Rambot articles are of disputable encyclopedicness.
Places are certainly encyclopedic.
Places are no more indisputably encyclopedic than schools or people.
Once more inclusionists impress me with their pedantry. By places, I generically mean human settlements.
You're accusing the wrong person of pedantry. Human settlements are no more indisputably encyclopedic than schools or people.
Can you point to a single encyclopedia that has articles on years? What about non-cardinal numbers? Lists I think are clearly unencyclopedic.
A definition of "Encyclopedic" should not be based on what other encyclopedias do.
Encyclopedic is not necessarily "topics most encyclopedias cover".
On the other hand, maybe I should be pedantic, because you seem to be making up random definitions of words. Unlike many other inclusionists, I think one can meaningfully talk about whether or not a topic is "encyclopedic", because I think a common definition of "encyclopedic" is "similar [in topic] to what traditional encyclopedias include". But, if you're going to define "encyclopedic" as "something which Wikipedia should include", you should be aware that that term has very little useful meaning in terms of an inclusion argument (as it commonly turns into a fallacy of begging the question). At the very least if you're going to make up a definition to fit your argument, make up a new term so as not to confuse people into thinking you're talking about the word which already has a definition. Maybe "Wikipedic".
They're relevant, but tell me why I should value a school substub more than a substub about the Prime Minister of Thailand.
I never said you should. I just don't think either is useless, or that we should delete either. But once again you talk about school substubs, while the vast majority of deleted articles on schools are not substubs, and the rest would have easily become more than substubs if being a substub was all that was objected to (I've fixed a number of substubs myself, but I generally don't do so when I feel that the article is likely to be deleted anyway).
Yes, I agree. I personally have no problem with having school substubs merged into their town articles.
Then it seems we are in heated agreement, because I have no problem with this either. In fact, in the case of substubs, that's what I *prefer* we do with them (and sometimes I actually favor merging and deleting).
Now, you and I may disagree about what constitutes a substub, but even with school articles bigger than a substub I still wouldn't mind merging and redirecting. I'd prefer that we keep them, so that's how I "vote", but would it make more sense if I just copy pasted something like "I'd prefer that we keep this but merging and redirecting would also be acceptable"?
The amazing thing is, merging and redirecting doesn't even require an admin, and so it can be done without even touching VFD. Adding to VFD has gotten complicated to the point where it's probably just as much work, too. Sometimes I wonder if the deletionists just have more fun playing on VFD, and that's why they choose this method to "improve Wikipedia".
And you want to talk about substubs? Rambot articles have less useful information than most school articles.
Population, maps, location, etc. I'd say most Rambot and school articles are nearly equal, but the Rambot articles at least contain some relevant information.
Here's what I find useful in the bare Rambot articles. County, population, latitude and longitude. Note that the bare rambot articles (and there are many of them) don't even have maps. So if it were up to me, I'd strip the articles of all but that information (unless it was particularly atypical, 95% white or 90% black or whatever), and then I'd merge and redirect with the county article and include a link to the demographics (either on the census site or on wikisource).
But looking at school articles, most of them have at least this much useful information. City, state, number of students, principal, and in many the ones I've verified, latitude and longitude. The vast majority of them have even more information than that.
So even if you're going to define "encyclopedic" as "should be in Wikipedia", I think almost every school article which is deleted is more useful than [[Mount Vernon, Illinois]].
Of course, if we were really looking to end this constant bickering and make a better encyclopedia, we could combine the two, at least as a default. Redirect school articles to the city, and talk about both there. I've said this a number of times on VFD. I don't think it's reasonable to have to say it every single time, but maybe I should set up a template response. This does bring me back to the point that VFD is set up extremely poorly, and that it in fact hinders a reaching of consensus.
It's a manner of organisation. The information within is encyclopedic.
With the year pages I can see your point, I guess. They're similar to lists, which even though I think they're clearly unencyclopedic, should probably stay in Wikipedia anyway. I stand by my belief that [[163 (number)]] should be tossed, though.
I think the real debate here is organisation. I don't think school substubs deserve a separate article - Mark Richards and anthony do.
Actually, I don't. But I think we have a different concept of what a substub is.
But we agree that they should be in the encyclopedia. We just disagree
over
where they should be.
You and I might agree with this (after all, we're both neutral, right), but the deletionists want this information completely removed. That's the purpose of VFD, after all, not to merge things into other articles, which doesn't require admin powers, and which neither I nor any of the other "inclusionists" would likely object to.
Yes, deleting them will cause no harm. A school article is nice to have, but if it's a substub, I see no reason for it to have its own article.
If you mean that the information should be kept somewhere else instead, then we are in complete agreement.
I laugh at your exaggerated statement. Movies and actors - if they have an entry on IMDB, they absolutely should be kept. They are verifiable.
You're starting to sound like an inclusionist now. Many movies and actors on IMDB are deleted.
But, I actually disagree that movies and actors on IMDB are all verifiable. I know people with movies on IMDB, and I know what kind of verification was done. Virtually none. That said, most movies and actors on IMDB are verifiable.
If their articles are deleted, it's a shame. I think few deletionists would agree [you mean disagree?] with me. Sometimes inclusionists just
love giving
deletionists positions they don't hold.
