Association of Splittist Wikipedians/Members

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ʑP social sciences.png To join the splittists, feel free to add yourself:

  1. Sarge Baldy 17:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. a_gx7 07:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. FML 15:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Tyciol 18:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  5. Can anyone put theirselves on the list to join? I will. I've seen many discussions on merging topics, but could never see one good reason why the Mergists wanted to merge a well-written article into a short section on a list.  C Teng [talk] 20:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    Look at how long the list of mergists is compared to this! This association is new compared to the Mergists', right?  C Teng [talk] 20:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  6. Damërung This is my main philosopy.... i mean, why deleting or merging articles just because they are small when they can become larger or at least nice. -- 20:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC-5)
  7. Purplebackpack89 19:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  8. Alan Liefting 21:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  9. Sulmues The worst edit-fighting occurs in big articles. Can't Ok everyone with sheets longer than a constitution. --Sulmues 13:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  10. Rolyatleahcim 06:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  11. Smjwalsh 07:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC))
  12. Tisane 05:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  13. Open4D 20:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  14. ZyMOS 04:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  15. HV 20:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  16. Popsiclesare 03:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  17. Wieners 11:03, 7 June 2012 (Used to be on this list and had to re add myself... vandals?)
  18. GreggEdwards Both Splits and Merges contribute to a balanced Nuome. These represent one dimension of Cognitive Style sensu Herman Witkin. He observed that one dimension was Lumpers vs. Splitters, also strongly correlated with Elaborators vs. Skeletonizers. These tendencies seem roughly heritable, so by some interpretations of evolutionary genetics, both contribute to collective fitness. Note that the Encyclopedia Britanica had both approaches working together: the Macropedia (Lumper), and the Micropedia (Splitter). Most successful books in the form of a Thesaurus also combine approaches to serve both: the Category list (Lumper), and the Index (Splitter); Roget's Thesaurus gave equal space to both. The more highly rated reviews of thesauri at Amazon.com strongly testify to the value of using the two approaches together.
  19. J 1982 (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  20. Shanoman (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  21. --Itu (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Good idea to keep things in small units, so having small + meaningful histories
  22. David Cannon (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  23. DerMaxdorfer (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)