Wikipedia:Splitting
 | This is an information page. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting. |
 | This page in a nutshell:
|
If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it may be appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new articles. In some cases, refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central (but only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia).
When to split
The two main reasons for splitting material out from an article are size and content relevance. If either the whole article, or the specific material within one section becomes too large, or if the material is seen to be inappropriate for the article due to being out of scope, then a split may be considered or proposed. Consideration must be given to size, notability and potential neutrality issues before proposing or carrying out a split.
Size split
Articles should be neither too big nor too small.
Large articles may have readability and technical issues. A page of about 10,000 words takes roughly 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. Also, some users may have technical limitations, such as a low speed service, an unstable connection, or a pay per megabyte service.
At 8,000 words and above it may benefit the reader to consider moving some sections to new articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style. Consideration, however, needs to be given to the amount and quality of material to be moved. If the material for the new article is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of the subject, or would simply duplicate the summary that would be left behind, then it may be too soon to move it. Unsourced material shouldn't be used to create new articles as it may have notability or verifiability issues.
Below 8,000 words, an article may not need splitting based on size alone, and at 6,000 words and below a split would generally only be justified based on content issues.
| Word count | What to do |
|---|---|
| > 15,000 words | Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed. |
| > 9,000 words | Probably should be divided or trimmed, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. |
| > 8,000 words | May need to be divided or trimmed; likelihood goes up with size. |
| < 6,000 words | Length alone does not justify division or trimming. |
| < 150 words | If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see Wikipedia:Stub. |
Word counts can be found with the help of XTools (also accessible via Page History from Page Statistics link at the top) under "Prose" in the "General statistics" section; Shubinator's DYK tool; or Prosesize.
These guidelines apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and do not apply to redirects. They also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table.
Too large after templates are expanded:
After all templates and transclusions are accounted for, if the resulting "post-expanded include size" may reach a limit. Symptoms include templates lower in the page, such as {{reflist}} or navigation templates at the bottom of the page not displaying properly. One solution is to split the article.
Since "un-doing" a split may be labor-intensive if significant editing happens to either page after the split, try to avoid splitting until after a community discussion. If there is another way to reduce the "post-expanded size" that is easier to "undo" than a split, consider doing it first, then opening a discussion to see what the long-term fix should be.
Likewise, if a split would be controversial, try to find a less controversial way to temporarily reduce the "post-expanded size" then open a discussion to find consensus for a long-term fix.
However, if splitting the page is the easiest-to-undo solution and such a split would not be controversial, consider being bold and splitting the page, then immediately opening a discussion to see if the community accepts the split or if it offers alternative solutions. In this case, be prepared to undo the split.
Content split
Sometimes two or more distinct topics may share the same base title or similar titles, such as "light", which may refer to electromagnetic radiation, a component that produces light, or spiritual illumination. Sometimes the distinct topics may be closely related, such as Coffea (the plant) and coffee (the product), or thermal energy and heat.
When two or more distinct topics with the same or a similar titles are being written about on the same page, even if they are closely related, a content split may be considered, and a disambiguation page created to point readers to the separate pages. Before proposing a split, consideration must be given both to notability of the offshoot topic and to potential neutrality issues. If one or more of the topics is not notable on its own, it may be more appropriate to simply remove the material from Wikipedia than to create a new article.
If unsure, start a discussion on the article's talk page using a template.
