Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Rambot articles are of disputable encyclopedicness.
Places are certainly encyclopedic.
Places are no more indisputably encyclopedic than schools or people.
Once more inclusionists impress me with their pedantry. By places, I
generically mean human settlements.
>Articles on years and numbers, and lists are
of disputable
>
>
encyclopedicness.
Depends on the subject. Most of them are
encyclopedic, though (I don't
really understand why we need lists now when we have categories, though).
Can you point to a single encyclopedia that has articles on years? What
about non-cardinal numbers? Lists I think are clearly unencyclopedic.
A definition of "Encyclopedic" should not be based on what other
encyclopedias do. I see no reason why years aren't encyclopedic (shite,
I sound like a darned inclusionist!). What happened in a year is an
encyclopedic topic. Lists, I do agree, they are dubiously encyclopedic,
but depending on their content, they can be good. Maybe a synopsis of
the articles linked to would make it more encyclopedic.
It just means Britannica is paper. Wikipedia is
not. Statistics can be
twisted to back any argument. Since Wikipedia is not paper, we can
afford more articles.
Well, encarta isn't. But that Wikipedia is inherently more inclusive than
traditional encyclopedias is exactly the point. Taking a standard like
"encyclopedic" and applying it on an article by article basis makes no
sense. I agree that articles need to be encyclopedic, but to me that's
about topic, and not about specific instances. People, schools, companies,
places, these are topics which are in encyclopedias. Verbs, adjectives,
years, non-cardinal numbers, these aren't.
Encyclopedic is not necessarily "topics most encyclopedias cover". What
happened in a year is certainly encyclopedic; years, lists, etc. are a
matter relating to organisation, not content. Other encyclopedias
organise the information we have differently.
I did not argue for an ignorance about what goes
on in VFD; what I was
saying is that much of the articles on which there is such heated
argument (most common example: schools) are often not as relevant to the
creation of an enyclopedia.
Well, that's clearly just your opinion. Those who are arguing for inclusion
of these schools obviously don't feel that way.
They're relevant, but tell me why I should value a school substub more
than a substub about the Prime Minister of Thailand.
Schools are relevant only to the population of a
certain area.
That's more relevant than many of the other articles in an encyclopedia.
I'm sure I only have to hit "random page" 5 or 6 times before I find
something just about no one cares about. But, I mean, should I count "Franz
Werfel"? I'd bet my chemistry teacher changed more lives than he did.
"Hustle is a British TV drama series"? I mean, more people have heard about
it, maybe, but has it really affected anyone's life? I mean, c'mon, you
agree we should have articles on places. Those are relevant to just as many
people as schools. In fact, one solution to schools other than deletion is
to merge them with their town and redirect.
Yes, I agree. I personally have no problem with having school substubs
merged into their town articles.
And you want to talk about substubs? Rambot articles
have less useful
information than most school articles.
Population, maps, location, etc. I'd say most Rambot and school articles
are nearly equal, but the Rambot articles at least contain some relevant
information.
[[342]]. There's a year I bet gets a ton of hits,
from google searches and
the like. I mean, I always search on random years when I'm bored. [[163
(number)]]. This makes us look good?
It's a manner of organisation. The information within is encyclopedic.
I think the real debate here is organisation. I don't think school
substubs deserve a separate article - Mark Richards and anthony do. But
we agree that they should be in the encyclopedia. We just disagree over
where they should be.
Obscure mathematical or scientific concepts, or
an
obscure architect, etc., on the other hand, probably have contributed
more to the world than any one school.
Depends on the concept, and on the school.
Exactly.
In short,
school articles are nice to have, but higher
priority should be given to those who have done things on a
global/national/state-level basis.
So now they're nice to have? Before I thought you said deleting them would
cause no harm. Deleting school articles causes two problems. They remove
something that's nice to have and they waste time on deletion that could be
spend improving articles that are in your opinion more important.
Yes, deleting them will cause no harm. A school article is nice to have,
but if it's a substub, I see no reason for it to have its own article.
Having substub
school articles makes us look bad.
Most of the school listings aren't substubs, but if you think substubs make
us look bad, move them to the talk page until they're finished.
Better yet, move them to the town article. Often finding third-party
references for towns on the web is easier than doing so for the school,
so you can easily write up something about the town if it doesn't
already have its own article.
I doubt that
assessment. If you look through the articles actually on
VfD, a relatively small percentage are actually controversial (the
school example being one).
If was a rough number, but I think it was if anything a low estimate. For
every school we delete, there are 100 others that aren't written for fear
that they'll just be deleted. There are hundreds of thousands of schools.
There are millions of teachers, nearly a million actors, hundreds of
thousands of movies, etc. Deletionists are keep *all of these* out of
Wikipedia.
I laugh at your exaggerated statement. Movies and actors - if they have
an entry on IMDB, they absolutely should be kept. They are verifiable.
If their articles are deleted, it's a shame. I think few deletionists
would agree with me. Sometimes inclusionists just love giving
deletionists positions they don't hold.
Anthony
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])