In a message dated 2/4/2008 10:46:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, wilydoppelganger@gmail.com writes:
In the end, what's wrong with an article that contains the sum total of human knowledge on a subject, even if it's short, as long as it's verifiable and on a subject matter suitable for an encyclopaedia?>>
--------------------------- Shouldn't similar stubs be rolled together into one list? So instead of Galaxy XG-123AB or whatever we'd just have an article on "Galaxy's called XG something"...
Will Johnson
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000... 48)
WP does in fact do just this with asteroids,m where the number that have been identified is very much larger; however, people keep trying to delete those combined articles.
On Feb 4, 2008 3:09 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/4/2008 10:46:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, wilydoppelganger@gmail.com writes:
In the end, what's wrong with an article that contains the sum total of human knowledge on a subject, even if it's short, as long as it's verifiable and on a subject matter suitable for an encyclopaedia?>>
Shouldn't similar stubs be rolled together into one list? So instead of Galaxy XG-123AB or whatever we'd just have an article on "Galaxy's called XG something"...
Will Johnson
**************Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music. (http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp00300000... 48) _______________________________________________ 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 Feb 4, 2008 3:09 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/4/2008 10:46:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, wilydoppelganger@gmail.com writes:
In the end, what's wrong with an article that contains the sum total of human knowledge on a subject, even if it's short, as long as it's verifiable and on a subject matter suitable for an encyclopaedia?>>
Shouldn't similar stubs be rolled together into one list? So instead of Galaxy XG-123AB or whatever we'd just have an article on "Galaxy's called XG something"...
Will Johnson
No, it absolutely shouldn't. How that particular meme came about, I'm not sure, but it makes absolutely no sense to do so. Think about it, if you typed in "Galaxy XG-123AB" and hit go would you rather end up on a page called [[Galaxy XG-123AB]], which *links* to [[Galaxy's called XG something]], or would you prefer to end up on a page called [[Galaxy's called XG something]] (and possibly end up with your browser scrolled to the middle of the page where that particular paragraph is).
Rolling stubs together into one list makes no sense. The only reason it seems to be done any more is that someone saw someone else do it and they mindlessly follow. In addition to making reading difficult, it makes categories not work properly, makes editing more difficult, clutters up the history, etc. And what is the benefit?
Found an example: [[Lars Owen]]. Can anyone explain to us the point of doing that?
On Feb 6, 2008 7:59 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Found an example: [[Lars Owen]]. Can anyone explain to us the point of doing that?
Grr... [[Owen Lars]] (I got it right the first time :)
Anthony wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008 7:59 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Found an example: [[Lars Owen]]. Can anyone explain to us the point of doing that?
Grr... [[Owen Lars]] (I got it right the first time :)
The only reason is as a defense against deletion.
That's it. When deletion comes knocking it's hard to defend individual articles but somewhat easier to defend these omnibus ones, so they get rolled together even though there's not one whit of difference as far as the actual _content_ is concerned.
On 2/6/08, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
The only reason is as a defense against deletion.
That's it. When deletion comes knocking it's hard to defend individual articles but somewhat easier to defend these omnibus ones, so they get rolled together even though there's not one whit of difference as far as the actual _content_ is concerned.
Cases like these lend themselves to a sort of tag-team deletionism (which may be conspiracy or coincidence -- neither would surprise me): 1. Those opposed to individual stubs are pacified by merging everything to a list article 2. Then, those opposed to "list-cruft" are pacified by deletion of the list article. 3. Then, those who would rather delete a "broken redirect" on sight rather than checking for previous revisions containing a proper article, well... nevermind.
Perfect crime if you think about it.
—C.W.
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Charlotte Webb wrote:
That's it. When deletion comes knocking it's hard to defend individual articles but somewhat easier to defend these omnibus ones, so they get rolled together even though there's not one whit of difference as far as the actual _content_ is concerned.
Cases like these lend themselves to a sort of tag-team deletionism (which may be conspiracy or coincidence -- neither would surprise me):
- Those opposed to individual stubs are pacified by merging
everything to a list article 2. Then, those opposed to "list-cruft" are pacified by deletion of the list article. 3. Then, those who would rather delete a "broken redirect" on sight rather than checking for previous revisions containing a proper article, well... nevermind.
Perfect crime if you think about it.
Umm, this has been *happening*. See the episode and characters arbcom case.
On 2/6/08, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Charlotte Webb wrote:
Cases like these lend themselves to a sort of tag-team deletionism (which may be conspiracy or coincidence -- neither would surprise me):
[snip WP:BEANS (or not!)]
Perfect crime if you think about it.
Umm, this has been *happening*. See the episode and characters arbcom case.
Oh, well I had expected someone to write me off as a pessimist or a negotiant of sour grapes for making such a comment without actual evidence (if I got any reply at all, that is). So now I feel a little better, but I still hate being right.
—C.W.
On Feb 4, 2008 3:09 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/4/2008 10:46:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, wilydoppelganger@gmail.com writes:
In the end, what's wrong with an article that contains the sum total of human knowledge on a subject, even if it's short, as long as it's verifiable and on a subject matter suitable for an encyclopaedia?>>
Shouldn't similar stubs be rolled together into one list? So instead of Galaxy XG-123AB or whatever we'd just have an article on "Galaxy's called XG something"...
Will Johnson
Why?