>>>>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.
You're accusing the wrong person of pedantry. Human settlements are no more
indisputably encyclopedic than schools or people.
>>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.
> Encyclopedic is not necessarily "topics most encyclopedias cover".
On the other hand, maybe I should be pedantic, because you seem to be making
up random definitions of words. Unlike many other inclusionists, I think
one can meaningfully talk about whether or not a topic is "encyclopedic",
because I think a common definition of "encyclopedic" is "similar [in topic]
to what traditional encyclopedias include". But, if you're going to define
"encyclopedic" as "something which Wikipedia should include", you should be
aware that that term has very little useful meaning in terms of an inclusion
argument (as it commonly turns into a fallacy of begging the question). At
the very least if you're going to make up a definition to fit your argument,
make up a new term so as not to confuse people into thinking you're talking
about the word which already has a definition. Maybe "Wikipedic".
> They're relevant, but tell me why I should value a school substub more
> than a substub about the Prime Minister of Thailand.
I never said you should. I just don't think either is useless, or that we
should delete either. But once again you talk about school substubs, while
the vast majority of deleted articles on schools are not substubs, and the
rest would have easily become more than substubs if being a substub was all
that was objected to (I've fixed a number of substubs myself, but I
generally don't do so when I feel that the article is likely to be deleted
anyway).
> Yes, I agree. I personally have no problem with having school substubs
> merged into their town articles.
Then it seems we are in heated agreement, because I have no problem with
this either. In fact, in the case of substubs, that's what I *prefer* we do
with them (and sometimes I actually favor merging and deleting).
Now, you and I may disagree about what constitutes a substub, but even with
school articles bigger than a substub I still wouldn't mind merging and
redirecting. I'd prefer that we keep them, so that's how I "vote", but
would it make more sense if I just copy pasted something like "I'd prefer
that we keep this but merging and redirecting would also be acceptable"?
The amazing thing is, merging and redirecting doesn't even require an admin,
and so it can be done without even touching VFD. Adding to VFD has gotten
complicated to the point where it's probably just as much work, too.
Sometimes I wonder if the deletionists just have more fun playing on VFD,
and that's why they choose this method to "improve Wikipedia".
>>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.
Here's what I find useful in the bare Rambot articles. County, population,
latitude and longitude. Note that the bare rambot articles (and there are
many of them) don't even have maps. So if it were up to me, I'd strip the
articles of all but that information (unless it was particularly atypical,
95% white or 90% black or whatever), and then I'd merge and redirect with
the county article and include a link to the demographics (either on the
census site or on wikisource).
But looking at school articles, most of them have at least this much useful
information. City, state, number of students, principal, and in many the
ones I've verified, latitude and longitude. The vast majority of them have
even more information than that.
So even if you're going to define "encyclopedic" as "should be in
Wikipedia", I think almost every school article which is deleted is more
useful than [[Mount Vernon, Illinois]].
Of course, if we were really looking to end this constant bickering and make
a better encyclopedia, we could combine the two, at least as a default.
Redirect school articles to the city, and talk about both there. I've said
this a number of times on VFD. I don't think it's reasonable to have to say
it every single time, but maybe I should set up a template response. This
does bring me back to the point that VFD is set up extremely poorly, and
that it in fact hinders a reaching of consensus.
> It's a manner of organisation. The information within is encyclopedic.
With the year pages I can see your point, I guess. They're similar to
lists, which even though I think they're clearly unencyclopedic, should
probably stay in Wikipedia anyway. I stand by my belief that [[163
(number)]] should be tossed, though.
> I think the real debate here is organisation. I don't think school
> substubs deserve a separate article - Mark Richards and anthony do.
Actually, I don't. But I think we have a different concept of what a
substub is.
> But we agree that they should be in the encyclopedia. We just disagree
over
> where they should be.
You and I might agree with this (after all, we're both neutral, right), but
the deletionists want this information completely removed. That's the
purpose of VFD, after all, not to merge things into other articles, which
doesn't require admin powers, and which neither I nor any of the other
"inclusionists" would likely object to.
> 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.
If you mean that the information should be kept somewhere else instead, then
we are in complete agreement.
> I laugh at your exaggerated statement. Movies and actors - if they have
> an entry on IMDB, they absolutely should be kept. They are verifiable.
You're starting to sound like an inclusionist now. Many movies and actors
on IMDB are deleted.
But, I actually disagree that movies and actors on IMDB are all verifiable.
I know people with movies on IMDB, and I know what kind of verification was
done. Virtually none. That said, most movies and actors on IMDB are
verifiable.
> If their articles are deleted, it's a shame. I think few deletionists
> would agree [you mean disagree?] with me. Sometimes inclusionists just
love giving
> deletionists positions they don't hold.
Movie articles are regularly *speedy deleted*. I'm certainly not giving
anyone a position they don't hold. After this conversation, I'm not giving
you any position, because I really can't figure out what your position is.
Anthony