Talk:Evidence regarding Bigfoot

Redirected to main Bigfoot article

Someone else called the article a POV fork and redirected it to the main Bigfoot article. I also agree with that move. The title suggests there is evidence when there is not, and the whole thing covers what the main article already covers better. DreamGuy (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The title isn't confirming evidence either way, it's just stating what the article is about. In the meantime, a {{POV-title}} can be used if there's issues with the title.

I don't disagree that this is a POV fork but there's a lot of content here that's NOT duplicated in the main article.. I really think wider community discussion is needed in the form of an AfD rather than a quick and dirty redirect losing all this content with extensive history. In an effort to preserve content I'd be happier with an extensive merge except that's quite a big job that I don't feel confident I could properly undertake. -- œ^™ 11:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As I have said often enough when dealing with unnecessary content forks: a redirect is not a deletion. If there is non-duplicated content feel free to move it to the parent page. An AfD is not necessary to fold back in unnecessary forking. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize that it is not a deletion but we are still losing valuable content and like I said, It would take a really complicated merge which, with me being just a maintenance-work gnome and not much of a writer, I don't think I'm comfortable in performing. Our duty to the readers is to provide as much encyclopedic content as we can. I just think it would be quite a shame that all this work, with its extensive contribution history, would not be available to the readers, as most are unaware of how to check the version history of a redirect. I'm hoping for a better option here than a redirect. There used to be a merge tag on it but I removed it because, once again, I didn't think a merge was feasible because of the size of the article, but I could be wrong and if someone thinks they can do this merge then that would be great, so maybe we could just restore the merge tag. In the meantime, I don't want edit-war over this so I think I'll request more input on this via WP:3O, if others agree that it should be redirected without any merge of content than I'll let it go. -- œ^™ 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion on merge discussion

I am responding to a request for a third opinion.

This article was created in February 2007 (diff) as part of an effort to reduce the size of the main article. A June 2007 redirect (diff) was reverted the following day (diff) with the reminder that the information had been split off the main article because it was getting too big.

If all of the content with citations in this "evidence" article (~27 kb) which isn't already in the main article (~33 kb) [is merged], one of the results will be a near-doubling in article size (~60 kb). I don't see that as an encyclopedic benefit. My own view is that it is preferable to keep this article separate rather than merge and redirect. If wider discussion is desired, {{Mergeto}}, RfC, or AfD* can serve that purpose. — Athaenara ✉ 18:29 and 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

* [see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evidence regarding Bigfoot — Athaenara ✉ 21:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)]

Another 30 here. Why should we assume that all of the information here needs to go into the Big Foot entry? Please see #7 at WP:NOTDIR. Which of the details amassed here have such encyclopedic value that losing them would be a loss? People like to compile lists and other types of entries here to "collect" various pieces of information they think is important for some reason or another. This should be discouraged. We want succinct and informative encyclopedia entries here not directories of personally intriguing information.PelleSmith (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And here's another opinion. The Bigfoot article has these document stats:

• File size: 164 kB
• Prose size (including all HTML code): 23 kB
• References (including all HTML code): 64 kB
• Wiki text: 35 kB
• Prose size (text only): 15 kB (2363 words) "readable prose size"
• References (text only): 10074 B

I can see no good reason to have this article split off into multiple fragments so a merge would be beneficial. Why are people worrying about 27 kB of extra text when a single image in Bigfoot File:Bigfoot Sightings in USA.png is 50 kB? --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the sources cited here are also cited in the Bigfoot article, so I doubt the size of any non-duplicative content returned to the main article would have much of an impact on its size. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 00:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)