Steve Summit wrote:
Just so. We should remember that "notability", and our attempts to objectify it via reference to second-party reliable sources, are only means to an end. The end goal is: utility to our readers. Get hung up on notability if you like, but the encyclopedic inclusivity criterion I like to use is, "Might someone ever look this up and expect/want/need to find this information?
Surely WP:IINFO applies here, however? Wikipedia cannot be an all-inclusive cornucopia of useful tidbits of information. Adding a plethora of stubs which feature little more than co-ordinates, a region link and a map thumbnail are effective going to make Wikipedia an online map searching facility.
2008/6/2 Haza-w@enwiki en.haza-w@ip3.co.uk:
Steve Summit wrote:
Just so. We should remember that "notability", and our attempts to objectify it via reference to second-party reliable sources, are only means to an end. The end goal is: utility to our readers. Get hung up on notability if you like, but the encyclopedic inclusivity criterion I like to use is, "Might someone ever look this up and expect/want/need to find this information?
Surely WP:IINFO applies here, however? Wikipedia cannot be an all-inclusive cornucopia of useful tidbits of information. Adding a plethora of stubs which feature little more than co-ordinates, a region link and a map thumbnail are effective going to make Wikipedia an online map searching facility.
I think this is missing the point, and looking for an excuse not to have the article.
It's not "indiscriminate information" at all, but a relevant article on a topic with relevant information to someone looking up that topic at the correct page name for that topic.
Would it be more useful to a reader looking up the locality in question than no article at all? I'd say it obviously would.
- d.
Haza-w@enwiki wrote:
Steve Summit wrote:
Just so. We should remember that "notability", and our attempts to objectify it via reference to second-party reliable sources, are only means to an end. The end goal is: utility to our readers. Get hung up on notability if you like, but the encyclopedic inclusivity criterion I like to use is, "Might someone ever look this up and expect/want/need to find this information?
Surely WP:IINFO applies here, however? Wikipedia cannot be an all-inclusive cornucopia of useful tidbits of information. Adding a plethora of stubs which feature little more than co-ordinates, a region link and a map thumbnail are effective going to make Wikipedia an online map searching facility.
Not really. What makes you think that we would limit these small articles to geographical ones?
These stubs become the basis for future expansion or writing more about the subject. I admit that many of these will stay small for a very long time, but I don't see how encouraging comprehensiveness can be damaging to the 'pedia.
Ec