On 6/16/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
Clutter perhaps, but harmless clutter at worst.
There are people
interested in local history who would appreciate knowing who the former
mayors were, and what made them special at the time that they lived.
(Can't say about mayors, but I do have publications with lists of
postmasters.) I admit too that it takes a fair amount of obsession to
dig it all up, but if an editor has it I'm not going to complain. It
all still needs to be verifiable, but that should be no problem in most
of these situations.
The thing is, these can be neatly handled as lists within articles. In
a lot of cases that's a better way to enter the stuff anyway, because
the lack of structure obscures things overall. BUt putting an article
for each entry looks like more is being accomplished, so people would
rather do that.
Sure, some times lists are better, especially if all we know about the
people on the list is their names, and maybe their years in office..
The lists can be wikified and wait until someone has something more to
say about them. These articles are not going to spring up overningt.
It will likely take years for even the obsessives to do the work that
they feel is needed.
Ec