

We can disagree about our views of the examples, but your view does not seem to object to the policies and guidelines I imported into this article. If you have a specific text objection, please propose a change with a substantive reason. JJB 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

' if necessary, split a very long article arbitrarily' I 've lisst count how many times I've pointed out about notability of articles.. Also less importantly the notability of a list has little to do with the notability of the items in the list. '(as when most of the listed items fail the notability criteria).', plus just leave the 'also' out when referring to the guideline for long lists - it is the primary source about that - not 'also' Dmcq (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

In re your charge that I am committing an "end run around WP:Notability", I found this interesting discussion in WT:N archives, with reference to this community RFC. At WT:N Dmcq seems to have said that objecting to List of Shakespearean characters (A–K) because it has no independent notability is not useful. That's almost exactly the point I'm trying to make: objecting that such a list does have independent notability is also not useful. These splits are arbitrary.

Since you object to the wording from WP:SIZE, you might take the objection there. Your second objection seems to relate to the wording from WP:LSC, but does not give a reason for deleting the parenthesis; the stated case is a significant case of disregarding notability for subsections. I have taken out "also", which was intended to mean "beyond subtopically", not "as a nonprimary source". JJB 18:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's another one I neglected, which might need to be worked in:

• WP:INHERIT: "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an 'inherited notability' per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." JJB 19:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that bit in WP:SIZE.I will raise a question about it at WP:VPP. I do not believe guidelines should override policy. Dmcq (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I have raised this general question at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 96#Splitting_articles_arbitrarily Dmcq (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq has refused invitations to discuss this page here, continuing to discuss specifics of this page at VPP although the particular change only affects this page. To clarify the conversation, my latest edit was responsive to this*, and my next edit will be responsive to this (Dmcq charging my just-prior edit as "pointy and disruptive" in an edit summary), and to Dmcq's removal of the WP:N guideline as "inapproproiate synthesis". I grant that I didn't think of the fact that it's in WP:N, not WP:SIZE, but since Dmcq objects I will put it in a Notability section instead. The previous section I had it in discusses notability (so I will prepend instead of include), so the relevant N material is appropriate here, and there is no evidence of objection to the sentences themselves, only an unstated inference that Dmcq has not succeeded in communicating. If Dmcq believes this is still synthesis, it is recommended to discuss it on this page. It took several days to communicate the alleged synthesis last time, and when Dmcq finally succeeded in communicating a full allegation, I made the previous prompt change, which Dmcq just cut out; so I hope it does not take long to find the alleged syn this time. I think making these charges in an edit summary on a different, widely viewed page is starting to push the limits here, as there has been zero reason stated for excluding WP:N considerations from this page. JJB 00:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC) *Since Dmcq just (at VPP) asked for fuller response to the asterisked diff than my response via mainspace edit and summary, the answer is: it doesn't "obviously say" to me what you infer it does; my belief that N is always relevant is consistent with the fact that I don't infer what you do; and the reasons for including it are above (e.g., N is discussed here and N's nonlimitation on content is relevant). JJB 00:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Add: the perfected charge of syn is as follows: "'Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. If possible, split the content into logically separate articles' . This is obviously saying that one needn't bother about notability for spinout articles." Alleged syn can be fixed by separating the two synthesized pieces (separating the first two sentences from the third), which I did and Dmcq rejected. If, however, the first two sentences alone are "obviously saying that one needn't bother about notability for spinout articles", then they certainly are obviously saying that as they stand in WP:N (with the obvious given that WP does have size requirements), and thus the bogeyman syn that Dmcq believes I am making has been made for years by WP:N. JJB 00:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

And now, of course, Jclemens reverted Dmcq (reinserting) before I reinserted elsewhere, and Dmcq reverted my reinsertion but not Jclemens's, which is fine, because Jclemens's version is equally acceptable as mine. Dmcq has now charged me with vandalism in an edit summary and continued to not talk here. JJB 01:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC) And, of course, Dmcq has reverted the other reinsertion without talking, against consensus of 2, after two foul edit summaries. This could count as 3RR, but it's only 2 edit sets. Please discuss. JJB 01:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have explained about synthesis on Jclemens page and pointed them at WP:SYNTH for a fuller explanation. Dmcq (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have raised the question of this behaviour by JJB at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_edits_by_User:John_J._Bulten Dmcq (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe Jclemens didn't see the syn either. Please respond to my logic above that there is no syn. JJB 01:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The matter concerned a number of guidelines which were having bits taken out and stuck together, and so a centralized place was best. The discussion is already at VPP and should not be forked to other places. Dmcq (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

