I think that the key question you have to ask yourself, and indeed in many ways the fundamental criteria for inclusion of everything, is "is anyone going to want to actually read this article?". If you believe, as I do, that no-one is for the 20,000 very short stubs, we shouldn't have them.
On 30/08/06, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
I think that the key question you have to ask yourself, and indeed in many ways the fundamental criteria for inclusion of everything, is "is anyone going to want to actually read this article?". If you believe, as I do, that no-one is for the 20,000 very short stubs, we shouldn't have them.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism
- d.
But if you had a single list, or one split over a few pages for size reasons, it would be dead easy to split it off on to another page if suddenly a lot of information was available on a particular asteroid wouldn't it?
On 04/09/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/08/06, David Mestel david.mestel@gmail.com wrote:
I think that the key question you have to ask yourself, and indeed in many ways the fundamental criteria for inclusion of everything, is "is anyone going to want to actually read this article?". If you believe, as I do, that no-one is for the 20,000 very short stubs, we shouldn't have them.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Immediatism
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/5/06, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
But if you had a single list, or one split over a few pages for size reasons, it would be dead easy to split it off on to another page if suddenly a lot of information was available on a particular asteroid wouldn't it?
or we could just put it all on wikisource to use when we need it.