Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
per page (see phab:T430854) Shortcuts WP:SIZERULEWP:SIZERULE WP:TOOBIGWP:TOOBIG WP:TOOLARGEWP:TOOLARGE These rules of thumb are intended to be approximate...
Click to read more »18:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC) The article, at 12000 words, is considered WP:TOOBIG. There is a lot of uncited prose, and an overreliance on block quotes. Unreliable...
Click to read more »featured article for review because I have several concerns. The article is WP:TOOBIG at over 12,000 words: prose can be summarised more effectively or spun out...
Click to read more »AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC) At over 13,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be trimmed or WP:SPINOUT. There are also uncited...
Click to read more »removed. The article is over 11,000 words and contains too much detail: WP:TOOBIG recommends that articles of this size are spun out to other articles and...
Click to read more »of Hearts • talk) 22:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC) At over 14,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends summarising, splitting and removing article prose. There are...
Click to read more »the yellow banner at the top of the page indicates that it might be WP:TOOBIG. There are some sources that might not be considered reliable, including...
Click to read more »including entire paragraphs. At almost 10,000 words, this article might be WP:TOOBIG per WP:SS. The article should summarise information more effectively or...
Click to read more »talk) 02:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC) At over 14,000 words, this article is WP:TOOBIG and information should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed...
Click to read more »13,000 words long, far more than the recommended maximum at WP:SS and WP:TOOBIG. There are also some uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Z1720...
Click to read more »text, including entire paragraphs. At over 10,000 words, the article is WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or...
Click to read more »true sub-article. The current parent article is 256k, 156k greater than WP:TOOBIG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC) delete It's in the...
Click to read more »entire paragraphs. At over 11,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that information be spun out, summarised more effectively or...
Click to read more »entire paragraphs. At over 16,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Should this article be split into various time periods, or should prose...
Click to read more »banner. At over 12,000 words large, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that some information be spun out, summarised more effectively...
Click to read more »articles depend on their individual coverage on WP:INDEPENDENT sources as well as the need based on WP:TOOBIG for the main article, and is not presumed....
Click to read more »still valid? The article, at over 10,500 words, is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Some of this article's prose should be spun out, summarised more effectively...
Click to read more »verification needed tags. The article is not concise and is considered WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that some information be moved to other articles or removed if...
Click to read more »sections and paragraphs. At over 11,000 words, this article is considered WP:TOOBIG and is probably too detailed in some areas. Some sections are quite large...
Click to read more »individual coverage on WP:INDEPENDENT sources as well as the need based on WP:TOOBIG for the main article, and is not presumed. Shortcut WP:NCRICEVENT#TWP:NCRICEVENT#T...
Click to read more »AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC) At over 10,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that some of the text be spun out into other articles, which...
Click to read more »statements, including almost the entire "Birds" section. At over 9,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends splitting off the article; since this is such a big topic, it...
Click to read more »text in the article, including entire paragraphs. At over 10,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be trimmed. Perhaps some information can be...
Click to read more »including the entire "Hymn to United Nations" section. At over 9,000 words, WP:TOOBIG suggests that it might be eligible to be trimmed, and the lead (with six...
Click to read more »article is quite large and more than the recommended amount in WP:AS and WP:TOOBIG. I think parts of the article can be spun out or summarised more effectively...
Click to read more »information to be an effective article, and thus does not follow WP:SS and WP:TOOBIG. The article also has lots of very long paragraphs (such as one paragraph...
Click to read more »and quotations. At over 11,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG; the scope of the topic is not broad enough to justify this large of a word...
Click to read more »09:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Merge to Arya 2: parent article is not WP:TOOBIG. From what I've seen, soundtrack articles are mostly merged/redirected to...
Click to read more »the article's GAN in 2020, which was just over 9,000 words; WP:AS and WP:TOOBIG recommend spinning out and trimming at 8,000 words. I think some information...
Click to read more »👸♥ 01:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC) This article has over 13,000 words: WP:TOOBIG says that it should probably be trimmed and WP:SPINOUT. There's also some...
Click to read more »recent events included. The article, at over 11,000 words, is considered WP:TOOBIG and should probably be trimmed or information spun out. I think lots of...
Click to read more »The article, at over 14,000 words, it is past the recommend length at WP:TOOBIG, and detailed information should be spun out, summarised more effectively...
Click to read more »not. At over just under 11,500 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I recommend that some information be spun out, summarised more effectively...
Click to read more »together for readability. The article is a little long at 10,000 words, per WP:TOOBIG. Looking through the article, I think this can be solved by removing excess...
Click to read more »awards/honours he received. At over 12,000 words, the article is considered WP:TOOBIG and detailed. There are lots of large sections that can be trimmed or moved...
Click to read more »and sections. At over 12,500 words, the article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I recommend that information be spun out, summarised more effectively,...
Click to read more »is easy to navigate with the giant amount of content- the article is WP:TOOBIG at ~151k and should be split into "Eminem albums discography", "Eminem singles...
Click to read more »country also list events important only to towns or cities would make it WP:TOOBIG. It's why we WP:Split huge topics into several articles in the first place...
Click to read more »this article has been significantly expanded since its GAN. WP:AS and WP:TOOBIG recommend that article sections be spun out and summarised more effectively...
Click to read more »including entire paragraphs, in the article. The article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG, with overly-detailed prose that can be summarised more effectively or removed...
Click to read more »Presently these pages are respectively 28 kilobytes and 40 kilobytes long. WP:TOOBIG suggests that a 60 kilobyte page probably needs to be divided into two pages...
Click to read more »to have an article separate from Kamma (caste) that is definitely not WP:TOOBIG to require splitting. (if Nayak was peculiar to the Kamma then, an argument...
Click to read more »these are summarised and put as prose instead. With over 10,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the information be spun out. I think this is a sign that...
Click to read more »over 13,000 words. This is larger than what is recommended in WP:AS and WP:TOOBIG. There are lots of opportunities to spin out and reduce prose so this article...
Click to read more »GA status, it was about 6200 words. It is now over 10,000 words, and WP:TOOBIG recommends spinning out articles of that size. Is there any information...
Click to read more »Merging this entire series of AfDs into the list would make it way too WP:TOOBIG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Keep - There is no evidence...
Click to read more »tables/lists), and covering the second series would not push it much higher. Per WP:TOOBIG, this is a perfectly manageable length. The second series is, in theory...
Click to read more »for a merge to the University's page, but the size of the latter is WP:TOOBIG. SBKSPP (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »to lose trivia and to be written in a more summary style. Note that WP:TOOBIG suggests that articles over 50kB "may need to be divided", articles over...
Click to read more »2025 (UTC) @Matarisvan: I think the article needs further trimming. WP:TOOBIG says that at over 9,000 words the article probably needs to be divided or...
Click to read more »split. I'd say the article's existence is warranted per the WP:GNG and WP:TOOBIG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Withdraw: This article...
Click to read more »Merging this entire series of AfDs into the list would make it way too WP:TOOBIG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Keep - There is no evidence...
Click to read more »Azerbaijan contains 68kb of readable prose and is already borderline WP:TOOBIG (> 60 kB: Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can...
Click to read more »the discussion. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC) WP:TOOBIG, cited in Nicklaus' case, doesn't apply to Garnett's page.—Bagumba (talk)...
Click to read more »paragraphs. At over 14,000 words, this article has too much detail and is WP:TOOBIG. A subject-matter expert could severely trim the content. There are some...
Click to read more »CMD (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Regarding size, according to WP:TOOBIG, 84kb is within the Probably should be divided (although the scope of a...
Click to read more »it is almost 16,000, almost double the recommended size at WP:AS and WP:TOOBIG that an article would be considered for WP:SPINOUT. I think this article...
Click to read more »Prathikaaram was split to separate articles due to bloating (72kb then, WP:TOOBIG), which was pointed out in its GA review. The "score" and the "soundtrack"...