When you start reverting and you revert the wrong revert and find yourself immediately reverting again, (a) you may have a problem with reverting, and (b) you probably should be on the talk page too. I have linked your various arguments against my text from various pages, and when I could understand them I made accommodative edits. Your latest syn argument appears to be this from an arbiter's page. Near as I can tell, you're reading the existing AVOIDSPLIT as "ambiguous about whether notability is required" and the WP:N sentences, taken with it, as saying "it expressly is not required". I repeat that your interpretation of WP:N's placement here does not follow logically, and that Jclemens implicitly affirmed the same by repeating that the sentences (also a summary of WP:NNC) belong here.

Incidentally, the WP:N "edit battle" several of us were in was over the words, "Article and list topics must be notable"; I added them and you after consideration deleted them. If you want an implication that follows logically, the implication of your deleting the "must" statement is that you don't think topics must be notable! But that faulty conclusion suggests your deletion was mistaken, not that you are making a coach-and-six end run through or around N. (You can still self-revert safely as the last reverter.)

So at whatever page we continue to work this out, please answer directly the real remaining reasons, if any, that you disagree with N being quoted on a guideline that mentions N. JJB 04:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Also, Jclemens invited you to continue at talk after you announced unwatching; so feel free to continue there too (though I prefer here). JJB 04:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Oh, and Jclemens while supporting one of "my" versions also strongly encourages against edit-warring. Accordingly I do need to repeat my customary notice that if I should conclude discussion is not progressing to the stating and resolving of concerns I am free to bold again at a future date. JJB 05:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Dmcq is continuing to discuss on other pages without raising objections to my copy-paste from WP:N to here. Rather, Dmcq charges me with forking, though I have agreed to discuss the topic on any of the various pages Dmcq has selected and am only "summarizing" that discussion here for proper documentation. Accordingly, I may go ahead and boldly restore Jclemens's version as a 2-to-1 current preference without risk of being considered a warrior. There is still one other page that discussion may still validly "split out" onto later, viz., User talk:Dmcq. JJB 18:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Fix cold reversion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Per the reasons in the previous section, the unargued minor and stylistic improvements made by John J. Bulten, Dmcq, and HueSatLum should be restored, as the instance of cold reversion removed these changes that all parties have agreed to be improvements. The preferred version to revert to is Dmcq's, although if Dennis Brown believes there is inappropriateness in that version we could save the improvements without restoring the earlier questioned text I inserted by restoring this version instead.

• HueSatLum has affirmed that the hatnote should be restored, which is present in both proposed fixes but absent in the present version.
• Dmcq is "fully happy" with the first fix, indicating a preference for that fix over the second one.
• My concern about cold reversion would be fixed with either fix. In the first fix, the disputed text is neatly limited to only 2 sentences, while, in the second fix, there would be several sentences to be discussed at talk during the full prot.
• Jclemens affirmed WP:NNC should appear, favoring the insertion side in the 2-sentence dispute. It also appears from editing that Jclemens prefers the first fix over the second.
• In the section above I made this edit request without a template because it had not yet been protected. I point out that the second fix has this diff against Dennis's version, indicating that the second fix is completely minor and stylistic improvements. The first fix was the result of consensus about all points except the 2 sentences, so it has a greater diff from Dennis's version, but Dennis is the only one objecting to it, without providing a reason for undoing the improvements.

