Here's a candidate...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCCF
On 3/16/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Here's a candidate...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCCF
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
That was awesome. A small fact left out, the arcade game requires a special card that comes with the starter packs, that has an ic (I had to look that up, being techno-daft) in it.
Awesome, though. Simply awesome. KP
Looks like you were referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Club_Champion_Football&d...
[[WCCF]] is now a disambig, and World Club Champion Football is now at least comprehensible.
Steve
On 3/17/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
Here's a candidate...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCCF
-- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/17/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Looks like you were referring to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Club_Champion_Football&d...
[[WCCF]] is now a disambig, and World Club Champion Football is now at least comprehensible.
Steve
And up for deletion, as well.
-- Jonel
Nick Wilkins wrote:
[[WCCF]] is now a disambig, and World Club Champion Football is now at least comprehensible.
Steve
And up for deletion, as well.
This is why I'm often hesitant to actually name the articles I'm referring to when discussing interestingcruft on this mailing list, and don't add much to [[Wikipedia:Unusual articles]]. Attention from lots of editors can be a bad thing sometimes.
On Mar 17, 2007, at 2:36 PM, Bryan Derksen wrote:
Nick Wilkins wrote:
[[WCCF]] is now a disambig, and World Club Champion Football is now at least comprehensible.
Steve
And up for deletion, as well.
This is why I'm often hesitant to actually name the articles I'm referring to when discussing interestingcruft on this mailing list, and don't add much to [[Wikipedia:Unusual articles]]. Attention from lots of editors can be a bad thing sometimes.
Which is, we should note, appalling. The idea that interesting articles that nobody seriously doubts the accuracy of and are in no way inflammatory or going to cause anyone any problems to anybody should be deleted is ridiculous.
The bias against "I like it" as an argument remains one of our stupidest positions. That people like an article is a good sign that the article is worth trying to fix, keep up, and get to some sort of acceptable standard. Providing information that people want is our job, folks.
-Phil
On 3/17/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Which is, we should note, appalling. The idea that interesting articles that nobody seriously doubts the accuracy of and are in no way inflammatory or going to cause anyone any problems to anybody should be deleted is ridiculous.
While I do agree with you on this article, your general point I find very questionable. When did it become such a ridiculous idea that subjects of articles in an *encyclopedia* should meet some criterion of notability? That is the way encyclopedias always have been.
There are of course very pragmatic reasons for requiring notability (maintainability, privacy and original research, amongst others), but there are very convincing philosophical arguments that convinces me that it is a Good Thing. We are an encyclopedia first, everything else second. With every decision we make, that should be our number 1 consideration. If we let non-encyclopedic topics in we will be a worse encyclopedia, and therefore we shouldn't do it. How is that not all that matters?
--Oskar
On Mar 17, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
While I do agree with you on this article, your general point I find very questionable. When did it become such a ridiculous idea that subjects of articles in an *encyclopedia* should meet some criterion of notability? That is the way encyclopedias always have been.
Argument from tradition seems to me difficult with Wikipedia. Encyclopedias, after all, have always been written on paper, by experts. Notability, in that case, was a factor of including only the most important information - after all, if you add an article on chicken hypnotism, you have to remove another article.
There are of course very pragmatic reasons for requiring notability (maintainability, privacy and original research, amongst others), but there are very convincing philosophical arguments that convinces me that it is a Good Thing. We are an encyclopedia first, everything else second. With every decision we make, that should be our number 1 consideration. If we let non-encyclopedic topics in we will be a worse encyclopedia, and therefore we shouldn't do it. How is that not all that matters?
But see, this is where the argument gets strange - what's "encyclopedic" is a factor of a restriction on paper encyclopedias that we don't have. Since Wikipedia is vastly larger than any paper encyclopedia, we've already clearly abandoned any standard of encyclopedicness that can be derived from an external standard having to do with "what encyclopedias are." The standards thus become very much subjective - we delete articles, essentially, because a lot of people don't like them, and describe this dislike in terms of whether the article is encyclopedic.
