On 7/9/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
If is
important enough to be its own article, then its inclusion in
[[Optimus Prime]] certainly can be justified.
If it's important enough to be its own article, why not just make it its
own article?
I don't agree that it is important enough for an article, I was just
pointing out that something that others think is important enough for
one doesn't qualify for removal from a larger article as WP:TRIVIA.
There is a middle ground here; the choices aren't its own article vs.
total purge from Wikipedia.
And,
unfortunately, that's how articles on every sub-subject get created,
because people often don't want to slog through editing down an overly
large article. It's easier to go off and create a little article on
your own, that way you get all the pride of ownership and creation and
none of the hassle of editing conflicts.
That's a bit of an assumption of bad faith there and doesn't match my
own experiences. When I create sub-articles it's usually by splitting
pieces off of an existing article, I don't often write the material from
scratch.
Bad faith? How so? I'm just positing an explanation for how these
things happen. An explanation which could be one of many, not a
unified field theory of article creation, so YMMV. It certainly seems
more than reasonable for cases like the airline near miss which
started the thread. Does anyone think that article was split off from
an existing one?