Wikipedia talk:Section moving

Name

@Bsherr: The name doesn't seam the best. Does anyone have a better one? I'm thinking split and merge, split n' merge, content move or similar. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 15:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I do like “content move”... which makes it clearer to other editors exactly what is happening to the content in question (ie the content will still exist in WP and, more importantly, is not being “deleted”... it has simply been moved to a more appropriate article). Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll go with that then. @Bsherr: What are the suggestions you have? – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 16:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh no, that's the name I actually think would be most disastrous. I'm very worried it conflates this with Wikipedia:Moving a page, which is completely unrelated. You'll have novice editors mistakenly starting Wikipedia:Requested moves thinking of this as a "partial move" instead of Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I would encourage you to use the existing terms for now, split and merge. If a consensus is reached around a new name, so be it, but it's the substance that matters much more than the name, which can be swapped in later. --Bsherr (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

True, I didn't think of that. I'll move it again. Is it fine to update the templates links and name of split and merge for consistency between them? – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking good. I'll be back in a bit to do some copyediting. --Bsherr (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on making this page a guideline

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 the discussion was oppose and tag with how-to

---

I think Wikipedia:Split and merge is ready to be a gudeline and is much better then the current WP:SPLIT and WP:MERGE system. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 06:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• This is a how-to page. The best thing it needs is {{Wikipedia how-to}} tag. No more no less. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Don't think it's necessary. Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Citing an essay against another essay wanting to be a guideline, that's... ironic? Anyways, I'm not opposed but this is in no way close to being fit for a guideline. It has bad language "blah blah blah", mismatch terminology, bad examples. Also, I'd like to know what the relation between this page and Wikipedia:Merging, Wikipedia:Splitting and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. One of my biggest issues with guideline/essay is not the creep factor, but the forking and the getting lost in so many same-topic pages. I honestly don't think 4 pages are needed for this topic, where one would be enough. --Gonnym (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I just noticed that I'm basically saying that I think the split and merge pages should be merged. Can't believe I didn't notice that pun coming. --Gonnym (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:SPLIT and WP:MERGE are fine as is. This would be akin to unnecessarily combining WP:MERGE and WP:REDIRECT in a page titled Wikipedia:Merge and redirect; many processes generally or sometimes occur consecutively. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is this is more of one thing where as WP:MERGE and WP:REDIRECT are two things. When you do a split and merge there's no middle page. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 23:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

"Split and merge" is convoluted. To me they seem more like two things: Split then merge (if the "split" does not create a new article then its not a split but rather simply moving content form one article to another). Something like this, if neccessary, is better suited for a section somewhere. It certainly doesn't need it's own discussion template or forum. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 00:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep; not going to bother spelling out any of my more specific objections. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:07, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Not very useful at this point. The "how to" component is not clear and cannot be followed step by step. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I concur. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki, Pythoncoder, and Godsy: There's quite a few people linking to Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and saying it's two different things. What if it was called Content move? would you feel it stills violates Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep or it two different things? – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 20:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• This all just boils down to:

If content in an article is off topic and would be better suited in another article, then that content should be removed from the article where it is off topic and copied, with attribution, to the article where it's better suited.

The rest is too complicated, confusing, and unnecessary. The question is how or why the off-topic content got there in the first place, and it shouldn't require a discussion to move it to the right place. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Split and merge templates should be nuked. We still aren't managing the existing merge and split templates well, and stirring them up into this muddy construction isn't going to help with managing the mess. How about stepping back and defining the problem needing to be solved before designing the solution. Show us some example articles where the problem exists. wbm1058 (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Rather than add new, convoluted "split and merge" templates to solve issues with off-topic content, why not just use the established Template:Off topic? Are there any problems with the way that's been implemented? wbm1058 (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC) See also Template:Relevance-inline and Category:Wikipedia articles that may have off-topic sections. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This issue is that none of the attribution templates to be used are properly documented or designed for this situation. I think we're premature in formalizing the status of the page, but there is a problem to be fixed here. --Bsherr (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Maybe rewrite this as Wikipedia:Moving off-topic content. Is there any Wikipedia: page giving guidance on how to use Template:Off topic? "Split" implies that the page is too big and content needs to be removed to reduce the size of the article, for technical reasons. I think this concept will be better understood as "moving off-topic content" and that's less likely to be confused with the concept of "WP:moving" a page (which is a confusing term to newbies as it really means renaming a page). wbm1058 (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Or a more general guideline "Wikipedia:Off-topic content" which discusses both options for dealing with it: (1) rewrite it to get it back on topic, or (2) "move" it to an on-topic article. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Nope, no page discussing how to use Template:Off topic. I think that's what's essentially trying to be accomplished here. We're really just talking about how we should title it. To me, all else being equal, "off topic" sounds negative and focuses on the problem while "split and merge" sounds positive and focuses on the solution. I think any title using "move" should be avoided, for exactly the reason you describe above. --Bsherr (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure off topic does sound a little negative, but this page should include stuff about Template:Off topic, the problem with Template:Off topic is that is may also refer to a "split" rather then a "split and merge". Maybe having a section on WP:SPLIT would be better? Then it can still be specific but we would have two very similar guidelines. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 20:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Appears to be more of an essay, does not seem to be worthy of being a guideline. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 17:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: This page reads more like a how-to guide than policy. Tag it with {{Wikipedia how-to}}. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:59, 27 September 2018 (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.

