Hi.
Yesterday I did this little comparison that Jimmy Wales asked me to do, to see how large our encyclopedia would be if we covered the same topics as Columbia.
Among other things, the result revealed that about half of their article titles do not have corresponding titles on Wikipedia.
My question is whether we want to do something about this (create redirects). I would like to dump the huge list of article titles we don't have onto some page in the Wikipedia namespace, and have our bulk of volunteers work through them and create redirects to the relevant pages, or mark some as "we *really* don't have something about this topic" if applicable.
Would such an effort be warranted?
Timwi
Timwi wrote:
Hi.
Yesterday I did this little comparison that Jimmy Wales asked me to do, to see how large our encyclopedia would be if we covered the same topics as Columbia.
Among other things, the result revealed that about half of their article titles do not have corresponding titles on Wikipedia.
My question is whether we want to do something about this (create redirects). I would like to dump the huge list of article titles we don't have onto some page in the Wikipedia namespace, and have our bulk of volunteers work through them and create redirects to the relevant pages, or mark some as "we *really* don't have something about this topic" if applicable.
Would such an effort be warranted?
I once created a "list of encyclopedia topics", with ~100 000 entries (collected from various sources), as about 30 pages, and all topics as [[links]]. However, these pages were deactivated/removed, as displaying them was very slow indeed.
I'm all for such a list with [[links]], but you'll probably have to stretch them on a lot of pages (say, 100).
Magnus
Timwi wrote:
Hi.
Yesterday I did this little comparison that Jimmy Wales asked me to do, to see how large our encyclopedia would be if we covered the same topics as Columbia.
Among other things, the result revealed that about half of their article titles do not have corresponding titles on Wikipedia.
My question is whether we want to do something about this (create redirects). I would like to dump the huge list of article titles we don't have onto some page in the Wikipedia namespace, and have our bulk of volunteers work through them and create redirects to the relevant pages, or mark some as "we *really* don't have something about this topic" if applicable.
Would such an effort be warranted?
Tools that give us an idea of things that still need to be done are almost always helpful. Creating a long series of redirects, however, does not seem helpful. It would be better to leave them alone fo people who are looking for something to work on. Undoubtedly, as when we have simply used a different title or title format, a redirect will be the appropriate course of action, but these decisions should all be on a one-by-one, hands-on basis.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Hi.
Yesterday I did this little comparison that Jimmy Wales asked me to do, to see how large our encyclopedia would be if we covered the same topics as Columbia.
Among other things, the result revealed that about half of their article titles do not have corresponding titles on Wikipedia.
My question is whether we want to do something about this (create redirects). I would like to dump the huge list of article titles we don't have onto some page in the Wikipedia namespace, and have our bulk of volunteers work through them and create redirects to the relevant pages, or mark some as "we *really* don't have something about this topic" if applicable.
Would such an effort be warranted?
Tools that give us an idea of things that still need to be done are almost always helpful. Creating a long series of redirects, however, does not seem helpful. It would be better to leave them alone fo people who are looking for something to work on. Undoubtedly, as when we have simply used a different title or title format, a redirect will be the appropriate course of action, but these decisions should all be on a one-by-one, hands-on basis.
The comma-separated names like "Agualho, Cape", have one valuable property; they sort correctly in a list of all articles. This will be a key step in producing a print version, and it's not always possible to algorithmically determine the right sort key. (Meta-info could do this too, but it's not been implemented.)
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
The comma-separated names like "Agualho, Cape", have one valuable property; they sort correctly in a list of all articles. This will be a key step in producing a print version, and it's not always possible to algorithmically determine the right sort key. (Meta-info could do this too, but it's not been implemented.)
The rule: "Wikipedia is not paper" has been very helpful for us as an electronic encyclopedia. For the paper product we may need to look at alternate ways to present material that are more like the almanacs that are produced each year than encyclopedias. Our year pages alone could fill 500 printed pages, and cannot be alphabetized.
Ec