Click to read more »means that no reader is likely to wade through the whole thing. See WP:TOOBIG: this article is 50% bigger than the maximum suggested there. It's asking...
Click to read more »portrayed in media. I don't see an issue with the resulting article being WP:TOOBIG and this is a clear subtopic of the proposed merge target. As such, a merge...
Click to read more »sense. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 10:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Put on a diet per WP:TOOBIG. -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 23:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »pages not being too long in size currently, it would not be breaching WP:TOOBIG. This article is currently less than 240 words according to the page size...
Click to read more »article, mostly entire paragraphs. The article, at over 15,000 words, is WP:TOOBIG and too detailed: some of the information should be moved to other articles...
Click to read more »I'm concerned that the article is over 10,000 words, at which poing WP:TOOBIG recommends spinning out and summarising prose more effectively. I don't...
Click to read more »paragraphs. At over 14,000 words, this article has too much detail and is WP:TOOBIG. While this might be a large topic, I think some prose can be spun out,...
Click to read more »October 2024 (UTC) Article has gotten out of hand since 2012 promotion. WP:TOOBIG concerns, article is 227,901 bytes and needs some trimming. Lots of cases...
Click to read more »has some uncited text. At over 14,000 words, the article is considered WP:TOOBIG. I suggest spinning out text that can go into other articles and summarising...
Click to read more »statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 13,000 words, the article is WP:TOOBIG and too WP:DETAIL. This includes too many quotes and block quotes (which...
Click to read more »including entire paragraphs, and The article, at over 14,000 words, is WP:TOOBIG: information can be spun out with more detailed information moved to the...
Click to read more »wordpress source. At over 13,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Can any of the information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or...
Click to read more »detailing of TV series episodes. It stops the main article from becoming…{{toobig}} DtownG 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an...
Click to read more »and too much detail of games and events. This causes the article to be WP:TOOBIG and efforts to spin out text or remove unnecessary prose have stalled. The...
Click to read more »above. Also the Jack Nicklaus article is some 11,000 words [1], so per WP:TOOBIG "Probably should be divided or trimmed". Whether this particular WP:SPLIT...
Click to read more »including entire paragraphs. At over 10,000 words long, this article is WP:TOOBIG and has too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC) There are...
Click to read more »is easy to navigate with the giant amount of content- the article is WP:TOOBIG at ~151k and should be split into "Eminem albums discography", "Eminem singles...
Click to read more »begin within a few days. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC) WP:TOOBIG: Omg, one script calculates the readable prose size to be 139kb! For perspective...
Click to read more »about that lawsuit. Merging it into the album article would make it WP:TOOBIG. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Comment This isn't a vote! and...
Click to read more »edits have brought the word count to just over 6,000, which is fine per WP:TOOBIG. I think some paragraphs can be broken up so that they are not too long...
Click to read more »from 2023 which needs to be resolved. It is over 11,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG states should probably be reduced. There are also a couple of uncited statements...
Click to read more »it in the "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed" category of WP:TOOBIG), has almost 1,000 citations, and exceeds the post-expand include size limit...
Click to read more »tables/lists), and covering the second series would not push it much higher. Per WP:TOOBIG, this is a perfectly manageable length. The second series is, in theory...
Click to read more »because if we combined the text we hit 49k of readable prose, which per WP:TOOBIG is near 50k the point of splitting with length as a rationale. Also despite...
Click to read more »prepare articles for FAC. I also would mention that WP:SS (and WP:AS, and WP:TOOBIG) mention that articles should be about 8,000 words maximum. Some information...
Click to read more »describe the 456 sources, which add up to 10,000 words). Keep in mind that WP:TOOBIG says that a word count of >15,000 words should "Almost certainly should...
Click to read more »The article, at over 11,000 words, is above the recommended length at WP:TOOBIG, I think summarising most of the block quotes will resolve this, but I think...
Click to read more »Comment: The readable prose size for this article is 74 kB, which is way WP:TOOBIG. The version which passed FA was only 38 kB, which means the current article...
Click to read more »useful content that has been moved off the main Bitcoin article due to WP:TOOBIG. Maybe needs some help with WP:RS. BTW, Huon you should have alerted the...
Click to read more »August 2018 (UTC) I used User:Dr pda/prosesize but there may be others at WP:TOOBIG -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC) Perhaps it would also...
Click to read more »I have to say anything else? Also Keep per the fact that it would be WP:TOOBIG for any info about this song to fit on either the album article or his discography...
Click to read more »There is uncited text throughout the article. At over 10,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that information be spun out. Is there information that can be...
Click to read more »Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC) That's at the high end of the WP:TOOBIG guideline. But the size was similar when it passed the GA [1], and it's...
Click to read more »brought up the first time this article was nominated for review. It is way WP:TOOBIG, with sections filling it with content as if there were no other articles...
Click to read more »entire paragraphs. At almost 12,000, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Spinning out and trimming prose can possibly begin with the sections that...
Click to read more »do him first or last.—Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC) I think WP:TOOBIG would be the argument to keep that article, and I think it would survive...
Click to read more »extremely lost. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Please see WP:TOOBIG, normally sub-articles are not spun out until the parent article reaches...
Click to read more »@Yosemiter: The original list of pro sports teams is close to being WP:TOOBIG (75/100 KB). I'd imagine it would be split along the lines of Major vs Minor...
Click to read more »Talk 18:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC) At 95,947 bytes it is too large as per WP:TOOBIG (and its not even complete). As that size spinoffs are recommended. However...
Click to read more »article; whether to merge or not should be determined based on WP:DUE, WP:TOOBIG, and editorial judgement about what serves the reader best. Vanamonde (Talk)...
Click to read more »secondary sources for a standalone article and merging back would run into WP:TOOBIG issues. There are parts that can be trimmed/removed (per Masem above) and...
Click to read more »inappropriate: the main article for this is around 40kb. According to WP:TOOBIG is "length alone does not justify division" at a size of around 40kb. Without...
Click to read more »2025 (UTC) Comment: The article is over 13,000 words in length, which WP:TOOBIG recommends spinning out or summarising more effectively. I think much of...
Click to read more »words. This is larger than the 8,000 words recommended at WP:AS and WP:TOOBIG. I think there is lots of information, especially in the various history...
Click to read more »the World Jewish Congress, at almost 15k words and 200kb, is simply WP:TOOBIG to add on an additional topic like this one, which can be expanded a little...
Click to read more »as Arizona State University is 10,000+ words, so at the point where WP:TOOBIG says it "Probably should be divided or trimmed", but that's not really within...
Click to read more »also duplicated in Human mating strategies, but that one is already WP:TOOBIG and should probably be split, with perhaps some of its content ending up...
Click to read more »important aspects. At over 14,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that text be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed...
Click to read more »WP:OR, some of the article is not WP:RELEVANT, which leads to it being WP:TOOBIG. I agree with AndyTheGrump: things that might be OK in Human mating strategies...
Click to read more »tables/lists), and covering the second series would not push it much higher. Per WP:TOOBIG, this is a perfectly manageable length. The second series is, in theory...
Click to read more »(UTC) Comments after a quick skim: The article is 11,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG recommends spinning out sections in articles of this length. I suggest doing...
Click to read more »going into unnecessary detail"). Relevant non-GA guidelines include WP:TOOBIG. Shouldn't be that hard for a cricket expert to trim down to a better length...
Click to read more »included as sections/subsections within her article without it becoming WP:TOOBIG BleachPuffin (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC) Redirect. Charting alone doesn't...
Click to read more »(UTC) Comments after a quick skim: At about 10,800 words, the article is WP:TOOBIG. Consider spinning out larger sections and summarising the prose more effectively...
Click to read more »discussion. Future discussion would be aided by reference to how WP:NOPAGE, WP:TOOBIG, and WP:DUE apply here, and whether readers would benefit from a merger...
