Talk:Raid of the Marion County Record

Kansas Low‑importance

	Kansas portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merging Marion County Record content into this article?

MERGE

The consensus was merge this article into the parent one, though should the section on the raid, now located at the other article grow unwieldy, the decision could be revisited Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi,

Would it be a good idea to merge the relevant content from the Marion County Record article into this one? This article is looking a bit bare-bones right now.

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

strong move/merge incident content from "Marion County Record" and "Marion, Kansas" articles into this article, but wait for comments from other editors. The amount of text about this incident in the Marion, Kansas article is too long for a city article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is confusing to readers to have to read two articles to get the full story on this event. Either move everything to the Marion County Record page or move it all here and leave a summary on the Record page. Putting some information here and different information there makes no sense. AlanK (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

strong oppose to any kind of vote-based decision to make a substantial change. It's reasonable to incrementally summarize and somewhat reduce the size of what's at Marion County Record as this one matures, but there's no need to take an accelerated approach to that. Above all, consider that readers looking for information about recent events will tend to just put "Marion County Record" as a search term, not "Raid of..." and they will tend to land first on that page. Evidence: Google Trends, Wikipedia page views
- Procedural comment, it's odd for this discussion to take place on this talk page (new) instead of that one (many watchers). At the minimum, there should be a clear notice of this discussion on Talk:Marion County Record in addition to the banner at the top of the article. But even so, the 21 watchers (19 of whom have been actively engaging) will not be notified of the progression of this discussion. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peteforsyth, you voted to oppose merge, but your arguments seem to support merge? Unclear, to this poor soul anyway. Herostratus (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: I think this proposal was a poor one leading to all kinds of confusion. The proposal was to merge the main Record article into this one. I oppose that. Separately, and unrelated to anything that's actually been proposed, I think this article probably needn't exist, and it would be good if this article were merged into the original/main article. As it stands, I think the summary !votes of "support" or "oppose" or "merge" or "don't merge" are pretty meaningless unless you read the specifics of each !voter, because there are very different ideas of what merges should be done or not done. I suppose this is an evolution of my original position; below, somebody suggested taking this article to AfD, and I now do agree that would be the best move. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — The decision to not directly fork from the Marion County Record article was deliberate; I was unsatisfied with the sequence of events and prose. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Absolutely no reason for a separate article, made by a user who chronically makes unnecessary articles. This is far less useful than the main article where all the content and context is, and a split that results in redundancy is not warranted. Reywas92^Talk 14:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As chronic as your incessant comments. A fundamental difference in how articles should be used on Wikipedia is acceptable; your repeated passive aggressive attacks are not and are borderline disruptive. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the main article, then look at this. The main article is substantially better with more content! If you're not going to at least perform a WP:SPLIT properly, don't make a crappy stub article that's far less informative than the main article! It's pretty bad for a reader to see all the content at Marion_County_Record#Present_status, be told Raid of the Marion County Record is the "main article", click on it, and find a nearly-empty page! This is simply unnecessary, and poorly executed even if it weren't, so please follow proper split procedures when proposing a subarticle. Reywas92^Talk 13:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it civil. I intentionally avoid copy and pasting because the information needs to be reviewed and sourcing needs to be confirmed for veracity. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong merge. As it stands, there's information about it scattered across three different articles. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. It's an ongoing event. So it's going to be changing. So you want to keep that all in one place. It's not efficient to have two articles at this time. There's also the danger of content forking, with the two different articles give different versions of events an so forth.

Once the event has been over for a while and editing needs have slowed down, then we can look at doing a proper, discussed, spinoff. That's really a matter of personal taste -- I like shorter articles and more of them, some prefer longer articles and fewer of them. There's no objective right or wrong about that, and no rule except when articles get really large. Let's get rid of this spinoff article and wait six months.

Maybe take this spinoff article to WP:AFD to air out the issue and get a clear decision. I'm not gonna, but it'd be a reasonable move. If deleted, no prejudice against recreating it when the time comes. Herostratus (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge This spinoff is too weak to stand on its own. Incorporate it into Marion County Record. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)÷ ← → · § Sign your posts on talk pages: Activist (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC) Cite your sources: Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[reply]

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

- Strong support, Merge Agree completely, merge unique content into the MRC article ASAP and delete this "raid" article. Activist (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean "oppose", not "merge"; the proposal is to move the info from the MCR article into this one. :David O. Johnson (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article into the main Marion County Record article. I doubt if this "Raid" will generate a substantial amount of follow-on activity. Both articles are fairly short right now. I think readers would benefit from having the content of this article included as a section in the Marion County Record article. If that section grows to become the vast majority of the Marion County Record article, we can split that out as a separate article after that (unlikely event) happens. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Raid" article should have any content not in the "Record" article moved to the latter, with the "Raid" article being deleted. Activist (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge Enough sourced content for two articles. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible source

The Portland Press-Herald just published a good backgrounder.[1] Authors are credited as Washington Post so not sure if it was printed there as well. Schazjmd (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a WaPo story that they apparently picked up. Maybe useful, if the Press-Herald has looser paywall policies than the Post. The original WaPo story (and another good in-depth overview piece from NPR) are listed in the external links section on the main article. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]