Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, the answer to the question is to deprecate such ridiculous
templates and apply the appropriate categories. These enormous templates
make articles difficult to open on slow or mobile connections, which
encompasses a significant number of our users.
WereSpielChequers, All,
1 The size of the database in gigabytes has been growing faster than
the the number of articles
This is a weak argument. The constant activity of interwiki bots alone will add
a huge amount of database storage space without increasing the real length of
the articles.
Charles, All,
Are we glad to have five new substantial articles, or embarrassed to
have persistent five stubs? So has this made things proportionately
better or worse? Discuss.
Short stale articles at least openly announce that they are in
a rather preliminary stage. So I'm not bothered
As the overwhelming majority of points on the list are absurd or pathetic, it
took me a bit by surprise that I'm sort of agreeing with #51 (Wikipedia's
entry on Peter Singer downplayed his advocacy for infanticide and moral disdain
for human life.)
The coverage in his article and in
Ryan, All,
(Regarding #51, [[Peter Singer]])
Actually, I haven't looked at this article in awhile since I quit
editing Wikipedia. It looks like the balance is quite good, as far as
your philosophy articles go. If anything, the discussion of his
arguments on infanticide may be too prominent.
David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
To me IPA is likely to remain one of the scripts I will never learn,
and whether I ought to learn it is besides the point The enWP is
written in English. The explanations are in English. The
pronunciations have to be given in a form English readers
Despite being at least semi off topic, I must
comment on this:
The Bible is a well-known ancient work with great cultural
significance. Its status as fiction or fact is almost beside the
point. It is accurate about what it itself says, which can be cited
as appropriate to inform articles
Carcharoth wrote:
*One point I don't think has been raised is that paid editing mostly
focuses on living people and contemporary organisations. I can't
actually think of examples of paid editing that don't involve
biographies of living people ([[WP:BLP]]) or corporate companies
([[WP:CORP]]),
I've just checked a small sample of 10d unreviewed changes
from the list. About 50% are not reviewed for unknown reasons,
the can (and I have) be given the flag within 30 seconds of
reading (style changes, URL changes).
The other half are unreferenced additions to articles nobody
cares about
