Talk:University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point/Archive 1
Latest comment: 2 years ago by ElKevbo in topic Splitting out athletics
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Splitting out athletics
With the quality of the content and sourcing in the current attempts to split out some content, outside of the fact the article was not split properly, there is no reason for a split. Onel5969 TT me 01:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- There is no exception to edit-warring for this reason; please revert your edits until we come to a consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia usually has articles for Division I, II, III, etc. athletics pages, as they are almost always notable. And I see no reason why this program should not have a page. By the way, a discussion is not necessary, as the split page you pointed me to (while reverting my edit on the Pointers, how funny) says "If an article meets the criteria for splitting and no discussion is required, editors can be bold and carry out the split." BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- And funny how you ignore the fact that the split was reverted, so therefore a discussion is required. Using the very quote you provided. It also says that the article meets the criteria for splitting, and this one meets neither of the two criteria under split. Onel5969 TT me 02:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia usually has articles for Division I, II, III, etc. athletics pages, as they are almost always notable. And I see no reason why this program should not have a page. By the way, a discussion is not necessary, as the split page you pointed me to (while reverting my edit on the Pointers, how funny) says "If an article meets the criteria for splitting and no discussion is required, editors can be bold and carry out the split." BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)