Integral articles versus separate ones -- a.k.a. Article propagation

[Russell Potter]

I've noticed recently that some CZ articles have evolved from one into two and thence to several.  Fora time there, the main article on Contraception had only a single section ("Christian views on contraception"), and one of the two ridirects at the top of that entry led to another main entry with the same title and content as this subsection!  Most recently I happened to look up Joan of Arc, to discover that we have:

Joan of Arc
Joan of Arc, memory of
Joan of Arc, Rehabilitation trial
Joan of Arc, timeline
Joan of Arc, Trial

I can't for the life of me imagine why all of these things oughtn't to be in a single aricle, Joan of Arc.  Wouldn't someone looking at her trial appreciate a timeline?  And as for "memory of," this seems impossibly vague (does this reference Joan's own faculty of memory, the accounts given of her life from memory by others, or just the general historical reception of Joan's life over the centuries?

I fear we are skirting toward the infamous encyclopedia described by Jorge Luis Borges, which offered the following as its main sub-categories under the main entry "Animals":

(a) those belonging to the emperor
(b) those that are embalmed
(c) those that are domesticated
(d) the suckling pigs
(e) the sirens
(f) fabulous ones
(g) the roaming dogs
(h) those included in the present classification
(i) those that drive themselves crazy
(j) innumerable ones
(k) those painted with a very fine brush of camel hair
(l) et cetera
(m) those who have just broken the jug
(n) those who resemble flies from afar

Well --maybe it's not yet *that* bad. 

But I would propose that the Editorial Council, or someone, add some guidance on this -- when (generally) sub-articles are appropriate, who should decide if there is any doubt,  and some sort of process by which this decision could be ratified such that constables could enforce it.  Maybe such a policy could be called "Article Propagation"?

[Robert Winmill]

I'm personally in favor of having parts of an article broken out into separate sections.  I favor this for five (so far) reasons:

1 - It shortens the main line article and keeps the article focused on the most important points.

2 - It could improve the flow of a article making it more readable.

3 - Some broken out article sections could be considered full articles or at least complete on their own.

4 - It will allow for having competing sections (for example different historical perspectives of an event) without the competition of ideas getting in the way of main article.

5 -A way to allow for various POV in an article that provoke strong disagreements.

I do agree that this can be taken too far.  However, sometimes one has to break something down to find where the limits should have been.

[Greg Woodhouse]

In mathematics and the sciences, I think it's important to have both specialized articles addressing one aspect of the subject in depth, and survey or overview articles that try to show how the pieces fit together. I've been meaning to writer something about this under the title "Integration and Differentiation" but haven't gotten around to it yet. In my opinion, we are much better at the latter, writing articles that focus on one aspect of the subject (and the same is true of Wikipedia). Providing survey and overview articles is one area in which I think Citizendium has a real opportunity to add value to what is available at present.

[Nancy Sculerati]

Like with most things, the title alone is not the story. For many subjects, it is perfectly legitimate to have many articles. Even a specific topic- like the Civil War (USA), can legitimately have an article on each major general, battle, the war itself as a whole, and that's just the beginning. Here at CZ, remember Greg, we have freedom for authors and editors to choose their own topics. If authors choose their own topics, well then Jack might want to write about General Grant and not "The Civil War" and who is to say he can't? That he must write "The Civil War" or somebody must before a separate article on a single civil war general "makes sense" for the wiki?  I think the math articles that  were just approved are wonderful, but a critic could easily look at their titles and say- OH! Why have an article on Prime Numbers when there is no article on (name any major field of mathematics). That's ridiculous! I would say to that critic- well, its a really good article and if you are eager to have an article on Calculus or (name any major field or topic in Math) then, by all means-write one, or begin one. Or- go to the "request articles list" and request one. So, I say to you, with respect and affection - let it be. No one has the right to control an author's ability to start an article or focus on a topic.No one has the right to STOP someone from writing a perfectly legitimate article because that critic thinks that actually the author should be writing a different one, or another one first- except if the topic of the article breaks some fundamental policy.  The creation of an article is often not a linear process, and what matters is the product(s) not that an article may be woefully incomplete or unbalanced at its start. The main thing is- we don't have rules that prohibit registered users from starting articles here, and though any citizen can comment on a talk page and suggest incorporating a larger subject, it's nobody's call to forbid an article on "Christian views" of anything. That said, that particular article got split off from a larger one, and the name change was suggested by someone other than the primary author. It may end up getting merged or deleted. Still- it's part of the free creative process.

[Russell Potter]

I hope my original post was taken in the slightly playful spirit intended!

Free play in terms of what discrete thing gets an entry, or whether the editors in their wisdom think it better to make separate entries, is an enormously vital and valuable thing!  I am very confident that the Contraception article(s) will eventually provide a valuable range of information on aspects of that term.

But with Joan of Arc, I'm not as sure!  *If* indeed the more concise entries are more manageable, all very well, but I think that when a single figure or event (the US Civil War might be a real test case -- it's already one of our very longest entries!), then we really need some sort of index or "portal" page (I don't like that term especially).

When someone wants info on the US Civil War, but is not sure a) what they want, or b) where to find what they want, I think we'll want a page which offers guidance, and has links to everything from "US Civil War -- Medicine" to "Civil War Re-Enactment."  We can also use redirects and see alsos when the subject is a little less broad.

[Pat_Palmer]

The classic engineering joke comes to mind: "What is an elephant designed by committee?"  (Answer: a giraffe).

Or something like that.  Russell's list of animals gave me a good laugh.

I've been breaking computer articles up into small pieces, because in that field, each little term needs a lot said about it.  But maybe not Joan of Arc.  Can common sense prevail, rather than policy, in a matter like this?