Talk:Human Resources (audio story)
Split?
Per the precedent set by User:CzechOut at Talk:Interference - Book Two (novel), this page needs to be split up into Human Resources - Part One (audio story) and Human Resources - Part Two (audio story). The reasons are that the two audio stories have separate ISBNs and are sold separately, and the Google SEO of "human resources" is currently abysmal; "human resources part one" and "human resources part two" would undoubtedly be better than just "human resources"; furthermore, in the absence of transcripts that can be Ctrl+F'd, combining two audios into one story unnecessarily complicates fact verification for later editors. I'm not currently equipped to go through and separate these two articles, but it needs to be done. Would anyone like to volunteer? – N8 ☎ 17:53, March 20, 2018 (UTC)
- Hi since I am one of the main editors of audio stories and I have created/edited every single character page that appeared in this story, it won't be a simple as just splitting this page every article will have to be rewriten to then explain what they did in each section. Also I find it complicates fact verification by having the split as it means the editors will have to remember which disk the reference comes from rather than just quoting the entire story as a whole. If you use the ISBN this as a reason to split the page then shouldn't every boxset be one page and all the separate stories be merged into one? And technically all new releases from Big Finish have two ISBNs then we should have a separate page for the CD release and the download. Adric♥Nyssa∩Talk? 20:45, March 20, 2018 (UTC)
- By the same logic, Blood of the Daleks, another two-part EDA story, would conceivably need to be split into two articles as well so it would require twice as much work. For exactly the same reasons as AdricLovesNyssa, I'm not convinced that it is necessary. GusF ☎ 21:20, March 20, 2018 (UTC)
- User:AdricLovesNyssa has a point. With Interference, we ended up with keeping the status quo because combining the two articles would create a lot of work. Here it's the opposite: splitting into two articles would take a lot of work. And we shouldn't be asking for volunteers to do a job this big until it's approved by an admin. Thanks, Shambala108 ☎ 01:20, March 21, 2018 (UTC)
- Not to disagree, but with Interference, there were several reasons given for why the pages wouldn't be merged, and "it'd be too much work" wasn't one of them. (It wouldn't be hard at all to do a bot run to replace every instance of "Interference - Book One" or "Interference - Book Two" with "Interference", then delete the duplicates; and I'd already merged the pages.) In contrast, all of the reasons that were actually listed by CzechOut in the Interference discussion equally apply to Human Resources, and don't see why that decision wouldn't be precedent-setting. – N8 ☎ 01:47, March 21, 2018 (UTC)
