Steve Bennett wrote:
Fwiw, my take is to use the more general approach of do we have
enough editors to mantain this depth of coverage. For the Obama
transition we probably do, for the Truman one, probably not. As the
years go by, the scales will tip and eventually we'll have to scale
back our
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Fwiw, my take is to use the more general approach of do we have
enough editors to mantain this depth of coverage. For the Obama
transition we probably do, for the Truman one, probably not. As the
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
The better alternative is to scale up the shorter article. This is an
extension of 'Wiki is not paper'.
Yeah but that's like saying the better alternative to any problem is
to solve it. With our volunteer army, we're
2009/9/24 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
He said sections, not articles. WP:UNDUE applies within articles.
Whether a version of WP:UNDUE should apply across the whole
encyclopedia is essentially the question of notability repackaged. And
when you spin sections out of existing
Andrew Gray wrote:
I think a good analogy here is explicit general history articles. We
view it as quite normal to go from
[[History of something]]
and then, when it gets too large, split it out into
[[History of something]]
* [[History of something in the Bronze Age]]
I know this is
David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/24 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
He said sections, not articles. WP:UNDUE applies within articles.
Whether a version of WP:UNDUE should apply across the whole
encyclopedia is essentially the question of notability repackaged. And
when you spin sections
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
2009/9/22 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Some you would expect there to be enough material for this sort of
treatment. Others less so. I like the idea of doing this sort of thing
for very long biographcal
A modern book length biography of Johnson would certainly have
chapters for different stages in his life (though Boswell wrote his in
chronological order by year, but otherwise in a single continuous
sequence (with the result that in the usual modern edition, the 4 vol.
work needs a 2 vol.
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:22 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
A modern book length biography of Johnson would certainly have
chapters for different stages in his life (though Boswell wrote his in
chronological order by year, but otherwise in a single continuous
sequence (with the
We could do even more: there
are book-length works based on specific periods in his life
(Kaminski's Early career of Samuel Johnson; Clifford's Dictionary
Johnson : Samuel Johnson's middle years.
I meant that it would be *possible* for us to do this without
violating WP:OR, not that we
2009/9/23 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
Because transclusions like that are dynamic, that sort of thing
severely messes up the page history - you can't see what the article
looked like at any one time, because the editing took place in the
subarticles, not on the main article, and
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
snip
Never underestimate the effects of recentism ;-)
Indeed.
Although, peering into my crystal ball, into the future, far as human
eye can see...
10,000 years in the future, and Barack Obama is a small paragraph
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Never underestimate the effects of recentism ;-)
Indeed.
Although, peering into my crystal ball, into the future, far as human
eye can see...
10,000 years in the future, and Barack Obama is a small paragraph in
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I don't ski. You are partly arguing that there should not be a
notability guideline for skiing sites. And partly that a specialist
skiing encyclopedia should be a directory of just about all skiing
sites.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I don't ski. You are partly arguing that there should not be a
notability guideline for skiing sites. And partly that a specialist
skiing encyclopedia should be a directory of
Steve Bennett wrote:
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
WP:NOT says WP is not a directory, after all.
I think Wikipedia has progressed far enough and become unique enough
that WP:NOT is really not relevant anymore.
I
Charles Matthews wrote:
Yes it is sui generis, but WP:NOT is part of that, not an add-on. I'm
somewhat concerned that a reliance on reader survey will indeed tend
to blur all tried-and-tested criteria for inclusion, for the sake of
other stuff that is not too useful (e.g. I wish you'd
2009/9/22 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
I seem to recall that in the notability policy there is also scope for
comprehensiveness. That is, if a certain number of a given category of
entities is denoted notable, then we include articles about *all* of
them, for
Andrew Gray wrote:
I think we can easily distinguish, though; the
notability-by-association thing really needs most of the set to be
desirable topics for articles (*most* ski runs are interesting, or at
least let us assume they are for this discussion!) and for that set to
be well-defined
What I'd like to see, really, is a better focus of what sources confer
notability. For example, rather than the fact that we are not a
dictionary, we just don't use dictionaries as a source to confer
notability. Similarly directories, so on and so forth. I think this way
notability may be
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
I think we can easily distinguish, though; the
notability-by-association thing really needs most of the set to be
desirable topics for articles (*most* ski runs are interesting, or at
least let us assume they are for this discussion!) and for
So put them in another space: call it directory space.
The problem is that having a distinct article is treated as a question
of merit--we word things this way ourselves: deserves an article.
Thus there is a continual pressure from spammers and hobbyists to
include a separate article for every
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Charles Matthews wrote:
Yes it is sui generis, but WP:NOT is part of that, not an add-on. I'm
somewhat concerned that a reliance on reader survey will indeed
tend to blur all tried-and-tested criteria for inclusion, for the
sake of other stuff that is not too
Charles Matthews wrote:
Downmarket, in my terms, is slanting content
policy to favour in any way pages because they would be read often,
rather than serve the purpose of being a reference site.
Not sure I can understand the difference between being read often and
being referred too. But
David Goodman wrote:
So put them in another space: call it directory space.
The problem is that having a distinct article is treated as a question
of merit--we word things this way ourselves: deserves an article.
Thus there is a continual pressure from spammers and hobbyists to
include a
Surreptitiousness wrote:
And I don't find anything in this to disagree with, and yet we
disagree, so obviously one of us or both of us are making
assumptions. I don't see reader input into what we do as a bad thing,
for starters. In fact, I thought the very ethos of Wikipedia was that
Charles Matthews wrote:
The question is
more whether lurkers should be stakeholders. Traditionally what is
respected is showing the better way, rather than compiling a wishlist.
The best way to solve whether lurkers should be stakeholders is to ask
them. Showing the better way would be
Charles Matthews wrote:
At present we are still holding to some version of
the old idea that less is more: we don't allow articles that scroll on
for ever, and we try to have people adopt a concise style with good
focus. There will always be the argument that this is faintly
ridiculous,
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Why? You would be better advised to draft in userspace rather than
just type straight into the box, but I don't understand why you think
it doesn't still work in principle.
I can't do now what I did then. IP's cannot create new articles, and
you have to wait
Surreptitiousness wrote:
And let's not forget that if we're looking at books, we have to take
into account appendixes, something you have to fight to justify on
Wikipedia. That list you want to split from your large FA? Hmm, is
it a notable list? That list you want to include in your
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Surreptitiousness wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
I think we can easily distinguish, though; the
notability-by-association thing really needs most of the set to be
desirable topics for articles (*most* ski
31 matches
Mail list logo