Since reversion by Dennis Brown demonstrably removed agreed improvements to the article, please restore one of the two versions linked above. JJB 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Any of those identified versions is fine by me. Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• There may be some merit to JJB's concern. I don't have a preferred version and have no opinion or opposition to any changes that any admin decides is appropriate. You might consider asking the protecting admin, thumperward (aka: Chris Cunningham) for the change as he is uninvolved and is objective in the matter. His Protection of the page is completely independent of the prior sanctions. The Protection does not supersede the previous ban. He is a fair person and can determine whether the changes were consensus or not, and suggest the best course of action or make the changes himself, and I would trust his judgement in this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• I would note, JJB, that I'm not objecting to any version. The ban was placed on you and Dmcq as a matter of principal, not because I disagreed with any particular content. If I had a preferred version or a personal edit issue, I would not have placed the sanction, as I would have been too involved to do so. This is the same reason I have no opinion now. I don't care what WP:SS says as much as I care that it is the consensus of the community and doesn't contradict other policy, and it is not being edited by those with a direct, temporary, conflict of interest. Other admins, such as DGG, have expressed the same concern. My motives are quite different than you make them out to be, but that is fine, we all have a right to our own opinions. That doesn't make them true, but we all have the right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Done I haven't read the ANI discussion, but there seems to be agreement here that the 494546510 version is appropriate, so I have reverted to this one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear, there are currently no restrictions on the above editors now, and everyone agrees to a slow, measured way of making changes here to avoid any conflict concerns. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The next discussion during page-protection should focus on the question of insertion of the two sentences from WP:N as either here or here (ignoring edit conflict between these two). I favor insertion, Dmcq sees synthesis. Dennis Brown does not object to any version. Jclemens says, "I do have a general agreement that WP:NNC should be added to WP:SS, because split/merge discussions should not degenerate into deletion, but rather un-splitting, merging, would be the preferred remedy." To me this implies inserting the 2 sentences and more. Dmcq favors an RFC here advertised on 3 other pages, which I don't object to but have not coded it right now. That's just to give everyone the current status. JJB 11:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You said "Discussion about AFD merge results is off-point" about Jclemens reason. Dennis Brown was trying to stay univolved as an admin dealing with conflict about this. Please do not just choose soundbites to make out something that doesn't reflect reality. This is the sort of thing I mean by synthesis. Dmcq (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear, I have taken great pains to not read any particular version, to insure I have no preferred version. I also do not endorse any version. My only concern is that whatever version becomes the "current" version is based on the input of many people, and is a clear consensus of the views of the community, after a few weeks of discussion for any change that is substantive. At this time, I have opted to not participate in the decision making process as to remain uninvolved, but reserve my right to do so in the future if I ever feel so inclined. If someone has a question about procedure, they can ask me on my talk page, but nothing here should infer that I agree or disagree with any changes. I have no opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq, yes, it was off-point at VPP (20:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)). My next sentence there was "Feel free to handle your preferred insertion as you see fit": I don't have a problem with discussion on additional text that you and Jclemens see fit, as it's not off-point here (though it will temporarily require an edit request). I also thought it would be appropriate to mention Dennis as well because he did edit in relation to the 2 sentences. Please do not charge me with synthesis in my own statements simply because you disagree with conclusions you infer from my statements because you haven't asked me to reconcile them: it makes it harder for you to demonstrate that you can spot synthesis in WP guidelines. What I am looking for is a linkage between how the 2 sentences anywhere in this page, taken with other statements in AVOIDSPLIT, can logically be combined to infer any of the synthetic conclusions you have alleged that I made. This demonstration would ideally have a syllogistic structure so that editors can judge whether it is a logical implication of the content and positioning of the sentences, or not. Thank you. JJB 12:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Just get on with the RfC if you want a change. There has been enough discussion at WP:VPP# Splitting articles arbitrarily already. Dmcq (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

As I've now said at VPP, I kinda thought you'd want the ordinary BRD cycle to resume, where we two discuss why you think there's synthesis, and we agree on an edit that will enfold your concerns. I have been reading your charges of synthesis as they come, and (except for one occasion where I said so and made a responsive edit) I've never seen the connect between what the words say and the idea of inherent nonnotability or whatever the syn is. If you're still unwilling to discuss (here) why the two sentences should not be in, then it would seem that consensus favors including them. Those are the basic BRD paths. Jumping to lots of other pages is not demonstration of syn, sorry. Looking forward to productive protected discussion, thanks. JJB 17:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.

