Talk:Treating

Merger proposal

Maybe merge this into the Bribery article? It's certainly small enough to do so. Deepred6502 (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

   Nah, but reciprocal links under "See also" might make sense.
--Jerzy•t 22:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Unacceptable article structure & remedy

   The page began as an article with the topic of treating, in the legal sense (which AFAIK is restricted to countries with British colonial and/or Commonwealth history). A surely well-meaning colleague added content on treating in the sense that for the moment, at least, can continue to be called the sociological sense, and let the topic sentences of two 'graphs do a form of "scattered" disambiguation. (I.e., the Dab-ing work was split between the intros of the two senses' respective portions of the text.) I shall split most the text (pretty much as i find it) into two new articles, and convert the accompanying main-namespace page into a guidelines-compliant Dab. That is, the main-space page Treating is about to become Dab -- and also the target of a Rdr at Treating (disambiguation). Thus lking to the Dab-suffixed page should reveal (directly or via redirection to Treating) whatever (as i write, nascent) titles will, by whenever you read this, have become the current articles.
   It's trivial to move the article-formatted content to the two new articles, and i think i can, without incident, also carry out the procedure of reassigning the edits that added content to Treating, respectively, AFA possible to whichever of the two new articles that content should be part of.
--Jerzy•t 08:11 & 19:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Split

   I intend to split the page, and do so more carefully than it is perhaps customary. That is, splits (or other refactorings into pages) are often done without regard for the matter of making the creation and evolution of the text as accessible as is feasible. This planned split is a great example: The history divides into 4 disjoint phases (in their chronological order):

1. the transition from a redirect to a stub for the legal sense
2. the rewording and/or growth of the stub text
3. the (policy-contrary) addition of a second, barely similar sense
4. matters aimed at the page in relation to others (concerning little more, if i remember correctly, than a misunderstanding about how interlanguage-linking among similar-content articles is now effected)

   I'd prefer that no one (in the decent interval i'll provide for possible discussion) carry out the split; my intention is to carry out the somewhat error-prone series of deletions, selective undeletions, and move/renames needed to split the history of the single main-namespace-page (neither a Dab nor an article!) in such a way that each contribution of content is documented in the edit history of the respective page where that content (whether in original form or not) will have ended up.
   If asked, i'll probably write a description of the steps i'll have taken, and provide it via Wiki-mail to individuals who want to understand it.
   It's not clear to me that encouraging anyone but wiki-experts more skilled than i to use it, by adding something to the project name-space, is responsible; it may have a learning curve too risky to risk encouraging its use. If i'm right that not trying to plan the sequence of actions in my head (but writing them down with a real pencil) can avoid the mistakes i made many years ago, i may start a discussion (which i'd point to from this talk page) of whether it's worth discussing a main-space page on the process.
   (Thanks to anyone who had the patience to read all that!)
--Jerzy•t 22:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It has been almost a year since you wrote that, Jerzy. Do you plan to carry it out in the near future? If not, I will perform a simple article split.--greenrd (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

   For starters, thanks for taking an interest!
   By chance i was just reminded of my own interest. Realistically, i'm much more committed to knowing it gets done than to doing it myself -- with the reservation that, despite my "dropping a flag on the play", the practical value of my interest may be insignificant. I'll bet your commitment is greater than mine, and esp'ly in light of that, i propose to contribute mostly, probably solely, by commenting ("Constructively, of course") on your approach.
--Jerzy•t 00:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

   Oh, didn't recall until just now that my comments included some pontification about maximizing the utility of the edit history. I don't think you've any obligation to follow my obsessive-compulsive preferences re history that i stated above, but if you want work up the copy for the two articles (and any Dab) on this talk page, i'll keep my commitments clear enough to promptly do the technical magic when you're ready. Except between the 17th and July 1.
--Jerzy•t 01:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's time to do the split. The new article should be titled "Treating (in the context of social dating)" If anyone has anything to say, pro or con, please add your comments. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGrayLion (talk • contribs) 07:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)