Talk:Association of Splittist Wikipedians/Archives/2008

Logo

I created this for your wikipedia profiles.

A petal may not be as pretty as a flower, but if you're only interested in the petal the rest of the flower is not needed.
Association of Splittist Wikipedians

The image is only visible on wikipedia here. hopefully someone can upload it here and put it on the front page. - wieners

That is beautiful! It would be nice if this logo could become a userbox for members. Tyciol 18:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Different from Separatism?

Since they are both opposed to mergism, what's the difference of splittism between separatism? --CScheme 22:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm a bit confused by this myself. I can't locate any Association of Separatist Wikipedians so it doesn't seem like there's any competition for it. Similarly though, there is no article for splitism like there is for separatism as you have linked to. It seems it might be useful, if these are indeed the same as they appear to be, to rename separatism to splittism, or to rename this association to 'Association of Separist Wikipedians'. I don't favour one over the other. Regardless of what people go with, disambiguating by redirecting the previous term would be very useful. Tyciol 18:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Splittism redirects here. I don't think there's a difference between Splittism and Separatism. There's a discussion on whether this or the Separatism article should be moved. → C Teng ^[talk] 21:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Splittism versus Splitism

I have created a redirect for splittism since there is currently no article explaining it, and rediected it here. If it is later decided that it is synonymous with separatism, then as above, it would be more appropriate to direct it there, or move separatism to splittism, whatever is more appropriate. In either case, I am curious why there are two 'ts' in the term. Is this because when the word 'split' becomes a conjugated verb it's 'splitting'? I presume this is to avoid it being read as having a long 'i' as the double consonant retains it as a short vowel. So anyway my question is, would the potential to misunderstand this by large enough that possibly Splitism shold also be made into a redirect? Tyciol 20:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

transclusion notes

You should note that while splitting can be partly undone by the transclusion of many small articles into a large one, for those who want a grander view, the converse is not true, as talk pages are per article, not per section. In addition, a collection of small articles which can be put together into a number of different large ones cannot be described by merged articles, but instead demands reproduction of information, which can then in one article contradict what is said in another.

As a mediawiki feature that splittists should be interested in : making permalinks work such that a view of transcluded articles can note in its permalink the revision id of all transcluded articles, so that an actual snapshot of the article at a given point in time can be reconstructed.

Sj 20:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)