Please insert the subsection shown in version C, repeated below. Dmcq proposed it; I do not disagree with its text, though it is not the best or best-formatted solution; and we are the only two commenting in detail here. I have also posted my belief at #Another proposal that Dmcq is WP:Status quo stonewalling or WP:FILIBUSTERing. Given my belief, it would be better to work from C as a baseline than to wait a month for edits as Dmcq seems to propose.

For completeness: Jayron32 and Shooterwalker prefer status quo but do not address the concerns stated on this talk; Victor Yus favors change generically; Jclemens supports the change that C was intended to address, though would not stop at C; Uzma Gamal and ThemFromSpace did not clearly support or oppose a version but do support GNG, so might support version E, which was built from C. If there's consensus on anything, it's that the RFC was confusingly presented. However, none of these editors have stuck with the conversation (feel free to chime back in), so this is primarily a two-editor discussion where one is willing to take the other's baseline to enhance further discussion.

It is not necessary to make a judgment on the stonewalling evidence, merely to comment on whether consensus between Dmcq and myself is sufficient to make the change to version C. The brown text is to be added below:

Naming conventions for subarticles

Subarticles (not to be confused with subpages) of a summary-style article are one of a few instances where an exception to the common-names principle for article naming is sometimes acceptable.

Subarticle deletion

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability

Notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. If a subarticle fails notability in an WP:AfD then it may be possible to merge the content into an article on a wider topic.

Subarticle navigation

Thank you. JJB 00:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this request. JJB said above 'Then my only objection would be that your (wholly new) sentence does not accurately summarize N and you can try to explain to me why it does in a separate section.' They do not fully agree with what they are proposing and are planning to start up discussion again. Better to wait for a consensus decision. I see this proposal as disriuptive. Dmcq (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that version C is an accurate statement; I don't agree that it is a summary of WP:N or that it is the best version. You have refused to explain why C summarizes N and I am attempting to get you to do so, or to do anything other than continue arguing for status quo without substantives. Agreeing on temporary baselines is consensus-building. Please do not charge me with being "disriuptive" when I am agreeing with your version. JJB 01:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The RfC is 'RfC: Should the summary style guideline quote WP:Notability and if so in what place'. What you are talking about is abandoning the RfC and setting up a new discussion on the same topic. If you have an option you want then stick it in the RfC and let the consensus decide about it. I believe you want option E, if so then give a good argument for it in the RfC rather than giving the opinion you don't support it by supporting C with the intention of then disputing what you proposed for insertion. I would like to see an end to this dispute. Dmcq (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

To admin - I'd be very happy if you could hide some of the RfC discussion above which is repetitive and not very relevant to the decision thanks. I think the long text is putting off contributors. Dmcq (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have requested closure of the RfC see #Have requested admin closure Dmcq (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have reiteratede the request for closure of the RfC by some admin. There's no ants in the pants reason for sticking in a change until that happens, especially not for someone to stick in a change they disagree with and want changed. Dmcq (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:RFC, you can close the RFC yourself. There is nothing that says I can't either. The purpose of RFC is to obtain consensus, not to stonewall, nor to revert away from your own proposal. Writing for the opponent is part of consensus-building from a baseline that all agree is an improvement. Further, many RFC's are not closed by admin anyway but by bot. Since I have provided evidence above that I see no way to read except as your stonewalling, you have not contradicted the evidence, you have not closed the RFC, and your latest reversion confirms the evidence, it appears it is now time for me to take the discussion to a different page. JJB 18:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not appreciate personal attacks. Take it to WP:AN/I if you wish to complain about me. Dmcq (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Observation - Most RfC's run 30 days, some much longer, some a bit shorter. This has gone on just one week. Why the hurry to close? One week seems way to short to close, in my opinion. Some people are on vacation, school finals, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As I explained in the request to close people just don't seem to be contributing and JJB was very insistent on changing the text without any extra waiting. The best way of allowing change is to end the RfC properly early and get the best decision we can out of that. I don't see how either of us can close the RfC in a way that is visibly neutral, an admin would be needed for that. Is what you are saying that I should withdraw the request and we leave the RfC to close naturally, in that case what should be done about this change then? Dmcq (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:List of Arcade Video Games Navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a perennially controversial issue, so I've started a RfC at Template talk:Main#RfC. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed a new section that was added yesterday. It read in full:

Multiple mains

In many cases a subarticle is only referenced from a single parent article. However, it is not uncommon that a subarticle is 'mained' from two or more different articles. Where this occurs each parent article may have their own summary of the subarticle while the subarticle does full coverage. Do not split or duplicate the subarticle simply to avoid multiple mains.

