I love those Rambot stubs. I have found them personally useful, I love those Rambot stubs. I have found them personally useful, when researching cities I am likely to end up living in. The ability to compare income and population and racial demographics, getting a real "feel" for an area... Thats exactly the kind of thing a '''reader''' finds useful, but an '''editor''' (who will prob never go there) wouldn't. The entire concept of "cruft" is idiosyncratic encyclopedia editor shoptalk, and has nothing to do w the people who read articles, and why.
Amen. The "cruft" argument just makes Wikipedia's coverage more biased than it already is. A traffic circle that thousands of people travel through everyday is cruft, while some strange insect that only < 100 persons know about is notable. It's elitism and it is building an encyclopedia that noone wants to read. I find traffic circles interesting. I always thought that traffic circles were superior to traffic lights because they allow a larger throughput of traffic than an ordinary crossing can. But it seems like those traffic circles in the articles were eliminated. Why were they eliminated? Because of commercial development forced it because the area had a too high land value? Crossings are generally more space efficient than circles. Many traffic circles have some kind of artwork or other decoration on the island in the middle? Did any of these traffic circles have it?
Oh, and there is also a crossing whos name contain the word "circle" where I live. I would very much like to know if it is because there used to be a traffic circle there. But you won't let me find that info in Wikipedia becase you think it is cruft.
-- mvh Björn