Should the locked heavily edited long answer be split?

Question

Related to: Can a locked thread be upvoted?

Because the topic being answered is complex, I have suggested to the author to delete the long bonus section of their locked answer, and split it into different Q/As. I believe the massive editing is in part due to its length.

Each subheading can actually be a separate question in my opinion. I estimate 2-4 different posts can come out of that additional info section.

I also suggested to do it with minimal editing, i.e., settle on how best to break it down offline, and then spread the Q/As over a period of days/weeks.

Then the user can simply use the links to those new Q/As and add them to the main Q/A in one go with one final edit.

In SE we encourage sharing knowledge by means of answering own questions. The author may have reservations about being viewed as going after rep based on that comment:

In all seriousness if I were to say my intention was to break it up into sections and post each section one week apart wouldn't someone tend to think I was just trolling for more possibilities for upvotes? (...)

The author may even not like my idea. (It's still in the air.)

What are your thoughts, as a community, on this suggestion?

Answer 1

Regarding being viewed as going after reputation points, if the split is done properly with minimal editing, it would show good faith and I have no issue with that.

However, a flaw in my suggestion has now become apparent, the author may accidentally create questions that's been asked before, which will lead to more issues to resolve if the post(s) were to be closed.

I don't have a solution to this problem as the user is new and may not be fully aware how duplicate posts work.

So at the moment, I would ask the user to put the idea on hold due to my unforeseen flaw, browse the site, the help center, and interact on posts, to learn how the site works.

Answer 2

What are your thoughts, as a community, on this suggestion?

To me looks fine.

Answer 3

I'm not sure anyone's paying attention to this question, but the only thing I would personally consider splitting off would be the history section (which is about half of it). All the other parts are totally relevant to the original question. Individual headings clearly separate the different parts already and they all address the original question. Also the fact that the post was heavily edited has no bearing on its quality as it stands right now. It is what it is right now no matter what was when it was first posted or how it changed from one to the other. I like it. But, feel free to chime in if you have an opinion.

The purpose of keeping edits going for a long time was not create more opportunities for upvotes by any one given reader (actually I was cognizant that I was probably annoying some people who might have otherwise upvoted. And I noticed I only got one upvote anyway.) It's just the way I work. I'll make it a point to do better.

Anyway that's not what this question is about. The poster is asking for opinion as to whether the post would be improved by splitting up and I'm giving mine.

If I decided to split off the history section (starts with "This is the end of the main body of the answer- But read on if you want to learn how the terminology relating to Class-E-to-Surface airspace has evolved over time") based on encouraging comments to do so (plus obviously the thread would have to be unlocked or its a totally moot point isn't it) I would probably make it an answer to a self-asked question and the question would be entitled something like "What is the history of how "control zones" became Class-E-to-surface areas, and how does this inform our understanding of the meaning of the phrase "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport ", which appears in FAR 103.17 and FAR 107.41.?" Well obviously the actual title would have to be shorter but that would be the actual question. If that's not a workable question then I better not contemplate that idea any further.

Wow, a one-sentence question. That's pretty good for conciseness isn't it!

Theoretically, if I did that, would it be appropriate to add links to the new article to my 3 to 4 other highly related articles, or would that be an unwelcome minor edit to those articles?

Thanks for the interest.

Answer 4

OK still exploring this a little more, putting my question in the form of two answers so people can vote on them. ( Or just comment if you want, I'll read it. ) Regarding the long answer Which parts of class E airspace can an ultralight (part 103) fly in without prior ATC authorization? . Here's answer number two-- let's say hypothetically I deleted the history section AND the sections entitled "What happens when the tower closes?" and "What happens when weather at the airport is above VFR minimums?. At this point, the premise of this answer is that I SHOULD split off the section entitled "Is there an altitude limit to the concept of "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport"?", dealing with parts 2, 4, and 6 of the original question, from the section dealing with whether the "extensions" are included in the "within the lateral boundaries..." concept, dealing with parts 1, 3, and 5 of the original question. Just to make things more manageable. Even though I'm NOT proposing two alternative viewpoints/ answers to the same question. And even though that would only remove about 1/5 of the total length of the remaining content. Thanks for your comments or votes.

PS if I did this, I would probably convert the sections entitled "What happens when the tower closes?" and "What happens when weather at the airport is above VFR minimums?" into answers to self-asked questions.

Answer 5

OK let's explore this a little more. I'll try putting my question in the form of two answers so people can vote on them. That seems to be the preferred suggestion here. ( Or just comment if you want, I'll read it. ) Regarding the long answer Which parts of class E airspace can an ultralight (part 103) fly in without prior ATC authorization? . Here's answer number one-- let's say hypothetically I deleted the history section AND the sections entitled "What happens when the tower closes?" and "What happens when weather at the airport is above VFR minimums?. At this point, the premise of this answer is that I should NOT split off the section entitled "Is there an altitude limit to the concept of "within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport"?", because then it would be a less complete answer to the question-- parts 2, 4, and 6 of the original question dealt specifically with altitude limits. I'm not proposing two alternative viewpoints/ answers to the same question, so it's better not to split off this section from the section dealing with whether the "extensions" are included in the concept of "within the lateral boundaries...", the subject of parts 1, 3, and 5 of the original question. Note also that this last split would only remove about 1/5 of the remaining length of the answer.

Now please read my other answer as well.

PS if I did this, I would probably convert the sections entitled "What happens when the tower closes?" and "What happens when weather at the airport is above VFR minimums?" into answers to self-asked questions.