Click to read more »000 words long, which is larger than what is recommended at WP:AS and WP:TOOBIG. I do not think the article's topic can justify its larger length, and sections...
Click to read more »Just to clarify beforehand, I used the Prosesize script as mentioned in WP:TOOBIG and it says that the "readable prose size" of this article is 66 kb while...
Click to read more »this time and a peer review be opened instead. At 101kb of prose size, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be split. I also notice some paragraphs do not...
Click to read more »merge with Capital punishment in Arizona could work unless it causes WP:TOOBIG. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC) I took some time to read through...
Click to read more »AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC) At over 12,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be trimmed and information spun off, and I think...
Click to read more »failure,[4], the article, Ebola virus cases in the United States is WP:TOOBIG at 118kb and much of the Duncan content should be offloaded here. The "Ebola...
Click to read more »explictly mention their outcome. —Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC) WP:TOOBIG was the major reason cited there, which doesn't apply to Larry Bird.—Bagumba...
Click to read more »The preference is to keep this off the main article, which is already WP:TOOBIG. - wolf 15:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Delete per nom and per WP:TNT. Potentially...
Click to read more »and available info about all of its specific tracks, and already is WP:TOOBIG. While the article is very short and needs expansion, the obvious solution...
Click to read more »suggested merge target Characters of Kingdom Hearts is 7765 words, arguably WP:TOOBIG for a merge that would actually preserve it. Regarding coverage, I know...
Click to read more »copyright concerns. The article also has over 10,000 words of prose, which WP:TOOBIG states should probably be spun-out or reduced. BroadwayWorld is used as...
Click to read more »Oppose merge. From Doncram's draft, it's evident that a single list is WP:TOOBIG. -- Tavix (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Strong KEEP, and strongly...
Click to read more »already a large and unbalanced page, will become too large (violating WP:TOOBIG) or more unbalanced (violating WP:PROPORTION) or will omit relevant material...
Click to read more »up by any guidelines or policies. His argument was a combination of WP:TOOBIG, WP:ILIKEIT, and mild personal attacks against me for nominating the article...
Click to read more »but that's also somewhat of a problem. unfortunately this article is WP:TOOBIG, currently on 15.8k words (and that's apparently with only using half the...
Click to read more »XRCO Awards is a WP:SPINOFF of X-Rated Critics Organization because of WP:TOOBIG. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) ·...
Click to read more »text, including entire paragraphs At over 10,000 words, the article is WP:TOOBIG and should use more WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for readability. Long sections, such...
Click to read more »recent review Result: Much of this review focused on whether the article is TOOBIG. However, the article has been significantly cut—by almost 100k bytes—since...
Click to read more »Given that the current target article is approaching the upper bounds of WP:TOOBIG - what content from this article exactly should be merged over? Hog Farm...
Click to read more »deserve attention or to be recorded. The proposed merge target is simply WP:TOOBIG at its current size to handle a substantial merge from this article. As...
Click to read more »17:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC) At over 13,000 words, it is recommended at WP:TOOBIG that the article length be reduced. Some of this material can be spun out...
Click to read more »entire paragraphs. At over 14,000 words, the article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Some prose should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed...
Click to read more »in the 'Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed.' category on WP:TOOBIG, though I don't really see where this article can be trimmed as mentioned...
Click to read more »coronavirus pandemic in India? It is above 9 thousand words and is almost WP:TOOBIG. Same with Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic which...
Click to read more »"pagedowns"!), an eyeglazing size even for one of the diaspora - see WP:TOOBIG:)). ps. shouldn't the history of scotland article have a "see also" link...
Click to read more »creating a content fork. Other issues worth considering are WP:DUE and WP:TOOBIG. I would try to follow pre-existing guidelines if available, but I do try...
Click to read more »GAN reviewed version, and longer than the 8,000 words that WP:AS and WP:TOOBIG recommend for spinning out. I think there are some sections that can be...
Click to read more »because: It is too long. Including notes it is over twice the size at which WP:TOOBIG suggests "May need to be divided" and larger than the "Almost certainly...
Click to read more »might go against WP:SS, The article, at over 10,000 words, is considered WP:TOOBIG. I think there is text that can be spun out or removed as too detailed from...
Click to read more »the article size is 70930. Articles > 50K are candidates for splitting WP:TOOBIG. IMO the Premiership section is too long--especially since there is a standalone...
Click to read more »the Lima Consensus ≠ Neoliberalism in Peru so a merge may result in WP:TOOBIG. They are two related topics but they aren't the same. Moondragon21 (talk)...
Click to read more »otherwise be fine with merging if Folklore's article size was not already WP:TOOBIG rather large. As it stands, the article's size is already at a level where...
Click to read more »when standards were different and which were shorter at that point. WP:TOOBIG suggests "> 60 kB Probably should be divided ... > 50 kB May need to be...
Click to read more »a requirement for this to reach FA again, but the article is getting WP:TOOBIG, currently at 64K of readable prose. What makes sports team pages challenging...
Click to read more »be summarised in the author's biography without the article becoming WP:TOOBIG. The article cites 22 sources that discuss the series in enormous depth...
Click to read more »847 bytes". That's way beyond the limit suggested by WP:CHOKING while WP:TOOBIG indicates that it should be split rather than expanded. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09...
Click to read more »to merge in the article about the show's sixth season, if it is not WP:TOOBIG to fit, that is. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC) HumanxAnthro, Just...
Click to read more »this position? I think the different impeachments can have more detail. WP:TOOBIG starts recommending dividing and trimming articles at 8,000 words, but this...
Click to read more »Opioid epidemic in the United States article is >13k words which makes it WP:TOOBIG for a merge that will respect due weight. Glad to see there isn't any 'neo-cold-war...
Click to read more »resolved before a GAN. At over 14,000 words, this article is considered WP:TOOBIG and detailed. I suggest spinning out some information or summarising the...
Click to read more »the writing and composition and production of certain songs it gets WP:TOOBIG. I've proposed this for Swift's folklore, and we already do this for every...
Click to read more »size (text only) = 52 kB (8592 words) so clearly RSS article is not WP:TOOBIG per the WP:PAGESIZE. regarding WP:PAGEDECIDE, I would say that it actually...
Click to read more »explained in the concept's article. This article is over 9,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG recommends be split and reduced: I think there are opportunities in this...
Click to read more »article about Bill Clinton's public image. If that article grows to meet WP:TOOBIG, the article can always be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:00, 4...
Click to read more »underdeveloped, with only 24kB of readable prose - well below the length for WP:TOOBIG concerns. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC) 1. This is a...
Click to read more »(UTC) @Qiushufang: At over 14,000 words, I think this article is still WP:TOOBIG. I think the "History" section is the best place to start spinning out information...
Click to read more »entire paragraphs. At over 12,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or...
Click to read more »(UTC) I could get behind that were Persecution of Christians not already WP:TOOBIG. I don't consider the OR issue as serious as you do: when there is an abundance...
Click to read more »formed as to what sub-articles are created if the redirect target meets WP:TOOBIG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC) I don't understand...
Click to read more »April 2026 (UTC) Oppose merge. Article is already on the verge of being WP:TOOBIG. Criticism of Apple has been covered as its own standalone topic across...
Click to read more »over 13,000 words. This is larger than what is recommended in WP:AS and WP:TOOBIG. There are lots of opportunities to spin out and reduce prose so this article...
Click to read more »happens, is 2 KB heavier than the size Wikipedia's guidelines suggest is WP:TOOBIG and should be forked. A Traintalk 20:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Keep MJ is...
Click to read more »online harassment, or even online shaming. But the former article is far WP:TOOBIG for a merge anyway, at 10505 words. It should arguably be split into a "by...
