Dont Make Part Two

Some pages drag on because the conversation has no logical end or because the conversation is extremely controversial. These pages often get TooBigToEdit so they are split into -PartTwo? and -PartThree?. Newcomers have to not only wade through the original page but any others that were attached to it if they wish to join the discussion.

Therefore avoid splitting pages according to length. If you can tease out a topic, separate all content in that topic from the original page. Also consider that your discussion may be more appropriate to email or other forms of communication.

Sometimes pages are difficult to refactor - often because the subject matter is extremely controversial - and then they get TooBigToEdit. I've been seeing a lot of people simply continuing the page on a page with the same title only with the suffix "PartTwo", "Continued", or "IterationTwo." I think this is a bad idea.

Wiki without refactoring doesn't make any sense. And what good is a sprawling conversation that is so unfocused that it can't be contained to one page? Even if you say something insightful, what are the chances that somebody else is going to find it later? "Hm, so-and-so said something really interesting about IsraelAndPalestine?, but I can't remember if it's on PartOne, PartTwo, PartThree, or PartFour. Ohh, forget it."

Furthermore, I think the act of refactoring forces a kind of civility on a conversation - there are kinds of conversations that need this civility.

May I humbly suggest one relatively simple, non-controversial kind of refactoring: splitting by sub-topic. Aren't there subtopics of IsraelAndPalestine?, or AtlasShrugged, or TerroristDefinition? that can be extracted? Why aren't people trying this?

It's too hard without good intents from all participants, which of course c2 doesn't enjoy. The idea with TerroristDefinition? was that if participants didn't like the summaries they'd change 'em. Most of our disputants are completely uninterested in refactoring, and just want to spout and harangue and make messes. So iterations saving the mess but redirecting the conversation back to the (updated) position statement seemed sensible. This way a few months after the ThreadMode stops those worthless iteration pages can be quietly deleted.

But if the participants don't have good intent, what's the point of continuing the conversation? Perhaps when a page gets TooBigToEdit, then we can take that as a sign that it's time to stop writing, and time to start refactoring. Wouldn't stopping to refactor allow people time to step back and cool off?

Um, how are you going to get these various yahoos to stop yammering without violating the WikiNature? No, Francis, you have to deal with wiki as it is, not as you wish it were. Or invent a new format for such discussions. You can't refactor a live thread, but you can push it around so that it keeps an adequate focus.

: Well, if the page is TooBigToEdit, fewer people will be able to contribute to it. I'm not saying you force people to stop contributing - force of any kind, as you point out, is really un-Wiki. But maybe we shouldn't enable sprawling, unrefactored growth.

We don't. We summarize and move the mess away, clearing the decks for new mess. Eventually we either get a position that satisfies enough people that mess no longer occurs, or we lose patience. Since the latter hasn't occurred yet, the former rules.

Discussion about refactoring live threads moved to CanYouRefactoraLiveThread.

In general, I don't think it's always a good thing to have more words and more contributions. Concision is to be valued, and having a PartTwo simply allows the sprawl to continue.

What, you're suggesting deleting a live thread? Heck, that's a lot worse than letting it play out. Look at the TerroristDefinition? page - it's short, it's punchy, and it's finally reached a decent definition. In other words, the technique worked. We should do that more often, not less often, if we want concise pages.

: Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly, because I'm not suggesting deletion of any kind. I generally consider Delete to be the refactoring move of last resort, after Move, Extract, and Distill. Most comments deserved to be preserved somewhere, in some form.
: And although I think it's great that there are people who are working to keep the TerroristDefinition? section of pages meaningful, I also think that the process being used right now might not be the ideal. If I want to add a comment about whether or not the actions of the UnitedStates are terroristic, where do I put them? TerroristDefinition?? TerroristDefinitionDiscussionIterationOne?? TerroristDefinitionDiscussionIterationTwo??

If your interpretation of the actions of the US fits the TerroristDefinition?, then maybe UnitedStatesAsTerrorist?. If you think the US should meet the definition, but what's stated on TerroristDefinition? is incorrect, then you'll want to change the TerroristDefinition? to fit, ergo you'd contribute there. There's no point to the other two pages you mention that I can detect, and new comments don't fit into the 2 thread-mess-archives already created, so no further issue. Not so hard, is it?

What would make me confused is this: Some people are saying that the U.S. does things that can be considered terrorist. We can find comments to this effect on both TerroristDefinitionDiscussionIterationOne? and TerroristDefinitionDiscussionIterationTwo?. If I want to add to this part of the conversation, to either support or refute such an assertion, where should my new comments go? They should probably go on one of the two existing iterations, because you wouldn't want this topic spread across three pages. Maybe there's an order here I just don't see.

We were evolving a TerroristDefinition?. We iterated through 3 definitions so far. The first two failed for reasons made obvious by the discussions. The third, so far, has stayed up. If you want to classify the US as terrorist under this third definition, you have either to take the position that the US has met the definition, and explain how, or you have to take the position that while it does not meet the definition, the definition is too narrow. Either of those would make dandy topics for the definition page as it stands. or for new page. Take your pick. If the present TerroristDefinition? fails on this account, we'll no doubt make an iteration3 page and move on.

I don't think I understand your use of the word "failed." What does that mean, exactly? Are you going to leave the first two iterations? Are you planning to delete them eventually? Or refactor them eventually?

So let's say I believe the US does terroristic acts, and I want to say that. Do I have to check on all three pages to make sure my comments are not redundant with comments made on the main page or the other two iterations? Or maybe should I tell myself that since the first two iterations have failed, I can disregard all the comments on them, redundancy be damned?

I don't think I understand how such an organizational scheme is supposed to work.

I think the discussion on this page has wandered away from Francis's main point: that labeling topics with successive numbers or "sometopicContinued", is not helpful to other contributors, readers, or refactorers. A better practice is to give pages names that summarize or otherwise hint at the contents. To use the TerroristDefinition? as an example, refactored pages could have had titles such as DefineTerroristsAsViolentPeople?, TerroristsUseTerror?, IsTheUsaTerrorist?, etc. Or maybe all the rejected definitions could have been gathered on a page called RejectedTerroristDefinitions?. Another example would be the set of ExtremeProgrammingChallenge topics--these would be better named by identifying the specific issues of the challenges (which it appears someone has already started rectifying). --KrisJohnson

A common refrain on the part of those who are making a part two is that "this is simply temporary, we need more space to hold the argument." Which implies that the discussion will suffer if everybody is forced to take a break for some refactoring. What is it that leads people to believe that about discussions? If your discussion is so temporal that it will die once the initial spurt of writing is stopped, why is it here on Wiki anyway?

This topic has become too long. See DontMakePartTwoPartTwo.