[Wikipedia-l] Re: The 100,000 articles goal and minimum article size

[Vicki Rosenzweig]

At 12:50 AM 9/14/02 -0600, Jim McKeeth wrote:
>At 11:23 PM 09/13/2002 -0700, Daniel Mayer wrote:
>>Somebody has already stated that there are 30 to 40 thousand human genes and
>>that each of them deserves it's own article. I agree. I would also add that
>>each of the millions of described and cataloged species on Earth also deserve
>>their own articles. Same for every city, major highway and important geologic
>>feature. Not to mention the many hundreds of thousands of national rulers,
>>kingdoms, generals, notable people, major works of art/science/industry ect.
>>that have ever existed.
>>
>>I forsee Wikipedia becoming an encyclopedia of encyclopedias.
>
>I agree with Mav on this point.  When you add a city you then add local 
>"color".  Nampa, Idaho is not the most exciting place in the world, but we 
>definitely have a number of interesting landmarks and bits of history.  If 
>you add these to as articles linked off of Nampa (and every other city) 
>and with the ones Mav mentioned, we will never run out of articles.  And I 
>belive these all would be valuable articles.  Not everyone gets the 
>opportunity to visit or live in Nampa, but with the aid of these articles 
>they can learn a lot about it (and not just touristy hype).

At some point it makes sense to include them in the main article: we don't 
need a separate article
to mention that, say, New York's City Hall has a nice facade and boring 
back because the builders
thought nobody would ever live north of it.

Similarly, Nampa's landmarks and history probably should be in the article 
about Nampa unless
they're of great interest and should be written about at length. A statue 
of a president doesn't need
its own article, for example, though it might include links to the sculptor 
and the president.
-- 
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org