On 5/12/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
Bryan Derksen schreef:
John Lee wrote:
When you have an article about every [[John
Smith]] who has ever lived,
finding the John Smiths who actually matter can be a tad difficult.
Those would be
the ones at the top of the list at [[John Smith
(disambiguation)]]. We already have a mechanism for this.
No, [[John Smith]] is categorized by occupation, not by notability.
When there are perhaps 100 people on a disambiguation page, it is almost
impossible to sort them by notability.
Yet it's possible to rate the articles for notability by some standard
and delete the ones that fall short? Simply reorganize the page along
the same lines, putting the ones you'd otherwise delete down at the
bottom. Other disambiguation pages already list the most prominent
examples first, eg [[Mars (disambiguation)]].
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, of course it's possible to do that. "Is there a significant
amount of independent, reliable source material available on this
subject, or is there not?" If there isn't, we run into several
problems, and fails several core policies:
-Primary source only articles tend to irreparably fail NPOV. A band or
company's own site will and should promote that band or company (why
else would they have a site?) But if that's all that's out there, and
we mirror that source (and we have to mirror sources, using our own
interpretations would just shift the problem to NOR instead), we have
nothing to print but marketing fluff. In that case, better to let
their website or Myspace promote them, and say nothing at all until
-someone else-, who's reliable and has no vested interest in promoting
them, decides to say something about them.
-Primary source only articles fail V. "If an article topic has no
reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on
it."
-Just accepting whatever gets thrown at us fails NOT. We're not a
directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. Using a bar,
that -someone else- must have written about it in a decent amount of
detail before we will, ensures that we stay true to those, and don't
become an indiscriminate collection of trivia, factoids, or articles
based on biased, promotional stuff if that's all that's out there on
the subject.
--
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.