On 3/7/08, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Definitely. See the following for just some of the
subjects "at arms'
length":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons
A selection:
*"The Guide Star Catalog II has entries on 998,402,801 distinct
astronomical objects searchable online."
Do we want an article on every distant object, no matter how little is
known on it? I doubt it.
*"The British Library is known to hold over 150
million items."
I don't think we want an article on every single arrowhead, pottery
fragment or piece of flint.
*"Genbank, an online database of DNA sequences
from over 165,000
species , has over 46 million entries"
Don't know enough about DNA to comment.
*"The National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA)
GEOnet Names Server
contains approximately 3.88 million named"
Named what?
*"Thomson-Gale's Biography Resource Center
contains over 1,335,000 biographies."
Cool. How many do we have?
*"31 million CAS registry numbers have been
allocated for chemical compounds."
We could do with some lists, but an article on every compound is
probably too much, when so little can be said for so many of them.
*"the Internet Movie Database claims to have
records on 549,131 titles
and 2,280,301 names."
We definitely want that level of depth I think. Particularly since we
can at least cite the IMDB for all of them...
Steve