I believe this is controversial and should be discussed before it is included in the guideline. For example, it seems to contradict the usage defined for Template:Main in its documentation. My major concern is that this may become a recipe for summary-style content forks. --Stfg (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be controversial, and it can never do that.

As an example of why you need it, if you have two major topics, they can both need the same subtopic as part of them. To make up a fictitious example assassination and JFK could both require a subtopic of JFK assassination. So all you do is put a quick summary section in both JFK and assassination and add the main template to the top of that section in each place.

The alternatives are mostly just bad, you either duplicate the material in both assassination and JFK or you create two different subarticles.

Another example could be a car engine; if two cars share the same car engine, then it's wrong to have two different articles for the same engine.

In some cases you can just do a wikilink, but if the subarticle is important enough and you have a whole section in each of the parent articles, then it's appropriate to do this.

This is already done in several places in Wikipedia.GliderMaven (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The template you need, I believe, is {{See also}}. --Stfg (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that isn't the right template for the JFK/assassination type example. A 'see also' is intended for use to refer to something that is similar, but different; for example 'Lego' and 'Meccanno' could be a 'see also'. In this case JFK Assassination is an actual example of both JFK and Assassination. Do you see the difference?GliderMaven (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. Of course I see the difference, but I don't find the documentation of {{See also}} so restrictive. The documentation of {{Main}} does restrict its use, as I have pointed out elsewhere. Other templates that would serve in particular cases include several linked from these. It happens that John F. Kennedy#Assassination invokes {{main|Assassination of John F. Kennedy}}, and that is fine because that event is truly a sub-topic of JFK. And it happens that Assassination doesn't have such a section. But if it did, the {{Details}} template might be best for the section hatnote, rather than using {{Main}} in a way for which it isn't intended, because the JFK assassination is an instance of an assassination rather than a sub-topic of it. (There are other options too.) --Stfg (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Details is another valid option rather than main, and can be used in very much the same way as it. However, the documentation for 'see also' reads: Note: use only when OTHER TOPIC PAGE is related to current article..., which is telling you should only use it for relateds, not for further detail/mains.GliderMaven (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

OK with relateds for See also. --Stfg (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

When a section is written in summary style, should it's name closely reflect the title of the article? This was the subject of a dispute (here) over a summary-style section in the article Embassy of the United States, Mogadishu about its evacuation, for which the main article is Operation Eastern Exit, and whether the section title should be the operation name or a descriptive term such as "Closure and evacuation". There isn't explicit guidance for the section name of a summary-style section on this page, MOS:LAYOUT#Section templates and summary style, or WP:HAT and I think something should be added to this page about that. But before proposing any specific phrase, what should be the position on this issue? How close should the section name be to the name of the main article? AHeneen (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Take the case when I want to summarise an article A in my article B. A is very well sourced but I do not have access to its sources; do I have to right to summarise it and/or use its inline cites? WP:CWW comes to mind but I doubt it applies here, and I remember WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Shouldn't this be mentioned in this page too? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

A portion of this guideline is in direct conflict with Wikipedia:Article size. The following text currently appears in the "Rationale" section of this (Summary style) guideline:

This style of organizing articles is somewhat related to news style except that it focuses on topics instead of articles. The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details, thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of details they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic. Breakout methods should anticipate the various details levels that typical readers will look for.
This is more helpful to the reader than a very long article that just keeps growing, eventually reaching book length. Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front, by summarizing main points and going into more details on particular points (subtopics) in separate articles. What constitutes "too long" is largely based on the topic, but generally 30 kilobytes of readable prose is the starting point at which articles may be considered too long. Articles that go above this have a burden of proof that extra text is needed to efficiently cover their topics and that the extra reading time is justified.