Click to read more »benefit, since the redirect target is already well written and perhaps WP:TOOBIG at 11617 words. Earwig broke when trying to run it on this article... interesting...
Click to read more »minority of one over this, even if I suspect the article might become WP:TOOBIG or be excessively swamped with material about the John Quincy Adams book...
Click to read more »WP:TOOBIG recommends that article splitting should be considered at around ~50 kb, this article is only ~19 kb really no where near the WP:TOOBIG issue...
Click to read more »is necessay ie. "<40 kB Length alone does not justify division", see WP:TOOBIG, btw, examples given by article creator, that have splits, have approximate...
Click to read more »article on reactions should be kept if merging is contraindicated by WP:TOOBIG and the reactions get significant coverage from independent reliable sources...
Click to read more »paragraphs. At almost 13,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Information should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed...
Click to read more »There's been a push lately lately at FAC for stricter enforcement of WP:TOOBIG. I don't necessarily agree with that, but it's a thing. At over 11k words...
Click to read more »because the outbreak article, at 89 kb prior to the split, is borderline WP:TOOBIG. So the outbreak article could stand to be trimmed a bit by splitting off...
Click to read more »scope of the article Williams, Arizona. That article does not yet meet WP:TOOBIG, as such I am of the opinion that a sub-article or stand-alone list article...
Click to read more »section may need to be split into another article to avoid this one being WP:TOOBIG. I've had a similar thought way moreso with the production section of Frozen...
Click to read more »that article and would when fully expanded make that article massively WP:TOOBIG. James500 (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Thanks for getting started on...
Click to read more »Delete: There is no overriding reason to split this article, for instance WP:TOOBIG does not apply. Discussing the historical situation is an integral part...
Click to read more »both topics into the same article. (The article would either become WP:TOOBIG or would omit necessary information in violation of PRESERVE). Indeed there...
Click to read more »subsidiary article? The guidelines that seem most relevant are WP:CFORK and WP:TOOBIG. Provided the subsidiary article is neutrally written, CFORK does not prohibit...
Click to read more »Fox Corporation. Would merging HP Inc. with Hewlett-Packard create a WP:TOOBIG problem? Limmidy (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC) In fact, I'm also...
Click to read more »MediaWiki:Delete-toobig/en-gb and MediaWiki:Delete-toobig/en-ca (the two variants of English recognized by the software) to the same text as MediaWiki:Delete-toobig....
Click to read more »@JacobTheRox: Article length is over 11,000 words, longer than what WP:TOOBIG recommends. I suggest going through the article and removing information...
Click to read more »characters there are and how it would make the article about the show WP:TOOBIG, but other users may decided that. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)...
Click to read more »several comments made by FAC people that the "Size guideline" section of WP:TOOBIG might need to be revised or simply kinda mostly ignored, in many cases,...
Click to read more »over one megabyte, which is about ten times larger than the point where WP:TOOBIG recommends that articles should be split, although it also notes our largest...
Click to read more »v=ALrRD_nNd1E www.mtv.com/news/articles/1427590/20000626/creed.jhtml blog.toobig.net/about/ www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070827/COLUMNIST0501/70827...
Click to read more »entire paragraphs. At over 11,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Some of this prose should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or...
Click to read more »criteria wording or a consensus to reinterpret GA's implementation of WP:TOOBIG. However, I do not think either the WT:GA nor the Neumann discussions are...
Click to read more »the main article. The main article is ~3200 words meaning it is not WP:TOOBIG.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Keep TOOSOON to delete...
Click to read more »recording. At ~29kb with wikimarkup, it is well below limits suggested at WP:TOOBIG, and a list of personnel is traditional in articles about recordings. The...
Click to read more »and important" a topic, other than misguided WP:OWNership. Every time WP:TOOBIG is invoked, "Almost certainly should be divided" gets turned on its head...
Click to read more »the article size is 70930. Articles > 50K are candidates for splitting WP:TOOBIG. IMO the Premiership section is too long--especially since there is a standalone...
Click to read more »(UTC) Aquatic Ambiance, Wikipedia has some guidance on your questions WP:TOOBIG says that articles which are "> 60 kB Probably should be divided". The length...
Click to read more »suggested to be moved into Taylor Swift, who could not accept it because WP:TOOBIG. Then it was suggested to be moved back to the list who could not accept...
Click to read more »@JacobTheRox: Article length is over 11,000 words, longer than what WP:TOOBIG recommends. I suggest going through the article and removing information...
Click to read more »extremely lost. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Please see WP:TOOBIG, normally sub-articles are not spun out until the parent article reaches...
Click to read more »{{Verylong}}, {{Toolong}}, {{2long}}, {{2l}}, {{TOOLONG}}, {{BigPage}}, {{Toobig}}, {{ArticleTLDR}} → {{Very long}} {{Verylong-section}}, {{Verylong section}}...
Click to read more »parent-child setup. We can't really fit more content there (already borderline WP:TOOBIG), so a merge probably wouldn't result in any actual merging. Effectively...
Click to read more »New England Patriots is already too big with over 118,000 bytes. See WP:TOOBIG ("> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided"). Accordingly, it's an appropriate...
Click to read more »and then revisited once the outbreak page reaches >8000 words as per WP:TOOBIG. Neiglass (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Comment: I have requested admin...
Click to read more »long thought too few editors are sensitive to the questions raised in WP:TOOBIG and more ought to be done about that. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:32, 12 August...
Click to read more »statements, including almost the entire "Birds" section. At over 9,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends splitting off the article; since this is such a big topic, it...
Click to read more »published by reliable sources can be taken into to the article. Considering WP:TOOBIG, we can not take these reactions into the main article and hence we need...
Click to read more »reduce the worst excesses. Some editors wiki-lawyered over the meaning of WP:TOOBIG, or argued that their pet pages wore somehow special exemptions. I have...
Click to read more »that merging it into any article would result in that article being WP:TOOBIG. And, if one believes that the selection criteria for this are too wide...
Click to read more »bit on the long side. At over 18,000 words it doesn't fit well into WP:TOOBIG Lead Any need for citations in the lead? Per MOS:CITELEAD it’s not necessary...
Click to read more »newDiv.style.MozColumnGap='2em'; newDiv.style.textAlign='justify'; var tooBig=false; for (var i = stop; start <= i; i--) { // first append the thumb...
Click to read more »Zxcvbnm on this one as a merged list would cause confusion and possibly be WP:TOOBIG. While both the Xbox 360 and Xbox One are using software emulation to achieve...
Click to read more »4 At 55 kB (9032 words) it is just over what is generally considered WP:TOOBIG for Wikipedia. The longest / most detailed sections in the article are the...
Click to read more »Merging this entire series of AfDs into the list would make it way too WP:TOOBIG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Keep - There is no evidence...
Click to read more »Talk 18:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC) At 95,947 bytes it is too large as per WP:TOOBIG (and its not even complete). As that size spinoffs are recommended. However...
Click to read more »bit pointless at this stage as I wouldnt consider the article to be WP:TOOBIG - the secondary article would also need to retain a significant amount of...
Click to read more »about that lawsuit. Merging it into the album article would make it WP:TOOBIG. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Comment This isn't a vote! and...
Click to read more »subsidiary article? The guidelines that seem most relevant are WP:CFORK and WP:TOOBIG. Provided the subsidiary article is neutrally written, CFORK does not prohibit...
Click to read more »100% sourced and well-written. 750h+ 12:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Comment WP:TOOBIG states that an article should be split after 9,000 words; this article has...
Click to read more »article; whether to merge or not should be determined based on WP:DUE, WP:TOOBIG, and editorial judgement about what serves the reader best. Vanamonde (Talk)...
Click to read more »ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC) You are quite right, WP:TOOBIG merely suggests that "> 60 kB Probably should be divided ... > 50 kB May...
