On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 3:18 PM, White Cat
wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
True. But say in 50 years from now we probably will have the technology to observe even the most distant stars, we will have data and great deal of material. When that happens we will have more articles on stars than on any other topic combined.
I am not suggesting we create five trillion articles in two days, what I am saying is we should be ready for five trillion articles that will be eventually (say in the next 50 years) created and expanded. Whenever a topic gets an impressive amount of coverage, weather its highways or townships or TV episodes, people panic and try to mass remove them to keep them more "manageable". This notion is wrong.
In 5 years wikipedia grew so much, in the next 5 years it will shrink if this redrectifying madness continues as it is.
I picked astronomy for my example as it is an endless source of articles. Any other topic is finite.
- White Cat
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:24 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/03/2008, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
There are over trillions of stars in the are of space we can see via
naked
eye or instruments. The analogy generally used to describe is that
there are
more stars in the universe than sand in the beaches of this entire
planet.
Clearly a star is a notable object in space worthy of an article. And
it is
feasible to write entire articles on each and every one of them if
something
as dull as Proxima Centauri (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri)
is any indication. We should not dump them for being "Astronomy cruft".
We
should expand them instead.
Proxima Centauri is near to earth so we can actually study it in some detail. Thus while objectively it might be considered a bog standard red dwarf from the POV of humanity it is very interesting.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What's wrong with manageable?
There's nothing wrong with redirecting tons of permastubs to a single, manageable list. That would be true of stars in a galaxy, [snip]
A list of a few hundred billion items is not manageable. For asteroids, we've cut the list into chunks of 1000, and for maintanence, they're actually ten transcluded lists of 100. And the "main list" only includes some fraction of the information known about your average "Joe Asteroid". In addition, for any given asteroid or star, I can probably make a worthwhile graphic or two, or maybe find a relevant image that's free. Probably no articles exist that can be ideally compacted into a list without losing some value.
WilyD
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You "snipped" a critical part of what I said. If significant amounts of independent reliable material really -are- available about the list element, it can and should be split out once the information and sources are -actually- added. If that eventually applies to every element in such a list, good! If it only applies to a few, good, and if to none, good! Keep it in the list, split it out once genuine, -reliable- (peer reviewed or fact checked by professional) sources are available.