The useful description is "if we let topics in that it is impossible to write a good article about." But that has nothing to do with notability as such.
-Phil
On Sat, Mar 17, 2007 at 09:52:30PM -0400, Philip Sandifer wrote:
On Mar 17, 2007, at 6:57 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
While I do agree with you on this article, your general point I find very questionable. When did it become such a ridiculous idea that subjects of articles in an *encyclopedia* should meet some criterion of notability? That is the way encyclopedias always have been.
Argument from tradition seems to me difficult with Wikipedia. Encyclopedias, after all, have always been written on paper, by experts. Notability, in that case, was a factor of including only the most important information - after all, if you add an article on chicken hypnotism, you have to remove another article.
There are of course very pragmatic reasons for requiring notability (maintainability, privacy and original research, amongst others), but there are very convincing philosophical arguments that convinces me that it is a Good Thing. We are an encyclopedia first, everything else second. With every decision we make, that should be our number 1 consideration. If we let non-encyclopedic topics in we will be a worse encyclopedia, and therefore we shouldn't do it. How is that not all that matters?
But see, this is where the argument gets strange - what's "encyclopedic" is a factor of a restriction on paper encyclopedias that we don't have. Since Wikipedia is vastly larger than any paper encyclopedia, we've already clearly abandoned any standard of encyclopedicness that can be derived from an external standard having to do with "what encyclopedias are." The standards thus become very much subjective - we delete articles, essentially, because a lot of people don't like them, and describe this dislike in terms of whether the article is encyclopedic.
The useful description is "if we let topics in that it is impossible to write a good article about." But that has nothing to do with notability as such.
-Phil
What we should be comparing ourselves to is the total sum of distinctive articles in all paper encyclopedias including very specialised ones. We would have to exclude topics for which there is no specialised encyclopedia but where we have agreed to have articles. Has anyone done that comparision?
When I look at some specialised encyclopedias in my speciualised areas, we are still a long way short. Even on biographies of notable scientists, we are still way behind.
Brian.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 44, Issue 140
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Club_Champion_Football&d...
Lol, someone loves internet translators.
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 3/17/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Which is, we should note, appalling. The idea that interesting articles that nobody seriously doubts the accuracy of and are in no way inflammatory or going to cause anyone any problems to anybody should be deleted is ridiculous.
While I do agree with you on this article, your general point I find very questionable. When did it become such a ridiculous idea that subjects of articles in an *encyclopedia* should meet some criterion of notability? That is the way encyclopedias always have been.
We have no need to be strict about notability. Having stray articles that escape some subjective criterion for notability does no great harm. If these stubby articles are so lacking in notability it is unlikely that anyone will look at them anyways.
There are of course very pragmatic reasons for requiring notability (maintainability, privacy and original research, amongst others), but there are very convincing philosophical arguments that convinces me that it is a Good Thing. We are an encyclopedia first, everything else second. With every decision we make, that should be our number 1 consideration. If we let non-encyclopedic topics in we will be a worse encyclopedia, and therefore we shouldn't do it. How is that not all that matters?
None of your so-called pragmatic reasons is strong enough alone to support support deletion. If the articles are so short there is nothing to maintain, and the other two "reasons" can be invoked in their own right without having recourse to notability.
Your conclusion is not logically sound. The fact that A implies B does not support the conclusion that not-A implies not-B. Having "non-encyclopedic topics" (whatever that means) does not make us a worse encyclopaedia.
Ec
On 3/18/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
We have no need to be strict about notability. Having stray articles that escape some subjective criterion for notability does no great harm. If these stubby articles are so lacking in notability it is unlikely that anyone will look at them anyways.
