PvXwiki talk:Build Merges and Splits

I really would like to see more people discuss how we should go about handling merge vs. split more evenly, and I'm not sure that my potentially outdated perspective is all that helpful beyond providing a cliffnotes history of why particular pages were merged/not merged. What I've put on the page covers most of what I've encountered and how I've tried to deal with it. -Toraen (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions
The following critera have to apply with adequate significance: In my opinion we should explicitly allow the use of user subpages for the WIP merge suggestion, but state that such a user subpage would be exempt from the usually assumed "ownership" of that user over his subpages. The sandbox isn't meant for such creations and I don't think that a WIP merge page is best off in the build namespace either. Expand one point for the hero/player issue: *Propose the page split on the talk page.
 * Criteria for Merging
 * The two builds' mainbars are mostly the same, or one includes the other entirely.
 * The builds are meant or can be used for the same purpose.
 * In some cases builds are optimized for a specific area, in which case it may be better to keep them separate from a general variant of the build. If most builds or the equipment are different or the specialized build features a thorough usage section for its special purpose the pages should be kept split.
 * The builds would be or are rated similarly for their gametypes (if different).
 * Process for Merging
 * Criteria for splitting
 * Too many gametypes assigned or page covers both a player and hero variant of the build.
 * Process for splitting
 * Discuss which of the content should remain on the current page and which should be transferred into the new one. Take the existing votes into consideration.
 * If the split will require formatting changes to either page, create a proposed split draft (need instructions/process for this)
 * Community discusses split.
 * Carry out result of discussion
 * Create a new page for the split content.
 * Modify the existing page.

But what shall we do if the point community discusses split (respectively merge) fails as no one enters the discussion or people drop out of the discussion before consensus is reached? Carry on after two weeks? --Krschkr (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the merge/split proposal goes uncontested for 2 weeks then I'd say it's fair game. It gets tricky if a discussion does happen but then dies before a resolution is reached. In the past, an admin who was not a participant in the discussion previously would make a judgment call (someone would likely have posted the issue on the AN). We're kinda lacking in active admins atm though. It's highly likely that one of us would be previously involved in such a scenario. -Toraen (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Fleshed this out a bit. A note on WIP pages: I feel they should be in the build namespace (as subpages) precisely because a userpage implies ownership that other namespaces purposefully lack. Rather than make an exception to that implied ownership, I'd rather have any community-presented drafts just exist in a space where PvX:OWN fully applies. One can always start a draft and get initial feedback in their own userspace, but I think to avoid potential issues the formal process should require it be presented in Build: (much like any other build submission). -Toraen (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, that's a good point to actually avoid user subpages for that purpose. Maybe it should be clarified that merge/split proposal tags are not to be removed unless discussion lead to that result. --Krschkr (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

outside perspective
I've been asked to give "an outside perspective" on this issue. For me, by far the biggest selling point for PvX is presentation - how easy it is for a user to find the build they want and then understand the content of that page. Any policy on merging and splitting should consider such questions as "will splitting this page make it easier to focus on the relevant content?" and "will merging these pages make it easier to find what you're looking for?" With presentation in mind, it seems disadvantageous to slap a merge/split tag at the top of the page, where it can't be removed for at least 2 weeks. Unless the community has already agreed on a merge/split and is currently in the process of making that edit, it causes unnecessary confusion for the majority of visitors. Why not just put it on the talk page? Houroftheowl (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The merge/split proposal tag alerts users that a change may happen, invites them to discuss the matter and while the tag is up it pushes users to actually discuss about it. Because of these functions it's important to use these tags and to have them not removed until a discussion lead to results. If it was used on the talk page people wouldn't be aware of potentially impending changes, which would be a failure in presenting important information. --Krschkr (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That said, rewording the tags for clarity should be helpful, and the timeframe is open to modification as well. 2 weeks is used in this proposal simply as a starting point, since the other grace periods (for trash/abandoned) are 2 weeks. -Toraen (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If there's a discussion the two weeks clause won't take effect though, so it shouldn't cause issues? --Krschkr (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I still need to make that more clear in the policy ...after I've had some sleep though. I'd probably make a mess of it right now. -Toraen (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Merge discussions
In cases where a merge draft exists it'd probably be best to use that one's talk page for the merge discussion, as in case of merges there are always multiple pages affected. That would ease finding the right place to discuss and bundle the talk contributions. The risk would be that relevant talk page content gets deleted if the merge is rejected in the end. But in that case the talk page content could be transferred to the most appropriate talk page of one of the pages which remain split? --Krschkr (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Added bits about archiving split/merge talks, and a recommendation to discuss merges on the merge-draft talk. Is there anything else this needs before it becomes official policy? Given that the process as-stated has been employed successfully a couple times, it seems to be ready. -Toraen (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say we can make it an official policy. --Krschkr (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)