Obviously it depends on the article -- some split well, others would
not, and the *size of the split pieces* would matter as well. For
example, there's no easy way to split "Albert Einstein" (45K) anymore
than it is, as none of the split parts would themselves warrant an
article on their own. If you split it up, you'd get a very ugly
outline which led to articles each one or two paragraphs long. You
could cut it down, but I don't see any benefit in that: we don't need
to pretend that everybody is going to *want* to read an entire article
from start to finish. I'm sure there are many people who don't care
about Einstein's political or religious views, and many who don't
really care about the science, but by keeping the text there and well
organized, we can let the user skip to their tastes.
There are many summary style articles which are far longer than 32K --
it is not the length that makes them usable or un-usable, it is
whether they have a good article structure, with good headings, so you
can easily see what parts you are interested in and which you are not.
With that in mind, I think the 32K warning should be pretty soft.
Articles should be split up or cut down as a factor of their overall
content, which cannot be measured by an arbitrary number of kilobytes.
I'm not too worried about people with out of date browsers, I must
admit. I wonder how well they fare with the CSS Wikipedia, anyway.
My non-confrontational recommendation:
"Note: This page is 38 kilobytes long. If appropriate, you may want to
consider splitting it into a series of shorter articles or editing it
to be more concise (see [[Wikipedia:Article size]] for more
information)."
I of course say this as somebody who struggles against his natural
verbosity, but we all have our biases.
FF
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:19:27 +0000, Zoney <zoney.ie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:57:53 +0000, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
dpbsmith(a)verizon.net wrote:
I've Been Bold and rewritten the message. It
now reads:
"Note: This page is 38 kilobytes long. Under current article size
guidelines, articles that exceed 32KB are considered to be too long. It
may be appropriate to restructure this topic into a related series of
shorter articles, or split off a section of it as a separate article.
However, these are major structural changes which should not be made
hastily, and should be made by consensus agreement among editors of the
page. See the guidelines for details."
I'd like it made harsher: see below.
> So what are the generally accepted criteria
for length of articles in
> encyclopedias?
People should be getting tired of my stock answer
to this, which is that
the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica contains articles
which exceed one megabyte in size. I need to get to the library and see
what size the juicier articles in the Britannica 3 Macropaedia are.
A vastly important consideration is that text is remarkably harder to
read on a screen than on paper. The 32K article that's a lot of work to
read on screen is a lot easier to read on a printout - but almost no-one
(comparatively) will be reading a printout. 32K is when your eyes fall off
the screen, if not well before.
- d.
So? We don't necessarily intend for people to read all the way through
an article on a country that is hundreds of years old for example.
People will skip to particular sections. If someone does want to read
through an entire long article, printing it out is probably the most
likely option!
32K is far too restrictive for major parent articles - no matter the
number of sub articles. Even just including an adequate summary for
each sub-topic results in quite a large article - summarising history
of a country alone is a massive task, nevermind adding short sections
on culture (sports, literature, food+drink, lifestyle), geography,
economy, government (!!!). No... any country article below 32K is very
likely to not adequately cover the swathe of articles that accompany
it.
Zoney
--
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l