Edit summary requirement

This page was mentioned at Copying within Wikipedia (aka WP:CWW) (diff). The essence of Copying within Wikipedia is easy to miss at WP:CWW and I can't see it at all in this page. @Diannaa: Do you want to offer an opinion? Should this page exist? Should it prominently show the requirement to provide an edit summary with a link to the source? Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I see a spot in Step 5 where it recommends to "make a good edit summery" so I've placed information there as to how to provide the required attribution. I think everything here is already covered by WP:copying within Wikipedia and this page is not needed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

Template

I took liberty to create template:create article for use in sections which should likely be in need of the split-off. -Inowen (nlfte) 01:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Inowen, {{split|section=yes}} already does this. Primefac (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

add to Step 6

Step 6 should include restoring references when there's a reference that's defined outside of the section that's being moved (ref name). Also add guidance about fixing broken section templates and links elsewhere that still refer to the deleted section within the old article. rootsmusic (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Did you add this? FaviFake (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

No @FaviFake, I'm not experienced to know the best solutions for these problems. rootsmusic (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@Rootsmusic You can just copy and paste your comment into the article. You don't need to know everything to help. Someone more technical, in a few months or years, will likely add a solution for this problem, and it will be improved upon! FaviFake (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Merge

Should this process be merged with AfD just like the merging process, per § RfC: Merging merge discussions with AfD? FaviFake (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

This page is a how-to, not a guideline or discussion process. Primefac (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@Primefac H:M is also a how-to which describes the process of creating a merge proposal, the tags to use, the conventions, which are all obsolete now that that they're consensus to merge it into afd. I'm specifically referring to the process, i.e., all the steps of Wikipedia:Section moving § Procedure except the last two. FaviFake (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Moving is not merging. Primefac (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but from my experience most editors prefer the merge process, even if they're proposing a section move, probably because the process is plagued by the same problems the merge process had before being merged into AfD.

And if a section move needs to be discussed, then most of the time the section is as large as a medium sized article, otherwise it would be done boldly. FaviFake (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, let's take a few steps back and look big-picture. WP:PAM and WP:AFD are noticeboards which transclude discussions in a centralised location; the merge is happening because PAM is buried and no one uses it, and the thought (much like when WP:Templates for deletion became WP:Templates for discussion) was that merging an article into another is kind of like deleting that article (with a helping of WP:ATD mixed in), so there really isn't a good reason to have a separate noticeboard for what is essentially the same process.

Now, there is no centralised noticeboard for section moves; it is closer to the WP:RM process (which does have a noticeboard but like the WP:RFC process only lists the question/proposal and not the full discussion) in that regard, but at the end of the day it's just individual discussions on individual talk pages. We do not need to create a new process simply for the sake of combining it with another process. In addition, the scope would be wildly different; PAM/AFD is looking to smash two pages together into one page, section moving is just a cut/paste proposal, with the two articles still being there at the end of the day. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

You've convinced me. But I still feel like the section moving and splitting processes should be majorly overhauled in some way, as they suffer from the same issues that PAM had. What can I do or where should i go to change them or ask for feedback on this?

Regarding the fact that PAM is a noticeboar[d] which transclude[s] discussions in a centralised location, that only happened about a week after the RfC started. Previously, it was just a list of links. And a couple months before the RfC, PAM looked exactly like WP:PROPSPLIT, in that it was manual and only a few discussions were manually listed and archived. (see WT:PAM.) FaviFake (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Probably WP:VPR. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

better template in Step 6?

Step 6 suggests: "A {{copied}} template can be added to the talk pages of both the source and destination articles." However, that template doesn't have parameters to identify the source's section (from_section=) that's copied into the destination's section (to_section=). Is there a better template for this step? rootsmusic (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

The section is largely immaterial, the template is for attribution more than anything; ideally the person adding the {{copied}} template will be using a |diff= or |to_diff= which will show where the text was moved. I would also note that the section name could potentially be invalid after a period of time, especially if the sections are rewritten or renamed. Only Diamonds and Diffs are forever. Primefac (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Or you can simply input PAGE#SECTION instead of just PAGE as source and target. FaviFake (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)