Talk:Wayward Children

Today's merge

Significa liberdade has merged all of the individual books' articles into this series article today. This is a major change and should have been discussed beforehand. Since it wasn't, Significa liberdade, please take this opportunity to try to get a consensus for this.

Reasons not to make this change are that the one big page is much less navigable than the many smaller pages, and that this is pretty much unique among Wikipedia series articles: individual books always get their own articles. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Old, new. Dan Bloch (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

My apologies! I definitely should have done a merge discussion prior. I'm happy to revert to the previous state. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to see a consensus for this, but I'm okay with leaving it merged while it's being discussed. Either way. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Every Heart a Doorway, Down Among the Sticks and Bones, Beneath the Sugar Sky, In an Absent Dream, Come Tumbling Down, and Where the Drowned Girls Go into Wayward Children

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

---

While each book is independently notable based on reliable secondary sources, each of the articles for the individual books are Start articles (if I recall correctly), and they likely won't grow. Additionally, because the book series isn't written in chronological order, it doesn't necessarily make sense for the individual pages to only mention the books published before and after (e.g., in the infobox), though we could create a template. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't follow these arguments.

The articles were mostly C-class, not Start, but it doesn't matter. A third of Wikipedia is Start-class (ref). Getting rid of Start-class articles is not a goal of Wikipedia, certainly not if it makes the information harder to find and use.

Whether the books were written in chronological order or not also doesn't matter. The publications order is the standard order for the series (Amazon, Fantastic Fiction).

Against this, as I said above, the one big page is much less navigable than the many smaller pages, and the big page would be quite non-standard. I can't think of any other series where individual books are notable and don't have their own articles.

Again, for people comparing these, Old, new.

Also note, I linked to the second-newest version of the page instead of the newest because in the newest a bot has removed the images for violating WP:Non-free content criteria. I think they probably are legal in this context (though IANAL), but this would be one more thing you'd have to litigate, and it's a reminder that this is non-standard. Also note, this isn't just a theoretical problem--IIRC these images will be deleted in a week.

We should keep the separate articles. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for re-separating them. I had created all the individual book pages except Every Heart a Doorway and suddenly wondered whether it would have made more sense to have all the pages together. You're absolutely right it makes more sense to have them separated, and I should have told the impulsive part of my brain to think it through for at least thirty minutes before even placing a merge tag. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Danbloch: Would you consider a merge discussion necessary now to unmerge them, given two of us agree that the articles are best separated? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing's stopping you from just reversing yourself, and while I haven't been watching this article for very long, I don't see anybody who's been in favor of the merge (please correct if I'm wrong). —Cryptic 00:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade: Great, it sounds like we're in agreement. The discussion has been open for a day and no one else has registered an argument in favor, so I think we're good to go. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2024 (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.