On 7/16/07, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As opposed to all the other articles that you vote to
delete (or not)
*without* reading the entire article? That's a bit disturbing. Or do I
I often don't vote if I don't read the whole thing. On the beauty
queen articles I read the whole thing but usually don't vote.
So, no, the emphasis was that I read the entire article whenever I see
a beauty queen article up for deletion, whether I vote on its deletion
or not. It is not about these being the only articles that I read all
the way through that are up for deletion.
Re: lists -- lists are awesome. We should treat them with the same standards
as regular articles -- that is, not singling them out for deletion because
they are unreferenced, which is a problem that plagues 90% of our content.
FWIW, Britannica *does* include (unreferenced!) lists. On a quick search,
for instance, I found "list of populated Dependent States" and "list of
major disasters that occurred in 1999". Granted, the first was in a table
embedded in the main article about dependent states, which might be a good
route to go for many lists that have complimentary main articles. Generally:
no, Britannica doesn't have "list of songs about x," but as we all know
also don't have all those troublesome articles about pop culture, movie
plots, kinky sex, etc. etc. etc. (though they do have much better
bibliographies, even if most articles lack references). **It's a poor