The main harm they do is maintenance effort. I can tell you from watching the stubs that I've created that even very short stubs seem to require a lot of cleaning and polishing. Someone adds a category. Someone refines the stub tag. Someone else fixes a typo. Someone adds a cleanup tag. Someone fixes another typo. Someone else notices that nothing links to the stub, and adds the orphan tag. Someone else realises I've mistyped the ISBN for my main reference, and adds a tag suggesting that maybe I made it up. Someone else comes past and confirms that the ISBN is rubbish.[1] Someone else figures out what the typo is and updates it. Someone else updates the reference so that it includes the full name of the author and book title.
And all this for a 2 sentence article! Now of course *I* would never write a crappy stub about a non-notable subject which would be deleted ([[Claudio Gonzales]] aside...), but others do.
So, bad stubs on bad subjects create work (and the worse the stub, the more work). Therefore we do need some minimimum level of positive value from a stub, or the net value to the project is negative.
Steve [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tumba_%28drum%29&action=histor... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchangeslinked&ta... for an idea of all the minor changes that occur to stubs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stevage/stubs for an idea of the ratio of stubs that get de-stubbed and those that remain stubs.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/18/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
We have no need to be strict about notability. Having stray articles that escape some subjective criterion for notability does no great harm. If these stubby articles are so lacking in notability it is unlikely that anyone will look at them anyways.
The main harm they do is maintenance effort. I can tell you from watching the stubs that I've created that even very short stubs seem to require a lot of cleaning and polishing. Someone adds a category. Someone refines the stub tag. Someone else fixes a typo. Someone adds a cleanup tag. Someone fixes another typo. Someone else notices that nothing links to the stub, and adds the orphan tag. Someone else realises I've mistyped the ISBN for my main reference, and adds a tag suggesting that maybe I made it up. Someone else comes past and confirms that the ISBN is rubbish.[1] Someone else figures out what the typo is and updates it. Someone else updates the reference so that it includes the full name of the author and book title.
That seems like a good description of things happening normally. Are you saying that it's harmful for people to be doing normal work. As our subject base gets deeper into more obscure territory we can also expect that the time lag for fixing these things will get longer. The universe is unfolding as it should.
And all this for a 2 sentence article! Now of course *I* would never write a crappy stub about a non-notable subject which would be deleted ([[Claudio Gonzales]] aside...), but others do.
That article doesn't exist so I have no basis for commenting on Mr. Gonzalez' notability. A 2 sentence article is the start of what can become something bigger. One just needs patience in waiting for that to happen
So, bad stubs on bad subjects create work (and the worse the stub, the more work). Therefore we do need some minimimum level of positive value from a stub, or the net value to the project is negative.
But still much less work than arguing about something's notability. There is no way to define a "minimum level of positive value" because it is so subject dependent. Debating what that level would be is far more energy draining than the fixups that you described above.
Ec
On 3/18/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
The main harm they do is maintenance effort. I can tell you from watching the stubs that I've created that even very short stubs seem to require a lot of cleaning and polishing. [...]
That seems like a good description of things happening normally. Are you saying that it's harmful for people to be doing normal work. As our subject base gets deeper into more obscure territory we can also expect that the time lag for fixing these things will get longer. The universe is unfolding as it should.
I would agree. I *do* think that it is unfortunate that people spend more effort on classifying a stub than actually helping improve it, but in a volunteer project, people do what makes them happy; stub sorting makes some people happy.
I think, Steve, that you're applying a commercial project's logic to a volunteer project. In a commercial project, workers can be reassigned to things that are 'more important'. In a volunteer project, people assign themselves tasks that are 'more interesting', for their personal definition of interesting, naturally. I think it's fallacious to think that if we cut down on stubs, the people that spend all their time doing these little maintenance things would do something 'more useful'.
-Matt
On 3/18/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
And up for deletion, as well.
Yes, I don't really get that. Guy's argument seems to be "Someone just wrote about an interesting game. Rather than leading to it from some argument about its notability, like it being published in Johnsons Hundred Most Notable Games Compendium or something."
Asserting notability is a bore. Particularly since we have no definition of "notability" in most cases.
Steve