Talk:Wild Girl

Split?

   The accompanying Dab initially served to Dab "Wild Girl", and was broadened to Dab "The Wild Girl" as well; whether two Dab pages or one are used is left a matter of judgment in the final bullet pt of this link's section of DAB.
   However, in implementation, it was organized contrary to the accepted (one-"Introductory line") Dab-page format for equal-Dab'd titles, and requires at least reformatting.
   I concur with the broadener's likeliest implicit view: that users

-- do distinguish between the closely related titles "Wild Girl" and "The Wild Girl",
-- are likely to hope to correctly recall which of the two they previously saw and now seek, and
-- are thus more likely to start by going straight to a sub-list that agrees with their initial recollection of the title's exact wording, than to scan all the entries for one or a few other clues.

And i reject both

-- the idea that enuf is gained by saving users who guess wrong about "the" form following a link to the other page to justify forcing users who do remember the title correctly to display all the links, and
-- the one that two small pages, usefully partitioning the content, require too much more maintenance than one big one containing their sum.

(The opposing view would call for us (at least for starters) to cluster the moving-image works together, and separately cluster the comics and books -- subordinating or disregarding differences between exact titles of works in our ordering of the entries.) My view (which, as noted, the broadener is likely to share) invites, in this case, breaking up the edit history, to split

1.      the "Wild Girl"-only (2009 and earlier) phase (staying assigned to a Dab Wild Girl) from
2.      the phase in which, so far, nothing has been added but a non-section heading

   The Wild Girl may refer to:

   and, under it, "The Wild Girl"-titled works (along with material related to Dab-CU tags presumably elicited by them), which revisions should be moved (i.e., reassigned via moves following selective un-deletion) to a new primary-topic Dab at The Wild Girl (disambiguation).

   Note that the confusion about attribution often presented by either or both of the post-split portions of a previously unified edit history, is rarely lower than what this split would present.
   As to content, the split described would leave the effectively reverted "Wild Girl" an equal-Dab'n Dab page, and the new "The Wild Girl (disambiguation)" a primary-topic one.
   I'm pointing to this discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#"Wild Girl" split?, proposing there the assumption that this will be of narrow interest, and thus anticipating that those interested will discuss the issue here at Talk:Wild_Girl#Split?.
--Jerzy•t 05:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest we only need one dab page for "(The) Wild Girl(s)", and agree with the suggestion that those variations should be integrated into one sequence. I've done some cleanup and added a link to Wildgirl. I don't think we need worry about attribution of history to editors, as a dab page has no intellectual content and is purely a list. PamD 07:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  •    Fine as to not splitting.
       But you are not only off-topic (since we are not splitting the edit history), but also Dead Wrong, in asserting

we need [not] worry about attribution of history to editors [on Dab pages].

And copyright and copy-left are not for the glib, nor the faint of heart. While this is not the place to go into why, everything you said about them above is false, and saying what you said is potentially dangerous to the project, which is the only excuse for my responding at this length to your off-topic comment.
--Jerzy•t 18:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• The page is not so long as to produce difficulties in finding desired target and confusion between variants is likely enough to make keeping this as a single page preferable. older ≠ wiser 23:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)