--- David 'DJ' Hedley spyders@btinternet.com wrote:

Unless we're living in a world of 56K internet still, I think 32K could become at least 50K. Even articles on albums by Eminem and so forth are getting above 32K - Giving that limit is slowly even limiting the growth of good articles. If an article grows above that it should be allowed to grow, unless it is obviously repeating itself.

Yeah, let it grow. But at some point some sections will need to be summarized and the detail put into a daughter article. We need not burden readers with more detail than is necessary - those that want more detail on the sub topic covered by that section can skip ahead directly to the main article for that section.

My own opinion is that almost all articles are probably too long once they enter the 30 to 45KB range but some topics are so expansive that they are not too long at even 50KB. At the same time some other topics are so narrowly focused that they could be considered too detailed even if they don't trigger a page size warning.

We had a long discussion about this a month ago on the featured article criteria talk page. The general consensus was against specific numerical limits while at the same time not having articles be longer than needed to pass the other FAC criteria. The only outstanding matter is finding some wording that can be agreed upon so that can be added as a FAC criteria.

Part of good writing is prioritizing what information should be presented up front to readers vs what can be best dealt with in other related articles. Some points: *Readers should have the ability to zoom to the level of detail they need. Having all the detail on one page does not allow for that. *Do this by summarizing and providing links to more detailed treatments on those sub topics. *What matters is that Wikipedia has lots of detail on a topic, not that all that detail is on the same page.

-- mav

Discover Yahoo! Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html