Ken Arromdee wrote: Indeed. When someone goes to Google or Yahoo or whatever and does a search for something, if there's not a good Wikipedia article about it in the results that should almost always count as a failure on our part IMO. The focus some people have on deliberately limiting our scope and reducing our content is not easy to comprehend sometimes.

Nathan wrote: Although we're both talking about lists, we're talking about somewhat different things. He's objecting to the listification of, for example, episodes of TV series and characters in movies, when we actually do have enough to at least write a short paragraph on each---instead they get merged into a huge article with a bunch of one- and two-paragraph sections. He objects to proposals to do this for cities as well. I tend to be a bit of an inclusionist so I also object to that---if there's enough to write at least a small paragraph I'd prefer a separate article. But I also think it's a bit silly to article-ify what is literally a single line in a 3-element table. If we want to do that, I could easily create tens of thousands of articles just by expanding our redlink lists automatically. In addition to lists of officeholders, virtually any article on a family or genus of living thing, for example, could have all its redlink species lists expanded out into stubs saying: '''''Genus species''''', commonly known as '''common name''', is a species of [[general type]]. But what good would this mass creation do anything except the article count? If all we have is a list of species of ''genus'', with their binomial name and common name, and nothing else, why not just put the list in the article on the genus as a redlist and wait until we get some more information to write separate articles? Now if we had a stubbish but not just-database-entry article on each of those minor species, I'd oppose an unnecessary merge into [[List of minor passerine bird species]] or something, which is another matter. -Mark