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

Someone brought up over at the Association of Splittist Wikipedians that splittism and separatism may be the same thing. In this case, some way of determining what to officially name it should be determined, so that this article or that association can reflect a name agreed upon by consensus or good reasoning. What is more appropriate, 'split' or 'separate' as an opposite of merge? Tyciol 22:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both are fine. Separatism could be mistaken as the culture definition, though. Either way, the Association should have the same name as the philosophy.  C Teng [talk] 20:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HP example[edit]

I don't think the HP is a great one. I fixed the name of the link, but as all names would point to the correct section of the list, it sort of points to merging as being useful in this case, and is supported by the HP wikiproject (so makes it seem Splittists want to split articles against consensus and expertise). It also does not counter the fact that most of these characters do not have sources discussing them in any depth, which i thought was the main argument for such lists. Maybe a non character list example would be better, especially with the continuous fiction notability arguments.Yobmod 10:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]