— Wikipedia:Summary style#Rationale (emphasis added)

However, the "Size" subsection of WP:Article size says (emphasis added;I can't place the table in the quote template...it should be obvious the quoted content is between the dashed lines):

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

The 30kB rule on WP:Summary style apparently goes back to 2006 and at that time it was consistent with WP:Article size, based on two discussions in the archives for this page (Wikipedia talk:Summary style/Archive 1#How to determine size for summary style and the adjacent section Wikipedia talk:Summary style/Archive 1#30kb of prose):

See Wikipedia:Summary style#Size, which links to Wikipedia:Article size. On that page there is, among other things: ">30KB - May eventually need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size; this is less critical for lists)".
Whatever the improvement you propose, I think consistency with Wikipedia:Article size would best be persued. If you feel that that page might benefit from updating, best to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Article size. --Francis Schonken 13:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears the change on WP:Article size was first proposed in this 2008 discussion. At the time articles over 30kB readable prose size "[p]robably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)".

Almost a year later, Wikipedia talk:Article size/Archive 4#Rule of thumb again brought up the issue of increasing the size from 30 to 40. There was no clear consensus explicitly agreeing to the increase, but it was changed changed by one of the editors to the discussion with the edit summary: "restoring split recommend number to previously used 40; range consistent with number below. Greater than or equal to sign. See talk". Note that the change was made on 21 April 2009 (mid-point in discussion), but the discussion continued until 23 April.

There was a tangential discussion about article length at Wikipedia talk:Article size/Archive 5#Discussion about split of large articles at an arbitrary point, which discusses a couple points but mainly points to a then-ongoing discussion at the village pump Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 96#Splitting articles arbitrarily (this discussion is long...skimming through it, it mainly relates to whether articles should be forced to be "arbitrarily" split and whether the split article needs independent notability).

Both WP:Summary style and WP:Article size are editing guidelines and the relevant part of both guidelines has been unchanged for 7 years.

My thoughts (divided and numbered to ease discussion):

1. 40 kB "readable prose size" is more appropriate.
2. WP:Summary style and WP:Article size substantially overlap and could be merged. Both have been around for a long time, but a redirect from the page name that isn't kept (assuming the combined guideline would use one of the two titles) would be a redirect and all anchors would be changed to redirect to the correct location, so editor familiarity with these guidelines wouldn't be substantially harmed. That said, I am not interested in performing this task or working out the details of how the merged guideline would be structured & worded.
3. The "Rationale" section is important to understanding this guideline (WP:Summary style) and should be the first section after the lead
4. The structure of the "Rationale" section should be reversed: "Levels of desired details" should be the section name and its content should begin the section, "Rationale" and the content presently before the "Levels of desired details" subsection should be a subsection (but see next suggestion)

AHeneen (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Tx for quoting what I wrote 10 years ago, however that has little further relevance after the article size guidance has changed.

Re. your points

1. updated
2. the focus of this guideline is a technique of splitting (how to split, and several considerations when doing that), the focus of the other guideline is when to split. I'd keep that basic thought, and thus two separate guidelines.
3. per #2, the rationale is largely in the other guideline, thus not the focus here. I grouped the rationale (and the clear link to the other guideline) in the rationale section, without moving that section, for the time being.
4. the rationale section may benefit from some further rewriting (not just update 30 → 40 and groupe "size" and "rationale"), it is material that originated long ago, and got crufted a bit. I don't think I necessarily agree with the reversal you propose. Well, maybe propose your rewrite, I'd have to see what it would look like before making up my mind. It may work better than what we have currently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

When these guidelines where created page size was quite important to the reader for reasons of download time, and to Wikipedia for reasons of bandwidth. The first reason is far less salient today.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC).

What do you understand by "The first reason": readable proze size? download time? Wikimedia server bandwith? – these are somewhat different reasons:

• readable proze size is gaining momentum w.r.t. smartphone users, who take a much larger share now than in Wikipedia's early years. When the page size guideline says 40kb is the point where a split should be considered, then that's what it is as far as I'm concerned. Like I wrote in 2006, cited above: "...I think consistency with Wikipedia:Article size would best be persued. If you feel that that page might benefit from updating, best to discuss at Wikipedia talk:Article size."
• download time: an argument still made, see e.g. Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach#Three-article proposal, "This article is too long to be loaded,...". However that rationale is no part of Wikipedia:Summary style, so I see no reason to discuss this rationale any further here. It's not part of this guideline, and nobody proposes to introduce it here. Download time is also in most cases more influenced by images and other media, large sortable tables, excessive number of and/or complex template calls, etc. than that it would be influenced by proze size as such. Apart from super-simple pages (that have no download time issues, nor readable proze size issues) prose size has no correlation with download time.
• Wikimedia server bandwith is not part of the rationale on this page, nobody proposes to introduce it here, so I can't quite follow why such strawman-like argumentation is introduced here.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, there's an ongoing discussion at #Possible problem spanning multiple vehicle articles which may be of interest to followers of this page. It raises questions as to whether the creation of a series of new summary articles necessitates the removal of content from eight preexisting articles which address what might retroactively be considered as 'child' topics of the series of freshly created 'parents'. The Wikipedia:Summary style guidelines have been explicitly brought up in the discussion. --Kevjonesin (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly added a subsection on how to implement selective transclusion of a sub-article lead to a parent article for automated content synchronization. If there's any objection to covering how to implement this on this page, feel free to revert my addition and discuss it here.

Assuming that there are no objections to my addition, since implementing a selective transclusion is rather technical, I was wondering if others thought that it would be useful to include a list of example articles where a sub-article's lead is selectively transcluded into a section of its parent article.

Some examples include:

1. Sub article: Zinc and the common cold; Parent article section: Zinc#Common cold
2. Sub article: Bodybuilding supplement; Parent article section: Dietary supplement#Bodybuilding supplements

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Overly long list items

Gist: Add brief advice about what to do about excessively large items in lists, to either WP:Manual of Style/Lists or WP:Summary style.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I have an unusual situation and can't figure out where to ask.

I asked what to do about World oil market chronology from 2003‎ getting too long. It appears the recommended action is to take most of the details out and put them in smaller articles covering shorter time periods. Each smaller article would have to refer back to the parent article, which would seem to be a use for the main template. At the same time, the brief summaries of each group of years would seem to need a link to the longer detailed information, which seems also to be a use for the main template. — Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The terminology used throughout the guideline changes in the Synchronization section, making it confusing and open to misinterpretation. I'd like to modify it to continue the parent/child article pattern of the rest of the guideline, as follows (bold for additions, strikethrough for removal):

Sometimes editors will add details to a summary section parent article without adding those facts to the more detailed child article. To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed child article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section parent article. If the detailed child article changes considerably without updating the parent article, the summary section of the child article in the parent article will need to be rewritten to do it justice.

Below, I've collapsed the relevant "story" from the lead to the sync section, to show the language used up to that point, then how it changes in SYNC.

Thoughts? Disagreements? Schazjmd (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, Support, provides clarity.   // Timothy :: talk  03:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to make the change. Schazjmd (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, so this is confusing. WP:SUMMARY redirects to this page. wp:summary (lowercase) redirects to a disambiguation page at Wikipedia:Summary. And the disambiguation page has like 12 things on it.

What should we do with wp:summary? Should we redirect it to here? Also, should we delete the disambiguation page at Wikipedia:Summary? Should we do both? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think shortcuts that differ only by capitalization should ever have different targets. My suggestion would be to have both names target Wikipedia:Summary style and move the content at WP:Summary to WP:Summary (disambiguation) (or WP:SUMMARY (disambiguation)?) linked to from this page via hatnote. It looks like there is some precedent for such Wikipedia namespace dabs, e.g. WP:DR redirects to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which has a hatnote to Wikipedia:DR (disambiguation). Colin M (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done in the absence of any objections after a few weeks. Colin M (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

In agreement with earlier discussion , I changed the obsolete 40 kB recommendation to 100 kB. DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't figure out what discussion this is pointing too. However, I have put back the 40 kB, which is in line with the Wikipedia:Article size guideline and matches common use within GAN and FAC. CMD (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the choice of when to choose 'Main' vs. 'Further' links in the top-of-section link depends on the "relatedness" of the child article topic to the parent topic. More specifically, if there is a meronymic connection, it should be {{Main}}, and if it's a more diffuse relationship it should be {{Further}} (or {{See also}}).

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Transgender history that relates to this question, and your feedback would be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)