Template:Friendly search suggestions

Redirect

@Infamia: I don't want to edit war with you. In my version the article redirects to Joe_Arpaio#Trump_Presidential_pardon, which is a much longer and better written article about the pardon. Can we keep it like that until a better article is created? Galobtter (talk) 08:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I merged that material into the article. Some of it is good, but some should probably be fixed.Infamia (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to side with Galobtter. This is an unnecessary fork from a semi-protected article, likely to add conflicting point-of-view in time (WP:POVFORK). Also, I am not sure if some of the points are actually encyclopaedic on this topic, such as the speculation if Trump will or will not use the same powers in other cases. This is WP:CRYSTAL.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jake Brockman: I'd say it already is quite POVFORKy. His paragraphs seem very negative against trump - "trump and his "henchmen"" seriously?Galobtter (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a POV FORK? 1) I've never edited at that article, so I'm not forking. 2) The topic is inherently more notable than Arpaio himself, and there is more scope for discussion of the issues here. If you don't like the henchmen comment, delete it. If you don't think speculation on Trump's use of pardons is warranted, delete it (although I did source that one). If you think the article should be deleted or merged, nominate it for deletion, and let's see what happens. Otherwise, suggest contributions or just make them. You don't need my permission to edit the article. This is Wikipedia. It's free for anyone to edit. Just don't blank the article again, please. Infamia (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what a fork is? A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles (or passages within articles) all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. and A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies. That's nothing to do with whether you edited the article. I didn't say it wasn't notable. Just because something is notable doesn't mean an article has to be created right now, if the current section on it is better. Which it is. Galobtter (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. So we have WP:SOAP, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:POVFORK. IMO this may warrant a redirect or AfD for now. The topic is notable, but may not require its own article until such a point where it becomes necessary to split the current section out from the main article to aid readability (and protect it equally). pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jake Brockman: I initially created this as a redirect about an hour ago..agree. But I think currently the section in Joe Arpaio is pretty undue, and there should be a separate article. The pardon should only have a few paragraphs on Joe Arpaio, not that huge section. But Infamia will probably revert any attempts to make it a redirect. I was explaining that to him on User talk:Oshwah Galobtter (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding a comment as a completely neutral party and in an administrative fashion only. Just make sure that any edits made to this page reflects consensus. It should be noted (and I actually should have mentioned this in the discussion on my user talk page) that this topic (and hence this article) is under discretionary sanctions by the Arbitration Committee per WP:ARBAP2. Infamia has been warned multiple times on my user talk page that edit warring and disruption isn't acceptable, and that discussions here must be a top priority if a dispute comes into motion. I'll take this opportunity to make the warning global to all editors involved here (as to not appear biased or that I'm picking only on one person); don't edit war! Please don't do it! I don't want to have to return here as the bad guy and take actions or enforce any sanctions. Make things easy on me, okay? :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oshwash. I don't think there has been any subsequent disputation since the initial dispute about the merger. I do appreciate your interventions at the talk page though, which were helpful in resolving the earlier matter. Infamia (talk) 10:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Infamia - Awesome! Make sure you keep it that way ;-)! As I said to Galobtter below: If you need my advice or input, you know where to find me. I hope that the input and responses I provided on my user talk page were helpful. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
LOL... "Oshwash"... that sounds like a washing machine cycle. That's funny! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Haha, oops. Sorry, there. Got it now. Infamia (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to simply work on the article and post on Talk:Joe Arpaio about cutting from the pardon sectoin instead of edit warring. An article anyway needs to be created. Galobtter (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galobtter - Hey, it's your call and your decision. You've been an editor here for awhile; I trust that whatever choice you make will be what's best for yourself. Regardless, just be smart and don't get sucked into anything silly that's going to get you into hot water ;-). If you need my advice or input, you know where to find me. I hope that the input and responses I provided on my user talk page were helpful. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categories