Intersting page; what happened to it? Surely an excellent article can't be short?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Excellent_short_articles
On 10/20/07, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Intersting page; what happened to it? Surely an excellent article can't be short?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Excellent_short_articles
This misconception about excellence and brevity is something GA was originally started to address - sometimes articles cover everything or most that can be known about a subject, but they wouldn't pass muster at FA because of the perception that they're just too short, etc. GA was created for that. Of course, within weeks it was hijacked by people seeking gold stars for "FA but not quite" articles. This excellent short articles thing seems interesting...what happened to it, I wonder...
Johnleemk
On 20/10/2007, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Surely an excellent article can't be short?
Oh yes it can.
On 10/20/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 20/10/2007, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Surely an excellent article can't be short?
Oh yes it can.
-- Alex (Majorly)
Yes. What about length per se gives quality? Nothing.
KP
On 10/20/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 20/10/2007, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Surely an excellent article can't be short?
Oh yes it can.
Oh no it can't. It can be very good but if it's under 50-60 lines long then it can't be excellent
Phoenix 15
Poppycock. Bring me a shrubbery as well, why don't you? Who the hell equated pompous longevity with excellence? Since when was blessed brevity a vice, when it is the purest of all virtues? I've written articles starting with just one line "X is a person", with added categories - tell me that is not an excellent article. I've written up full plots of 4-hour baroque opera and I've written little cameos in virtuosity such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Millico - tell me excellence cannot be found in both. Try and fail.
Moreschi
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:47:52 +0100 From: phoenix.wiki@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia:Excellent short articles
On 10/20/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 20/10/2007, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Surely an excellent article can't be short?
Oh yes it can.
Oh no it can't. It can be very good but if it's under 50-60 lines long then it can't be excellent
Phoenix 15
_________________________________________________________________ Celeb spotting – Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes https://www.celebmashup.com
On 21/10/2007, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Oh no it can't. It can be very good but if it's under 50-60 lines long then it can't be excellent
Nonsense. We are an encyclopedia; the entire point of an encyclopedia is not just to cover all sorts of things, but cover them simply and concisely and without rabbiting on at great length about trivial aspects.
There are no shortage of subjects where the perfect article is a couple of tightly-written paragraphs and a pointer to further reading.
Phoenix wiki wrote:
On 10/20/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 20/10/2007, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Surely an excellent article can't be short?
Oh yes it can.
Oh no it can't. It can be very good but if it's under 50-60 lines long then it can't be excellent
You make it sound as though verbal diarrhea is an essential part of an excellent article.
Ec
Phoenix wiki wrote:
On 10/20/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 20/10/2007, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Surely an excellent article can't be short?
Oh yes it can.
Oh no it can't. It can be very good but if it's under 50-60 lines long then it can't be excellent
Untrue. I write on several articles that do, in fact, cover everything that you might need to know about a subject (indeed, I'm *often* taking lines out of [[Hidden tracks]] because everyone any their brother wants to add their favourite bands track to the article, even if there's already a documented example of the method they used to 'hide' the track). But the articles will never be 'featured'; they often just aren't an expansive enough subject, even when they're definitely something someone might well look up.
(in the case of the Hidden tracks, it will also never be labelled a GA, because there's a checklist that people use, such as 'should include a picture', and the vague idea that the article should be more prose, less list. Yet in the case of the subject in question, it makes much more sense to say, 'Here's a method, here's some technical info about how it's implemented. a) example, b) variant, c) variant.' Also a picture on the page would be superfluous; illustrating 'Hidden tracks' is impossible. It's a short article, to the point, and not ever going to be more than a B-class because people have a list of things that they check it against, instead of allowing that not all subjects need to be 20 pages, 300 footnotes, and copiously illustrated, and that the subject does in fact cover the subject completely, regardless of the checklist)
Thes.
On 10/21/07, Stephanie M. Clarkson thespian@sleepingcat.com wrote:
Phoenix wiki wrote:
On 10/20/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 20/10/2007, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Surely an excellent article can't be short?
Oh yes it can.
Oh no it can't. It can be very good but if it's under 50-60 lines long
then
it can't be excellent
Untrue. I write on several articles that do, in fact, cover everything that you might need to know about a subject (indeed, I'm *often* taking lines out of [[Hidden tracks]] because everyone any their brother wants to add their favourite bands track to the article, even if there's already a documented example of the method they used to 'hide' the track). But the articles will never be 'featured'; they often just aren't an expansive enough subject, even when they're definitely something someone might well look up.
