Wily D wrote:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Steve Bennett
<stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
I do. Are we running out of server space? To be in a catalogue, some
minimum of information has got to be known on an object.
I agree. With numbers
like that if a teenager sets about systematically
adding such objects, and works unhindered by deletionists on only that
for the rest of a long life he will still have barely scratched the
surface of the topic. At 10 articles per person per day it would
probably take 2000 editors with that kind of dedication to get it all.
The practical implication is that only a small fraction of these objects
can be added in the foreseeable future. We can only hope that priority
will be attached to the most important ones, but if someone feels
inspired to add everything he runs into he should feel free to do so.
If doing so requires him to produce a list of some sort with a lot of
red links it should inspire another user to add more.
Ec