Wikipedia talk:Record charts/RFC

Splitting Wikipedia:Manual of Style (record charts)[edit]

WP:Record charts was renamed Wikipedia:Manual of Style (record charts) as a part of an effort to rationalize Manual of Style pages. WP:Record charts contained material that was not typical MOS guidance, specifically the sections pointed to by WP:GOODCHARTS, WP:BADCHARTS, and WP:USCHARTS, all of which contain content guidance, not style information. The detailed style information has caused some confusion over the guideline's scope, as it leads some editors to believe that the content guidance is limited only to the tables of charts (although there is no language in the guideline stating that). I would like to split the guideline to retain the style guideline at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (record charts) and restore the content guidance to WP:Record charts. My proposed split can be found at proposal for new MOS page and proposal for new content guideline. These pages are only slightly modified from the existing guidelines. I've added some text explaining the current guideline against single network charts, and some illustrations of when consensus has found that exceptions to the guideline were justified.—Kww(talk) 20:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support. The stuff at User:Kww/MOS should become shortcut MOS:CHARTS while the other stuff should have its existing shortcuts: WP:USCHARTS, WP:BADCHARTS, WP:GOODCHARTS etc. Essentially the seperate pages were merged but as Kevin pointed out not all of the information at the page is exactly MoS-related. Some refers to project guidelines. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way I have it now, WP:BADCHARTS, WP:GOODCHARTS, and WP:USCHARTS would all redirect to sections inside WP:Record charts. Are you saying that you think those three need to become separate guidelines as well?—Kww(talk) 21:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong support - I think a split is needed here. - eo (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support mostly out of trust. I believe you guys do good work and if you feel this will enhance that then I want to support it. It makes sense to have a guideline for form, and another for content. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm 100% with Shooterwalker here; charts are not my strong point, but I've seen Kww's name frequently popping up on charts-related issues, and I absolutely believe he would know what is best for the guidelines. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have a few issues with the content, but the two elements should definitely be split. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It seems reasonable enough to separate the advice for content from the advice for style. Content and style, while related, do not have to be covered on the same page. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 20:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support splitting the style guidelines from content guideline. Thanks for the work you've put into it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support makes perfect sense to me. long overdue. Mister sparky (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: makes sense as explained. Yves (talk) 05:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I agree with Yves. The article should be split. Novice7 (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for all the good reasons states above.--Muhandes (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the unanimous support, I performed the split on May 6, 2011.—Kww(talk) 11:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]