That is exceptionally sound advice for situations like the current one, but
I don't think it works as applied in normal times. I don't think we could
have no article on, for example, the most recent congressional or
parliamentary election even if it's been less than a year since
them. Deleting routine articles, or sentences within articles, on grounds
of "too new, not a year yet" would certainly soon before more trouble than
it was worth.
Which is unfortunate, because any bright-line rule that could have
eliminated several of the travails of the past month would have been a Very
Good Thing.
Newyorkbrad
On 3/5/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:23:55 -0800, "George Herbert"
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What's ended up happening is, perhaps both
typically and tragically,
Wikipedia standard controversy reaction - it's up, it's down, it's
back up, it's moved, it's moved again, it's speedy deleted then
restored then deleted and up for DR and sideways with sugar on top and
can I please have a little more, sir?
All the more reason to go back to my proposal of many reiterations: no
article on any event until at least a year after it has happened, to
allow time to form a proper historical perspective.
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l