(in the case of the Hidden tracks, it will also never be labelled a GA, because there's a checklist that people use, such as 'should include a picture', and the vague idea that the article should be more prose, less list. Yet in the case of the subject in question, it makes much more sense to say, 'Here's a method, here's some technical info about how it's implemented. a) example, b) variant, c) variant.' Also a picture on the page would be superfluous; illustrating 'Hidden tracks' is impossible. It's a short article, to the point, and not ever going to be more than a B-class because people have a list of things that they check it against, instead of allowing that not all subjects need to be 20 pages, 300 footnotes, and copiously illustrated, and that the subject does in fact cover the subject completely, regardless of the checklist)
And the irony is that GA was initiated to specifically recognise this kind of article.
Johnleemk
Yeah and still does. You might try actually looking at some GAs before shooting your mouth off. I've reviewed dozens of GA articles, and most of them are far, far too short to ever be FA. I think almost all GA project people would agree. Examples I have passed: Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (Puerto Rico), Haystacks (Monet), SS Christopher Columbus, Roman trade with India, and the list goes on. The point is: yes, long articles get passed by GA when they should be FA candidates. But that serves as a great stepping stone for those articles, and the short, great articles that never will be FA get to be recognized.
On 10/21/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/21/07, Stephanie M. Clarkson thespian@sleepingcat.com wrote:
Phoenix wiki wrote:
On 10/20/07, Majorly axel9891@googlemail.com wrote:
On 20/10/2007, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Surely an excellent article can't be short?
Oh yes it can.
Oh no it can't. It can be very good but if it's under 50-60 lines long
then
it can't be excellent
Untrue. I write on several articles that do, in fact, cover everything that you might need to know about a subject (indeed, I'm *often* taking lines out of [[Hidden tracks]] because everyone any their brother wants
to
add their favourite bands track to the article, even if there's already
a
documented example of the method they used to 'hide' the track). But the articles will never be 'featured'; they often just aren't an expansive enough subject, even when they're definitely something someone might
well
look up.
(in the case of the Hidden tracks, it will also never be labelled a GA, because there's a checklist that people use, such as 'should include a picture', and the vague idea that the article should be more prose, less list. Yet in the case of the subject in question, it makes much more
sense
to say, 'Here's a method, here's some technical info about how it's implemented. a) example, b) variant, c) variant.' Also a picture on the
page
would be superfluous; illustrating 'Hidden tracks' is impossible. It's a short article, to the point, and not ever going to be more than a
B-class
because people have a list of things that they check it against, instead
of
allowing that not all subjects need to be 20 pages, 300 footnotes, and copiously illustrated, and that the subject does in fact cover the
subject
completely, regardless of the checklist)
And the irony is that GA was initiated to specifically recognise this kind of article.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ 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 10/21/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah and still does. You might try actually looking at some GAs before shooting your mouth off. I've reviewed dozens of GA articles, and most of them are far, far too short to ever be FA. I think almost all GA project people would agree. Examples I have passed: Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional (Puerto Rico), Haystacks (Monet), SS Christopher Columbus, Roman trade with India, and the list goes on. The point is: yes, long articles get passed by GA when they should be FA candidates. But that serves as a great stepping stone for those articles, and the short, great articles that never will be FA get to be recognized.
Several articles I've written which are hamstrung by their nature (e.g.howmuch information and references are there about a rally racer from a developing country - [[Karamjit Singh]] - or even an obscure but notable person in a developed country such as [[Karamjit Singh (electoral commissioner)]]?) failed GA within a few months after it was started. It became clear to me that it had already been hijacked by the crowd who like gold stars - nothing wrong with that, except that the niche it was originally meant for remains unfilled. A brief glance at the list of GAs indicates that, as a general rule, you can only be a GA if you're almost an FA.
I'm pretty sure a lot of Wikipedians have a different idea of how GA ought to work, and a decent number including yourself probably review GAs themselves. But as the saying goes, policy is what is done, not what is said - and the de facto standards for GA dictate that an article be not short, have a picture, etc. A look at the recently listed GAs shows only one ([[Robin Starveling]]) which is probably short in some sense.
IMO, a GA should be something which we would not be ashamed to publish in a print or other hard copy version; indeed, that is what it has been used for in 1 or 2 hard copy editions of Wikipedia. The way I see it, GA is nothing more than an FA/PR-lite for the vast majority of articles subjected to the GA process.
Johnleemk
You obviously know little about the GA criteria, in letter and in practice. You claim that all GA's "have to have a picture" (paraphrase). Not a single reviewer I know makes the mistake of thinking images are required. Review templates even stress this explicitly. Only proper image licenses and rationales are required for images present. But you can pass GA without an image.