Click to read more »@Yosemiter: The original list of pro sports teams is close to being WP:TOOBIG (75/100 KB). I'd imagine it would be split along the lines of Major vs Minor...
Click to read more »failure,[16], the article, Ebola virus cases in the United States is WP:TOOBIG at 118kb and much of the Duncan content should be offloaded here. The "Ebola...
Click to read more »able to fit that topic into a single article without violating either WP:TOOBIG or WP:PRESERVE. (3) In any event, the coverage of the Act is "independent"...
Click to read more »detailing of TV series episodes. It stops the main article from becoming…{{toobig}} DtownG 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an...
Click to read more »Presently these pages are respectively 28 kilobytes and 40 kilobytes long. WP:TOOBIG suggests that a 60 kilobyte page probably needs to be divided into two pages...
Click to read more »the World Jewish Congress, at almost 15k words and 200kb, is simply WP:TOOBIG to add on an additional topic like this one, which can be expanded a little...
Click to read more »is necessay ie. "<40 kB Length alone does not justify division", see WP:TOOBIG, btw, examples given by article creator, that have splits, have approximate...
Click to read more »The preference is to keep this off the main article, which is already WP:TOOBIG. - wolf 15:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC) Delete per nom and per WP:TNT. Potentially...
Click to read more »inappropriate: the main article for this is around 40kb. According to WP:TOOBIG is "length alone does not justify division" at a size of around 40kb. Without...
Click to read more »that merging it into any article would result in that article being WP:TOOBIG. And, if one believes that the selection criteria for this are too wide...
Click to read more »useful content that has been moved off the main Bitcoin article due to WP:TOOBIG. Maybe needs some help with WP:RS. BTW, Huon you should have alerted the...
Click to read more »and available info about all of its specific tracks, and already is WP:TOOBIG. While the article is very short and needs expansion, the obvious solution...
Click to read more »happens, is 2 KB heavier than the size Wikipedia's guidelines suggest is WP:TOOBIG and should be forked. A Traintalk 20:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Keep MJ is...
Click to read more »portrayed in media. I don't see an issue with the resulting article being WP:TOOBIG and this is a clear subtopic of the proposed merge target. As such, a merge...
Click to read more »true sub-article. The current parent article is 256k, 156k greater than WP:TOOBIG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC) delete It's in the...
Click to read more »characters there are and how it would make the article about the show WP:TOOBIG, but other users may decided that. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)...
Click to read more »formed as to what sub-articles are created if the redirect target meets WP:TOOBIG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC) I don't understand...
Click to read more »I have to say anything else? Also Keep per the fact that it would be WP:TOOBIG for any info about this song to fit on either the album article or his discography...
Click to read more »WP:TOOBIG recommends that article splitting should be considered at around ~50 kb, this article is only ~19 kb really no where near the WP:TOOBIG issue...
Click to read more »for a merge to the University's page, but the size of the latter is WP:TOOBIG. SBKSPP (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved...
Click to read more »suggested to be moved into Taylor Swift, who could not accept it because WP:TOOBIG. Then it was suggested to be moved back to the list who could not accept...
Click to read more »could in principle be included in other articles, but would run into WP:TOOBIG. There is no case for WP:POVFORK: both the criticism and the response to...
Click to read more »deserve attention or to be recorded. The proposed merge target is simply WP:TOOBIG at its current size to handle a substantial merge from this article. As...
Click to read more »Prathikaaram was split to separate articles due to bloating (72kb then, WP:TOOBIG), which was pointed out in its GA review. The "score" and the "soundtrack"...
Click to read more »could in principle be included in other articles, but would run into WP:TOOBIG. There is no case for WP:POVFORK: both the criticism and the response to...
Click to read more »recent review Result: Much of this review focused on whether the article is TOOBIG. However, the article has been significantly cut—by almost 100k bytes—since...
Click to read more »Oppose merge. From Doncram's draft, it's evident that a single list is WP:TOOBIG. -- Tavix (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Strong KEEP, and strongly...
Click to read more »article about Bill Clinton's public image. If that article grows to meet WP:TOOBIG, the article can always be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:00, 4...
Click to read more »similar headlines. The current Biden article is 85kb so according to WP:TOOBIG we should be dividing when it's over 60kb and to most certainly divide at...
Click to read more »the proposed merger target already has 74kB of readable prose, so per WP:TOOBIG is itself a candidate for trimming/splitting, not expansion. On top of this...
Click to read more »New England Patriots is already too big with over 118,000 bytes. See WP:TOOBIG ("> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided"). Accordingly, it's an appropriate...
Click to read more »coronavirus pandemic in India? It is above 9 thousand words and is almost WP:TOOBIG. Same with Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic which...
Click to read more »(UTC) I could get behind that were Persecution of Christians not already WP:TOOBIG. I don't consider the OR issue as serious as you do: when there is an abundance...
Click to read more »merging into Dell was problematic as well, because that makes this article WP:TOOBIG here, see comment chain starting with Peterkingiron. Keeping the separate...
Click to read more »09:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Merge to Arya 2: parent article is not WP:TOOBIG. From what I've seen, soundtrack articles are mostly merged/redirected to...
Click to read more »misinformation is at about 100K anyway, which is at the upper limit of WP:TOOBIG. If anything it needs to be split up into separate articles. Similar for...
Click to read more »scope of the article Williams, Arizona. That article does not yet meet WP:TOOBIG, as such I am of the opinion that a sub-article or stand-alone list article...
Click to read more »I see MOS issues in the lead and the overall length probably exceeds WP:TOOBIG. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC) Support. The article is too...
Click to read more »15:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC) Speedy merge (or keep if the article becomes WP:TOOBIG). Per WP:PERPETRATOR A person who is known only in connection with a criminal...
Click to read more »2 September 2014 (UTC) Mine shows ~121kB. War in Donbass is ~336kB. WP:TOOBIG is fairly clear on this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC) I...
Click to read more »because if we combined the text we hit 49k of readable prose, which per WP:TOOBIG is near 50k the point of splitting with length as a rationale. Also despite...
Click to read more »"pagedowns"!), an eyeglazing size even for one of the diaspora - see WP:TOOBIG:)). ps. shouldn't the history of scotland article have a "see also" link...
Click to read more »847 bytes". That's way beyond the limit suggested by WP:CHOKING while WP:TOOBIG indicates that it should be split rather than expanded. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09...
Click to read more »size (text only) = 52 kB (8592 words) so clearly RSS article is not WP:TOOBIG per the WP:PAGESIZE. regarding WP:PAGEDECIDE, I would say that it actually...
Click to read more »page is already near the "almost certainly" splitting threshold per WP:TOOBIG, so it is fair to have this split off, though as an WP:ATD, I personally...
Click to read more »the writing and composition and production of certain songs it gets WP:TOOBIG. I've proposed this for Swift's folklore, and we already do this for every...
Click to read more »Delete: There is no overriding reason to split this article, for instance WP:TOOBIG does not apply. Discussing the historical situation is an integral part...
Click to read more »anything, combined the resultant article would be ~80,000 bytes, and per WP:TOOBIG—not policy by any means, of course—articles that size probably should be...
Click to read more »Template:READS market areas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) WP:TOOBIG; links from an article (RabbitEars) which may or may not be notable. No...
Click to read more »published by reliable sources can be taken into to the article. Considering WP:TOOBIG, we can not take these reactions into the main article and hence we need...
Click to read more »otherwise be fine with merging if Folklore's article size was not already WP:TOOBIG rather large. As it stands, the article's size is already at a level where...
Click to read more »15:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC) Speedy merge (or keep if the article becomes WP:TOOBIG). Per WP:PERPETRATOR A person who is known only in connection with a criminal...
Click to read more »article. I think that the split is for the good of the Wikipaedia. See WP:TOOBIG for objective information about article size. WP:Splitting is sometimes...
