Talk:Tipton Three
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] No Merge
I strongly oppose merging the articles about each of the three men from Tipton into an article about the Tipton Three.
I see no advantage in doing so. And I see many disadvantages, both specific and general.
Specifically, the men all have separate lives, have written separate documents, which are referred to in other articles in the wikipedia. When one of their writings is described elsewhere there is a link to the individual's name. It would be a disservice to readers to merge and redirect those articles to this one. It throws roadblocks before the reader who wants to read about the individual.
In general small focussed articles, in my opinion, serve the wikipedia much better than larger omnibus articles. I don't understand why so many wikipedians seem to want to confine the wikipedia, which could more closely emulate the branching, multidimensional nature of human knowledge, to the same linear flow forced upon paper documents. I wish I could get those committed to merging all related articles to actually sit and discuss the implications of their choice. -- Geo Swan 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, but all you've done is pointed out that previous editing on Wikipedia, most of which seems to have been done by you, have taken it for granted that each of the individuals should have their own individual article simply for being an individual, regardless of whether any of the factors that make them encyclopedic are individual. You say it "throws roadblocks" before the reader who wants to read about the individual. I say it throws roadblocks before the reader to lead him to believe there are four separate articles about the Tipton Three only for him to discover that the four articles duplicate information relentlessly; if he wants to make sure he gets all that Wikipedia has on the Tipton Three he has to read each of these four articles but most of that time will be wasted; unless he happens by random chance to save the best for last, he'll read articles only to find out that they contain nothing that wasn't already said.
- In general, articles which focus on some sort of overview of a subject serve Wikipedia much better than articles which zoom in on minute levels of detail and often have nothing of significance to say at that level. If Ruhal Ahmed was significantly different from Shafiq Rasul then isn't the reader going to have an easier time seeing that difference and understanding its significance comparing the two side-by-side rather than moving between articles trying to collect the whole story? If the differences are not significant (Ahmed's detainee number was 110, Rasul's was 86) then what's the point of covering them, and taking so many articles to do so? I wish I could get those committed to subdividing every subject into its smallest possible component parts and isolating those components in separate articles to actually sit and discuss the implications of their choice. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would say merge, but it may take more time before the "cultural significance" of the individuals (which at the moment is dubious at best) to disapate fully. At that time the only thing remembered is the event, not the people. Anyway, they don't appear to be notable at all outside of the "Tipton Three", and thusly Wikipedia would be better off having one encylopedic quality article instead of 3 stubby articles that provide nothing more than what is already said on the "main" article that links the three (or should at least). Stub articles that don't delve into any detail (and usually sit unedited for months, if not up to a year) are the bane of wikipedia. Radagast83 22:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No merge — I support having separate articles for different people. I have no problem with also having an article about a group of such people, and cross-linking between the articles. -Wookipedian 23:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Wookipedian is right. Having seperate articles is easily the most sensible solution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.14 (talk • contribs) .