On 10/21/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/21/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah and still does. You might try actually looking at some GAs before shooting your mouth off. I've reviewed dozens of GA articles, and most
of
them are far, far too short to ever be FA. I think almost all GA project people would agree. Examples I have passed: Fuerzas Armadas de
Liberación
Nacional (Puerto Rico), Haystacks (Monet), SS Christopher Columbus,
Roman
trade with India, and the list goes on. The point is: yes, long articles get passed by GA when they should be FA candidates. But that serves as a
great
stepping stone for those articles, and the short, great articles that never will be FA get to be recognized.
Several articles I've written which are hamstrung by their nature (e.g.howmuch information and references are there about a rally racer from a developing country - [[Karamjit Singh]] - or even an obscure but notable person in a developed country such as [[Karamjit Singh (electoral commissioner)]]?) failed GA within a few months after it was started. It became clear to me that it had already been hijacked by the crowd who like gold stars - nothing wrong with that, except that the niche it was originally meant for remains unfilled. A brief glance at the list of GAs indicates that, as a general rule, you can only be a GA if you're almost an FA.
I'm pretty sure a lot of Wikipedians have a different idea of how GA ought to work, and a decent number including yourself probably review GAs themselves. But as the saying goes, policy is what is done, not what is said
- and the de facto standards for GA dictate that an article be not short,
have a picture, etc. A look at the recently listed GAs shows only one ([[Robin Starveling]]) which is probably short in some sense.
IMO, a GA should be something which we would not be ashamed to publish in a print or other hard copy version; indeed, that is what it has been used for in 1 or 2 hard copy editions of Wikipedia. The way I see it, GA is nothing more than an FA/PR-lite for the vast majority of articles subjected to the GA process.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ 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 10/22/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
You obviously know little about the GA criteria, in letter and in practice. You claim that all GA's "have to have a picture" (paraphrase). Not a single reviewer I know makes the mistake of thinking images are required. Review templates even stress this explicitly. Only proper image licenses and rationales are required for images present. But you can pass GA without an image.
I've read them; in letter they are almost as vague as FA requirements are. But both FA and GA have unspoken terms of reference. Re the image thing, I picked up on that because of Thes; that surprised me, since even I have never seen that happen, so I assumed it was a recent development. In any event, congrats, you've refuted one problem with GA without addressing the bigger issues raised.
An article shouldn't have to be comprehensive to be a GA; the standards explicitly don't use that word, since that's reserved for FAs. But in reality, most GAs take a comprehensive approach; those that are "broad in coverage" despite being short aren't really represented in the list of GAs, if that sample of the latest GAs approved is anything to go by.
Johnleemk
An article shouldn't have to be comprehensive to be a GA
Oh lord, the ten thousandth person who gets a kick from griping about what GA should and shouldn't be while, in the meantime, people are actually improving and promoting articles.
On 10/21/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/22/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
You obviously know little about the GA criteria, in letter and in practice. You claim that all GA's "have to have a picture" (paraphrase). Not a single reviewer I know makes the mistake of thinking images are required.
Review
templates even stress this explicitly. Only proper image licenses and rationales are required for images present. But you can pass GA without
an
image.
I've read them; in letter they are almost as vague as FA requirements are. But both FA and GA have unspoken terms of reference. Re the image thing, I picked up on that because of Thes; that surprised me, since even I have never seen that happen, so I assumed it was a recent development. In any event, congrats, you've refuted one problem with GA without addressing the bigger issues raised.
An article shouldn't have to be comprehensive to be a GA; the standards explicitly don't use that word, since that's reserved for FAs. But in reality, most GAs take a comprehensive approach; those that are "broad in coverage" despite being short aren't really represented in the list of GAs, if that sample of the latest GAs approved is anything to go by.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ 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 10/22/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
An article shouldn't have to be comprehensive to be a GA
Oh lord, the ten thousandth person who gets a kick from griping about what GA should and shouldn't be while, in the meantime, people are actually improving and promoting articles.
As I said, GA is being and ought to be used as an indicator for what we would not be ashamed to have published in a hard copy edition of Wikipedia. To raise the bar to a near-FA standard is to make it less useful in this respect, and make it more like a gold star - which has its own advantages, but not the same broader benefit it was intended for.
I think GA as it was originally intended would be very helpful in distinguishing the non-crap from the crap. We could alternatively have a process for recognising shitty articles; I suspect that might be more efficient, but for obvious political and psychological reasons, this won't happen much beyond the existing process of sticking colourful templates on articles. The only other alternatives if we want to separate the worth-publishing from the needs-fixing are to alter the GA standards, or to establish a third process.
I'm not harping on this because I have an axe to grind; I'm harping on this because I think we're failing to take the long-term view here and look at the potential benefits of different GA standards.