Click to read more »XRCO Awards is a WP:SPINOFF of X-Rated Critics Organization because of WP:TOOBIG. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) ·...
Click to read more »This is 26 KB heavier than the size Wikipedia's guidelines suggest is WP:TOOBIG, and should be forked.− Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)— Note...
Click to read more »Comment: The readable prose size for this article is 74 kB, which is way WP:TOOBIG. The version which passed FA was only 38 kB, which means the current article...
Click to read more »up by any guidelines or policies. His argument was a combination of WP:TOOBIG, WP:ILIKEIT, and mild personal attacks against me for nominating the article...
Click to read more »split. I'd say the article's existence is warranted per the WP:GNG and WP:TOOBIG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Withdraw: This article...
Click to read more »Azerbaijan contains 68kb of readable prose and is already borderline WP:TOOBIG (> 60 kB: Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can...
Click to read more »possible sources." WP:BIASED (3) In this case merging is a poor option per WP:TOOBIG. "Reliability of Wikipedia" has almost 77,000 characters and "Criticism...
Click to read more »misinformation is at about 100K anyway, which is at the upper limit of WP:TOOBIG. If anything it needs to be split up into separate articles. Similar for...
Click to read more »to have an article separate from Kamma (caste) that is definitely not WP:TOOBIG to require splitting. (if Nayak was peculiar to the Kamma then, an argument...
Click to read more »possible sources." WP:BIASED (3) In this case merging is a poor option per WP:TOOBIG. "Reliability of Wikipedia" has almost 77,000 characters and "Criticism...
Click to read more »15:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC) Speedy merge (or keep if the article becomes WP:TOOBIG). Per WP:PERPETRATOR A person who is known only in connection with a criminal...
Click to read more »covered within Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank, I suggest you read WP:TOOBIG. That article is already 109,936 of readable prose. Onceinawhile (talk)...
Click to read more »similar headlines. The current Biden article is 85kb so according to WP:TOOBIG we should be dividing when it's over 60kb and to most certainly divide at...
Click to read more »because the full treatment of Davis's legal issues could already be WP:TOOBIG for Davis's article. Spinning off might make sense at this point. There...
Click to read more »did consider that this might be an issue when I did my review, and per WP:TOOBIG it is at the point where it "probably should be divided". I think there...
Click to read more »me) 11:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC) @Dineshswamiin 15,035 words, so per WP:TOOBIG, you're right. There is a template (see History of Christianity), you can...
Click to read more »This is 26 KB heavier than the size Wikipedia's guidelines suggest is WP:TOOBIG, and should be forked.− Akhiljaxxn (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)— Note...
Click to read more »Proposals: 28,021b Idea lab: 156,086b Miscellaneous: 16,854b For reference, WP:TOOBIG suggests that pages larger than 100kb are likely to be difficult to load...
Click to read more »entire paragraphs. At over 18,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. Many sections are numerous paragraphs long without a heading, making the...
Click to read more »experiments. That article is already very long at 91kB; it's just short of our WP:TOOBIG limit of 100kB. Self-promotion / POV I don't have any sort of COI. These...
Click to read more »several days. Note that at 9400 words, this is pushing the upper limits of WP:TOOBIG. While "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material"...
Click to read more »August 2025 (UTC) My first impression was "this is a long article". WP:TOOBIG puts 9166 words (per DYKCheck) into the "Probably should be divided or trimmed"...
Click to read more »words. This is larger than the 8,000 words recommended at WP:AS and WP:TOOBIG. I think there is lots of information, especially in the various history...
Click to read more »but I'd think Stevens is someone who doesn't demand an exception to WP:TOOBIG, which suggests considering a split after 50kb. This isn't a criticism of...
Click to read more »article length (275k). The article is at the very end of the range of WP:TOOBIG. Article size is not mentioned in the GA criteria, but it is relevant for...
Click to read more »covered within Israeli_occupation_of_the_West_Bank, I suggest you read WP:TOOBIG. That article is already 109,936 of readable prose. Onceinawhile (talk)...
Click to read more »are excellent additions to this section, but I am also worried about WP:TOOBIG so if the section becomes large, it might be a good idea to WP:SPINOUT....
Click to read more »Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC) Over 15,000 words!! See WP:TOOBIG. A very brief skim suggests a number of areas which, IMO, would benefit...
Click to read more »1, 1) www.rollingstone.com/artists/kidrock (242, 6503, 2, 1) www.blog.toobig.net (242, 3, 1, 1) www.vh1.com/artists/az/kid_rock/artist.jhtml (242, 1308...
Click to read more »Display name 99 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC) Over 15,000 words!! See WP:TOOBIG. A very brief skim suggests a number of areas which, IMO, would benefit...
Click to read more »explained in the concept's article. This article is over 9,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG recommends be split and reduced: I think there are opportunities in this...
Click to read more »Keep / Oppose merge per WP:SIGCOV and WP:SIZESPLIT in connection with WP:TOOBIG. The destination article already covers a massive scope and is at its size...
Click to read more »banner. At over 12,000 words large, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that some information be spun out, summarised more effectively...
Click to read more »deal more. I feared that there would be complaints that the article was WP:TOOBIG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC) If you have the time, I would...
Click to read more »2 September 2014 (UTC) Mine shows ~121kB. War in Donbass is ~336kB. WP:TOOBIG is fairly clear on this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC) I...
Click to read more »2013 (UTC) The main Evolutionary psychology article is already past the WP:TOOBIG limit so it doesn't need more lines. It is already split into sub-articles...
Click to read more »17:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC) At over 13,000 words, it is recommended at WP:TOOBIG that the article length be reduced. Some of this material can be spun out...
Click to read more »something entirely impractical: it would cause an immediate, glaring WP:TOOBIG issue, in addition to immediately unbalancing the parent page with undue...
Click to read more »_]+use[ _]+reduce|Fair\-use[ _]+reduce|FairUseReduce|Fairusereduce|Image\-toobig|Nfr|Non\-free\-reduce|Nonfree[ _]+reduce|Reduce|Reduce[ _]+size|Smaller[...
Click to read more »text, including entire paragraphs. At over 10,000 words, the article is WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or...
Click to read more »into two or more, and as JT's biography takes 8,500 words – well, see WP:TOOBIG. I agree that a link to even a rudimentary spin-off article on Thurber's...
Click to read more »awards/honours he received. At over 12,000 words, the article is considered WP:TOOBIG and detailed. There are lots of large sections that can be trimmed or moved...
Click to read more »article on grounds of GNG and that it was imminently about to become WP:TOOBIG, not because of anything that happened in a talk page discussion in 2023:...
Click to read more »text into sub-articles. The grey area here can be pretty big, but see WP:TOOBIG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Yes, 2422889236x...
Click to read more »verification needed tags. The article is not concise and is considered WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that some information be moved to other articles or removed if...
Click to read more »I'm concerned that the article is over 10,000 words, at which poing WP:TOOBIG recommends spinning out and summarising prose more effectively. I don't...
Click to read more »text, including entire paragraphs At over 10,000 words, the article is WP:TOOBIG and should use more WP:SUMMARYSTYLE for readability. Long sections, such...
Click to read more »global renamer: rename user Datestamp: 03:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Reason: toobig Sarbajithalder (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Robot clerk note: No problems...
Click to read more »(2023–present) sits at 89 kB and 14,335 words of readable prose, making it WP:TOOBIG to absorb all this material and this an appropriate WP:SPINOFF for size...
Click to read more »removed. The article is over 11,000 words and contains too much detail: WP:TOOBIG recommends that articles of this size are spun out to other articles and...
Click to read more »important aspects. At over 14,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG. I suggest that text be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed...
Click to read more »article. I think that the split is for the good of the Wikipaedia. See WP:TOOBIG for objective information about article size. WP:Splitting is sometimes...
