Talk:Lynn Anderson singles discography
Latest comment: 4 years ago by ChrisTofu11961 in topic Requested move 26 May 2020
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move 26 May 2020
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: OPPOSED ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 | It was proposed in this section that Lynn Anderson singles discography be renamed and moved to Lynn Anderson discography.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links: current log • target log
This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}} |
Lynn Anderson singles discography → Lynn Anderson discography – Proper split attribution from Lynn Anderson discography has not been provided, and the combined size of both Lynn Anderson singles discography & Lynn Anderson albums discography is under 100 kB Jax 0677 (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose even if not 100 KB, the size is still large enough that merging both back together would make for a very long article. Splitting discographies by albums/singles is acceptable, and these easily look big enough to stand on their own. It's not like she only has two albums or something. Also no idea what is meant by the "split attribution" as everything seems to line up here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: I agree with @TenPoundHammer: as I am not understanding "split attribution" either. As stated previously, splitting the discographies makes sense because it is easier for the reader to read and locate information. Also, why would it make sense to have the page history of the former discography on BOTH pages as that would be redundant. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Final decision: Opposed: The length of both articles are too long to fit onto one page. Some readers may find one large discography page confusing and challenging to read. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jax 0677: I agree with @TenPoundHammer: as I am not understanding "split attribution" either. As stated previously, splitting the discographies makes sense because it is easier for the reader to read and locate information. Also, why would it make sense to have the page history of the former discography on BOTH pages as that would be redundant. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.