Johnleemk
Johnleemk wrote:
On 10/21/07, Stephanie M. Clarkson thespian@sleepingcat.com wrote:
(in the case of the Hidden tracks, it will also never be labelled a GA, because there's a checklist that people use...
And the irony is that GA was initiated to specifically recognise this kind of article.
So is it time for [[Wikipedia:Fine articles]]? [[Wikipedia:Pretty Darn Good articles]]? [[Wikipedia:Nothing wrong with them (but no checklist to say so) articles]]?
On 10/22/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Johnleemk wrote:
On 10/21/07, Stephanie M. Clarkson thespian@sleepingcat.com wrote:
(in the case of the Hidden tracks, it will also never be labelled a GA, because there's a checklist that people use...
And the irony is that GA was initiated to specifically recognise this kind of article.
So is it time for [[Wikipedia:Fine articles]]? [[Wikipedia:Pretty Darn Good articles]]? [[Wikipedia:Nothing wrong with them (but no checklist to say so) articles]]?
They'd just get destroyed the same way. It's time for:
[[User:Johnleemk/Adequate articles]] (what is your username, anyway?)
On 10/22/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/22/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Johnleemk wrote:
On 10/21/07, Stephanie M. Clarkson thespian@sleepingcat.com wrote:
(in the case of the Hidden tracks, it will also never be labelled a
GA,
because there's a checklist that people use...
And the irony is that GA was initiated to specifically recognise this
kind
of article.
So is it time for [[Wikipedia:Fine articles]]? [[Wikipedia:Pretty Darn Good articles]]? [[Wikipedia:Nothing wrong with them (but no checklist to say so)
articles]]?
They'd just get destroyed the same way. It's time for:
[[User:Johnleemk/Adequate articles]] (what is your username, anyway?)
[[User:Johnleemk]]. Unless you were talking to Steve, in which case, ignore me.
Johnleemk
On 10/21/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
So is it time for [[Wikipedia:Fine articles]]? [[Wikipedia:Pretty Darn Good articles]]? [[Wikipedia:Nothing wrong with them (but no checklist to say so) articles]]?
More to the (wp:)point, we should create and maintain a [[Wikipedia:Featured stubs]] page, mostly to see how long it lasts prior to the onset of a farcical MFD nom. Who's with me on this?
—C.W.
On 10/20/07, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Intersting page; what happened to it?
And what about that? what did happen to it?
Phoenix 15
On 20/10/2007, Phoenix wiki phoenix.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Intersting page; what happened to it? Surely an excellent article can't be short?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Excellent_short_articles
Excellent short articles can be short. There is a quality differential among short articles: some are rubbish (inconcise, badly written, unreferenced, unillustrated, &c.) and some are really rather good (every fact referenced, concise communication covering the breadth of the topic, well written...)
Thinking about science articles in particular, articles about single molecules can sometimes communicate 90% of the information contained in the literature (textbooks and journals) in 10k. The protein Nav 1.5, as an example, deserves an article but has only 11 results in PubMed. If the article is concise (and science can be very concise) but covers the topic well and evenly, I don't see why a short article can't be excellent.
On 10/24/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
Excellent short articles can be short.
If you look at most encyclopaedias, most of their articles are very short - a paragraph or two. It's a pity that the overwhelming tendency on Wikipedia is to amalgamate several short articles into one longer one. It means that less often a searcher finds an article whose primary focus is about the actual topic they're searching for. To take an extreme example, it would be better IMHO for someone searching for, say "Old Engineering Building 34" to receive a short one liner "OEB34 is one of several buildings at the University of Foobar. See [[University of Foobar#Engineering]] for more information."
Steve
On 10/23/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
If you look at most encyclopaedias, most of their articles are very short - a paragraph or two. It's a pity that the overwhelming tendency on Wikipedia is to amalgamate several short articles into one longer one.
Like many Wikipedia decisions I feel that this one has been made defensively. Short articles collect random unverified crap which they do not as much when part of a larger article. A larger, compendium article is more likely to have watching editors, too.
-Matt
On 10/24/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Like many Wikipedia decisions I feel that this one has been made defensively. Short articles collect random unverified crap which they do not as much when part of a larger article. A larger, compendium article is more likely to have watching editors, too.
That's an interesting point which sounds plausible. 10 articles of 1000 words are easier to patrol than 100 articles of 100 words each. Would that our patrolling mechanisms were better...
Steve
In my experience patrolling for spam in WP, the way to hide crap is in a long article. The possibly improper nature of concise articles is visible immediatel.