Click to read more »bit pointless at this stage as I wouldnt consider the article to be WP:TOOBIG - the secondary article would also need to retain a significant amount of...
Click to read more »fast-track posting 2) is it a disservice to the reader to separate it if WP:TOOBIG is not a factor.—Bagumba (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC) That's a valid...
Click to read more »readable prose size is only about 40 kb, so from that respect, it isn't WP:TOOBIG. However, there are about 100 entries in the exit list – could this be cut...
Click to read more »anything, combined the resultant article would be ~80,000 bytes, and per WP:TOOBIG—not policy by any means, of course—articles that size probably should be...
Click to read more »4 At 55 kB (9032 words) it is just over what is generally considered WP:TOOBIG for Wikipedia. The longest / most detailed sections in the article are the...
Click to read more »CMD (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Regarding size, according to WP:TOOBIG, 84kb is within the Probably should be divided (although the scope of a...
Click to read more »a requirement for this to reach FA again, but the article is getting WP:TOOBIG, currently at 64K of readable prose. What makes sports team pages challenging...
Click to read more »brought up the first time this article was nominated for review. It is way WP:TOOBIG, with sections filling it with content as if there were no other articles...
Click to read more »and quotations. At over 11,000 words, this article is too detailed and WP:TOOBIG; the scope of the topic is not broad enough to justify this large of a word...
Click to read more »will reduce the length of the list to less than 228kB which is still WP:TOOBIG to merge. I see no reason to believe that these lists, and especially the...
Click to read more »long at all: at ~2,900 words, it's not even half the length of what WP:TOOBIG considers the very minimum of what qualifies for trimming/splitting. Creating...
Click to read more »several comments made by FAC people that the "Size guideline" section of WP:TOOBIG might need to be revised or simply kinda mostly ignored, in many cases,...
Click to read more »own article. "Proposed" is (14457 words) "readable prose size", so per WP:TOOBIG, that article needs dealing with. And coverage is likely to keep coming...
Click to read more »might go against WP:SS, The article, at over 10,000 words, is considered WP:TOOBIG. I think there is text that can be spun out or removed as too detailed from...
Click to read more »ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC) You are quite right, WP:TOOBIG merely suggests that "> 60 kB Probably should be divided ... > 50 kB May...
Click to read more »the Regnal lists of Ethiopia as a separate article, in part because of WP:TOOBIG, but also in order to better make this distinction between Wikipedia lists...
Click to read more »did consider that this might be an issue when I did my review, and per WP:TOOBIG it is at the point where it "probably should be divided". I think there...
Click to read more »The article, at over 14,000 words, it is past the recommend length at WP:TOOBIG, and detailed information should be spun out, summarised more effectively...
Click to read more »length of the main article, incorporating this would pose problems with WP:TOOBIG, thus incorporation is not as viable of a solution. Therefore, the condition...
Click to read more »review these are problems that need addressing. That is before getting to WP:TOOBIG. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC) Facts can be presented...
Click to read more »engaging, but the word count would be decreased to be closer to the WP:TOOBIG guideline. Also, information which will not aid in understanding the rest...
Click to read more »this time and a peer review be opened instead. At 101kb of prose size, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be split. I also notice some paragraphs do not...
Click to read more »100% sourced and well-written. 750h+ 12:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Comment WP:TOOBIG states that an article should be split after 9,000 words; this article has...
Click to read more »000 words long, which is larger than what is recommended at WP:AS and WP:TOOBIG. I do not think the article's topic can justify its larger length, and sections...
Click to read more »supported parameters are dir, follow, group, name (see the help page). At WP:TOOBIG, it states that at over 9,000 words, an article, "Probably should be divided...
Click to read more »Given that the current target article is approaching the upper bounds of WP:TOOBIG - what content from this article exactly should be merged over? Hog Farm...
Click to read more »counting words and more about reader perception; I feel the same way about WP:TOOBIG. My yardstick for an article being too long is that I find myself thinking...
Click to read more »secondary sources for a standalone article and merging back would run into WP:TOOBIG issues. There are parts that can be trimmed/removed (per Masem above) and...
Click to read more »recording. At ~29kb with wikimarkup, it is well below limits suggested at WP:TOOBIG, and a list of personnel is traditional in articles about recordings. The...
Click to read more »pages not being too long in size currently, it would not be breaching WP:TOOBIG. This article is currently less than 240 words according to the page size...
Click to read more »means that no reader is likely to wade through the whole thing. See WP:TOOBIG: this article is 50% bigger than the maximum suggested there. It's asking...
Click to read more »describe the 456 sources, which add up to 10,000 words). Keep in mind that WP:TOOBIG says that a word count of >15,000 words should "Almost certainly should...
Click to read more »able to fit that topic into a single article without violating either WP:TOOBIG or WP:PRESERVE. (3) In any event, the coverage of the Act is "independent"...
Click to read more »are excellent additions to this section, but I am also worried about WP:TOOBIG so if the section becomes large, it might be a good idea to WP:SPINOUT....
Click to read more »article on reactions should be kept if merging is contraindicated by WP:TOOBIG and the reactions get significant coverage from independent reliable sources...
Click to read more »the discussion. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC) WP:TOOBIG, cited in Nicklaus' case, doesn't apply to Garnett's page.—Bagumba (talk)...
Click to read more »18:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC) The article, at 12000 words, is considered WP:TOOBIG. There is a lot of uncited prose, and an overreliance on block quotes. Unreliable...
Click to read more »when standards were different and which were shorter at that point. WP:TOOBIG suggests "> 60 kB Probably should be divided ... > 50 kB May need to be...
Click to read more »because the outbreak article, at 89 kb prior to the split, is borderline WP:TOOBIG. So the outbreak article could stand to be trimmed a bit by splitting off...
Click to read more »Keep / Oppose merge per WP:SIGCOV and WP:SIZESPLIT in connection with WP:TOOBIG. The destination article already covers a massive scope and is at its size...
Click to read more »underdeveloped, with only 24kB of readable prose - well below the length for WP:TOOBIG concerns. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC) 1. This is a...
Click to read more »(58k). The latter article was split in August 2022 without any summary. WP:TOOBIG is clearly not met for a split. KyleJoantalk 04:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)...
Click to read more »readable prose size is only about 40 kb, so from that respect, it isn't WP:TOOBIG. However, there are about 100 entries in the exit list – could this be cut...
Click to read more »a different perspective. I was going to reference along the lines of WP:TOOBIG for the parent, but there is the political activities article at less than...
Click to read more »talk) 02:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC) At over 14,000 words, this article is WP:TOOBIG and information should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed...
Click to read more »08:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC) The article is already pushing the limits of WP:TOOBIG although not over it even with the additional section, which benefits from...
Click to read more »(UTC) @Qiushufang: At over 14,000 words, I think this article is still WP:TOOBIG. I think the "History" section is the best place to start spinning out information...
Click to read more »the results are making the electoral division articles very bulky (see wp:TOOBIG). ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 01:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC) That is a good idea...
Click to read more »experiments. That article is already very long at 91kB; it's just short of our WP:TOOBIG limit of 100kB. Self-promotion / POV I don't have any sort of COI. These...
Click to read more »April 2026 (UTC) Oppose merge. Article is already on the verge of being WP:TOOBIG. Criticism of Apple has been covered as its own standalone topic across...
Click to read more »minority of one over this, even if I suspect the article might become WP:TOOBIG or be excessively swamped with material about the John Quincy Adams book...
Click to read more »going into unnecessary detail"). Relevant non-GA guidelines include WP:TOOBIG. Shouldn't be that hard for a cricket expert to trim down to a better length...
Click to read more »because the full treatment of Davis's legal issues could already be WP:TOOBIG for Davis's article. Spinning off might make sense at this point. There...
Click to read more »the main article. The main article is ~3200 words meaning it is not WP:TOOBIG.VR (Please ping on reply) 17:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Keep TOOSOON to delete...
Click to read more »text in the article, including entire paragraphs. At over 10,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be trimmed. Perhaps some information can be...
Click to read more »parent-child setup. We can't really fit more content there (already borderline WP:TOOBIG), so a merge probably wouldn't result in any actual merging. Effectively...
Click to read more »There is uncited text throughout the article. At over 10,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that information be spun out. Is there information that can be...
Click to read more »both topics into the same article. (The article would either become WP:TOOBIG or would omit necessary information in violation of PRESERVE). Indeed there...
Click to read more »as Arizona State University is 10,000+ words, so at the point where WP:TOOBIG says it "Probably should be divided or trimmed", but that's not really within...
Click to read more »With almost 11,000 words of readable prose, Criticism of Walmart is WP:TOOBIG to merge into anything. I actually think that the best approach would be...
Click to read more »included as sections/subsections within her article without it becoming WP:TOOBIG BleachPuffin (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC) Redirect. Charting alone doesn't...
Click to read more »page is already near the "almost certainly" splitting threshold per WP:TOOBIG, so it is fair to have this split off, though as an WP:ATD, I personally...
Click to read more »article length (275k). The article is at the very end of the range of WP:TOOBIG. Article size is not mentioned in the GA criteria, but it is relevant for...
Click to read more »that delete ones, especially given the technical considerations such as WP:TOOBIG. On a purely numerical basis, there were 18 !votes mentioning delete (14...
Click to read more »WP:OR, some of the article is not WP:RELEVANT, which leads to it being WP:TOOBIG. I agree with AndyTheGrump: things that might be OK in Human mating strategies...
Click to read more »also duplicated in Human mating strategies, but that one is already WP:TOOBIG and should probably be split, with perhaps some of its content ending up...
Click to read more »engaging, but the word count would be decreased to be closer to the WP:TOOBIG guideline. Also, information which will not aid in understanding the rest...
Click to read more »118 § ITNRD - Dealing with unsourced "works" sections. The bio is not WP:TOOBIG to justify splitting. There wasn't consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive...
Click to read more »sense. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 10:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC) Put on a diet per WP:TOOBIG. -KAP03 (Talk • Contributions • Email) 23:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC) The above...
Click to read more »above. Also the Jack Nicklaus article is some 11,000 words [6], so per WP:TOOBIG "Probably should be divided or trimmed". Whether this particular WP:SPLIT...
Click to read more »(2023–present) sits at 89 kB and 14,335 words of readable prose, making it WP:TOOBIG to absorb all this material and this an appropriate WP:SPINOFF for size...
Click to read more »the proposed merger target already has 74kB of readable prose, so per WP:TOOBIG is itself a candidate for trimming/splitting, not expansion. On top of this...
Click to read more »already a large and unbalanced page, will become too large (violating WP:TOOBIG) or more unbalanced (violating WP:PROPORTION) or will omit relevant material...
Click to read more »own article. "Proposed" is (14457 words) "readable prose size", so per WP:TOOBIG, that article needs dealing with. And coverage is likely to keep coming...
Click to read more »discussion. Future discussion would be aided by reference to how WP:NOPAGE, WP:TOOBIG, and WP:DUE apply here, and whether readers would benefit from a merger...
Click to read more »online harassment, or even online shaming. But the former article is far WP:TOOBIG for a merge anyway, at 10505 words. It should arguably be split into a "by...
Click to read more »article on grounds of GNG and that it was imminently about to become WP:TOOBIG, not because of anything that happened in a talk page discussion in 2023:...
Click to read more »be summarised in the author's biography without the article becoming WP:TOOBIG. The article cites 22 sources that discuss the series in enormous depth...
Click to read more »and then revisited once the outbreak page reaches >8000 words as per WP:TOOBIG. Neiglass (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC) Comment: I have requested admin...
Click to read more »Abusefilter-warning-repeated-characters 1088 Gadget-dropdown-menus 1084 Delete-toobig 1083 Sp-contributions-logs 1081 Nosuchuser 1080 Centralauth-login-progress...
Click to read more »explictly mention their outcome. —Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC) WP:TOOBIG was the major reason cited there, which doesn't apply to Larry Bird.—Bagumba...
Click to read more »the Lima Consensus ≠ Neoliberalism in Peru so a merge may result in WP:TOOBIG. They are two related topics but they aren't the same. Moondragon21 (talk)...
Click to read more »merge with Capital punishment in Arizona could work unless it causes WP:TOOBIG. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC) I took some time to read through...
Click to read more »do him first or last.—Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC) I think WP:TOOBIG would be the argument to keep that article, and I think it would survive...
Click to read more »something entirely impractical: it would cause an immediate, glaring WP:TOOBIG issue, in addition to immediately unbalancing the parent page with undue...
Click to read more »benefit, since the redirect target is already well written and perhaps WP:TOOBIG at 11617 words. Earwig broke when trying to run it on this article... interesting...
Click to read more »Deletereason-dropdown-suppress 388 Nosuchsectiontext 388 Gadget-HotCat.js 386 Delete-toobig 385 Gadget-DisambiguationLinks.css 385 Abusefilter-warning-wmf-content-edit...
Click to read more »that article and would when fully expanded make that article massively WP:TOOBIG. James500 (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Thanks for getting started on...
Click to read more »Opioid epidemic in the United States article is >13k words which makes it WP:TOOBIG for a merge that will respect due weight. Glad to see there isn't any 'neo-cold-war...
Click to read more »Most but not all refer to page moves, e.g. MediaWiki:mergehistory-fail-toobig or MediaWiki:diff-paragraph-moved-tonew, and some wouldn't necessarily make...
Click to read more »long at all: at ~2,900 words, it's not even half the length of what WP:TOOBIG considers the very minimum of what qualifies for trimming/splitting. Creating...
Click to read more »we have 6 images which need sourcing (compared to the original 12) and TOOBIG issues left to address. I think we could then put the FAR up for voting...
Click to read more »will reduce the length of the list to less than 228kB which is still WP:TOOBIG to merge. I see no reason to believe that these lists, and especially the...
Click to read more »we have 6 images which need sourcing (compared to the original 12) and TOOBIG issues left to address. I think we could then put the FAR up for voting...
Click to read more »length of the main article, incorporating this would pose problems with WP:TOOBIG, thus incorporation is not as viable of a solution. Therefore, the condition...
Click to read more »a different perspective. I was going to reference along the lines of WP:TOOBIG for the parent, but there is the political activities article at less than...
Click to read more »16:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC) At the current 1147 words, the page is not WP:TOOBIG. Moreover, we generally don't sweep out potentially verifiable info merely...
Click to read more »08:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC) The article is already pushing the limits of WP:TOOBIG although not over it even with the additional section, which benefits from...
Click to read more »especially MOS:LEADLENGTH (insisting to no more than 400 words) and WP:TOOBIG to be 9000 words even though the complexity of these topics justify a longer...
Click to read more »has related content now, and can't reasonably fit any more since it's WP:TOOBIG. So there's no merge to be done, just a possible deletion. Perhaps the AfD...
Click to read more »protests, so any attempt to actually follow Wikipedia guidelines like WP:TOOBIG will end up cutting more pro-Palestine content than pro-Israeli. With this...
Click to read more »von Neumann) are IMO influential & notable enough for exception from WP:TOOBIG. Otherwise , in fairness I thought your "GA concerns" comment perfectly...
Click to read more »deal more. I feared that there would be complaints that the article was WP:TOOBIG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC) If you have the time, I would...
Click to read more »counting words and more about reader perception; I feel the same way about WP:TOOBIG. My yardstick for an article being too long is that I find myself thinking...
Click to read more »that delete ones, especially given the technical considerations such as WP:TOOBIG. On a purely numerical basis, there were 18 !votes mentioning delete (14...
Click to read more »