On 10/24/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/24/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Like many Wikipedia decisions I feel that this one has been made defensively. Short articles collect random unverified crap which they do not as much when part of a larger article. A larger, compendium article is more likely to have watching editors, too.
That's an interesting point which sounds plausible. 10 articles of 1000 words are easier to patrol than 100 articles of 100 words each. Would that our patrolling mechanisms were better...
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Like many Wikipedia decisions I feel that this one has been made defensively. Short articles collect random unverified crap which they do not as much when part of a larger article. A larger, compendium article is more likely to have watching editors, too.
On your 2nd point, you may be right.
However, your 1st point, surely a great big long article have more chance of finding {{fact}} statement in then one of paragraph or two. Those that are short and unsourced will at least be obviously so, whereas the embedded uncited statement can often be left there for years.
KTC
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 10/23/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
If you look at most encyclopaedias, most of their articles are very short - a paragraph or two. It's a pity that the overwhelming tendency on Wikipedia is to amalgamate several short articles into one longer one.
Like many Wikipedia decisions I feel that this one has been made defensively. Short articles collect random unverified crap which they do not as much when part of a larger article. A larger, compendium article is more likely to have watching editors, too.
It's also a defense against deletion. In my experience a short article on an obscure topic is more likely to go on the notability chopping block than the exact same material embedded within a larger "List of" article is.
On 10/24/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
It's also a defense against deletion. In my experience a short article on an obscure topic is more likely to go on the notability chopping block than the exact same material embedded within a larger "List of" article is.
Yes, but that's just restating the original thesis.
It is true, but why? And is it desirable?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 10/24/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
It's also a defense against deletion. In my experience a short article on an obscure topic is more likely to go on the notability chopping block than the exact same material embedded within a larger "List of" article is.
Yes, but that's just restating the original thesis. It is true, but why? And is it desirable?
Don't really know why, but it makes the causation more specific. Figure out why so many people want to delete articles on obscure topics and you'll know why many small articles often get amalgamated into a few larger ones.
I don't think it's desirable; the resulting combined articles are often rather clumsy and the individual articles remain as redirects anyhow. I'd much rather see the articles remain separate. But until I can somehow stop the stuff from getting deleted as standalone articles seems like the best available option.
On 10/25/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
I don't think it's desirable; the resulting combined articles are often rather clumsy and the individual articles remain as redirects anyhow. I'd much rather see the articles remain separate. But until I can somehow stop the stuff from getting deleted as standalone articles seems like the best available option.
Yes, I agree. My personal bugbear is cultural phenomena which exist in
some form in many countries. We would, IMHO, do much better to have individual articles precisely describing the phenomenon each time it appears, rather than attempting to describe generalisations.
For example: -- Mulled wine, variations of which are popular around the world, is wine, usually red wine, combined with spices and typically served hot. In the old times wine often went bad, but by adding spices and honey it could be made drinkable again. Nowadays it is a traditional drink during winter, and especially around Christmas, to warm up. In Italy, this beverage is typically drunk in the northern part of the country. --
or: -- Deviled eggs or eggs mimosa are a common dish in France and the United States, but they actually originated in Rome according to the show The Secret Life Of.... Made with hard-boiled eggs, deviled eggs are served cold. They are served as a side dish and are a common holiday or party food. Deviled eggs are one way of using Easter eggs after the children have found them. In the Southern U.S., they are commonly served as hors d'oeuvres before a full meal is served, often during the summer months. Deviled eggs are so popular that special serving dishes and carrying trays are sold specifically for this type of food. Prepared deviled eggs are now available in some supermarkets. -- My particular complaint here is that much of what is said only applies in the US. An article about "oeux mimosa" would not refer to "party food" or "special serving dishes". Why not just have a separate article, like:
'''Oeuf mimosa''' (mimosa egg) is a French dish made from hard boiled egg and mayonnaise, similar to the American dish [[deviled egg]]. ...
We're not really gaining a lot by attempting to find common ground between two separate cultural phenomena, and we lose a lot of precision.
Steve
On 24/10/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/23/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
If you look at most encyclopaedias, most of their articles are very short a paragraph or two. It's a pity that the overwhelming tendency on Wikipedia is to amalgamate several short articles into one longer one.
Like many Wikipedia decisions I feel that this one has been made defensively. Short articles collect random unverified crap which they do not as much when part of a larger article. A larger, compendium article is more likely to have watching editors, too.
It's actually a strong and direct push from AFD from some people there to consolidate as much as possible. I'm pretty sure this is not such a good idea for encyclopaedic usefulness.
- d.
(no, I'm not back from holiday, and I'm certainly not using stray wifi for any sort of email addiction. Perish forbid!)