Movie articles are regularly *speedy deleted*. I'm certainly not giving anyone a position they don't hold. After this conversation, I'm not giving you any position, because I really can't figure out what your position is.
Anthony
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Rambot articles are of disputable encyclopedicness.
Places are certainly encyclopedic.
Places are no more indisputably encyclopedic than schools or people.
Once more inclusionists impress me with their pedantry. By places, I generically mean human settlements.
You're accusing the wrong person of pedantry. Human settlements are no more indisputably encyclopedic than schools or people.
Au contraire, it is often easy to find a community's website than a school's website. Often personal webpages, because contributed to by only one party, aren't an independent source of verifiable information, so most vanity articles are definitely of disputable encyclopedicness.
Can you point to a single encyclopedia that has articles on years? What about non-cardinal numbers? Lists I think are clearly unencyclopedic.
A definition of "Encyclopedic" should not be based on what other encyclopedias do.
Encyclopedic is not necessarily "topics most encyclopedias cover".
On the other hand, maybe I should be pedantic, because you seem to be making up random definitions of words. Unlike many other inclusionists, I think one can meaningfully talk about whether or not a topic is "encyclopedic", because I think a common definition of "encyclopedic" is "similar [in topic] to what traditional encyclopedias include". But, if you're going to define "encyclopedic" as "something which Wikipedia should include", you should be aware that that term has very little useful meaning in terms of an inclusion argument (as it commonly turns into a fallacy of begging the question). At the very least if you're going to make up a definition to fit your argument, make up a new term so as not to confuse people into thinking you're talking about the word which already has a definition. Maybe "Wikipedic".
I believe I defined it in an earlier post as "independently verifiable knowledge".
Yes, I agree. I personally have no problem with having school substubs merged into their town articles.
Then it seems we are in heated agreement, because I have no problem with this either. In fact, in the case of substubs, that's what I *prefer* we do with them (and sometimes I actually favor merging and deleting).
Now, you and I may disagree about what constitutes a substub, but even with school articles bigger than a substub I still wouldn't mind merging and redirecting. I'd prefer that we keep them, so that's how I "vote", but would it make more sense if I just copy pasted something like "I'd prefer that we keep this but merging and redirecting would also be acceptable"?
Yes, it definitely would. I'd support such a measure, because I believe that's a more reasonable manner of preserving this information.
The amazing thing is, merging and redirecting doesn't even require an admin, and so it can be done without even touching VFD. Adding to VFD has gotten complicated to the point where it's probably just as much work, too. Sometimes I wonder if the deletionists just have more fun playing on VFD, and that's why they choose this method to "improve Wikipedia".
Sometimes some people are malicious, but often, I think there are other circumstances involved. (See my earlier response to Nicholas Knight.)
And you want to talk about substubs? Rambot articles have less useful information than most school articles.
Population, maps, location, etc. I'd say most Rambot and school articles are nearly equal, but the Rambot articles at least contain some relevant information.
Here's what I find useful in the bare Rambot articles. County, population, latitude and longitude. Note that the bare rambot articles (and there are many of them) don't even have maps. So if it were up to me, I'd strip the articles of all but that information (unless it was particularly atypical, 95% white or 90% black or whatever), and then I'd merge and redirect with the county article and include a link to the demographics (either on the census site or on wikisource).
But looking at school articles, most of them have at least this much useful information. City, state, number of students, principal, and in many the ones I've verified, latitude and longitude. The vast majority of them have even more information than that.
So even if you're going to define "encyclopedic" as "should be in Wikipedia", I think almost every school article which is deleted is more useful than [[Mount Vernon, Illinois]].
Communities often have their own websites or have been mentioned by other sources. Most schools haven't.
It's a manner of organisation. The information within is encyclopedic.
With the year pages I can see your point, I guess. They're similar to lists, which even though I think they're clearly unencyclopedic, should probably stay in Wikipedia anyway. I stand by my belief that [[163 (number)]] should be tossed, though.
The information within is independently verifiable.
I think the real debate here is organisation. I don't think school substubs deserve a separate article - Mark Richards and anthony do.
Actually, I don't. But I think we have a different concept of what a substub is.
I think so too. So we agree to disagree then?
But we agree that they should be in the encyclopedia. We just disagree
over
where they should be.
You and I might agree with this (after all, we're both neutral, right), but the deletionists want this information completely removed. That's the purpose of VFD, after all, not to merge things into other articles, which doesn't require admin powers, and which neither I nor any of the other "inclusionists" would likely object to.
I think that was the original purpose of VFD, but I've found VFD in recent times to be a pretty smart idea: A place to publicise the fact that an article is of dubious encyclopedic value, or at least doesn't deserve its own article, but the nominator doesn't know what to do with it, beyond delete. Publicising this leads to someone more knowledgeable sufficiently rewriting, or merging the article appropriately. If nothing had been done, or this was just mentioned on the talk page, I can guarantee you that nothing would be done to fix this article up for months, if not years.
Yes, deleting them will cause no harm. A school article is nice to have, but if it's a substub, I see no reason for it to have its own article.
If you mean that the information should be kept somewhere else instead, then we are in complete agreement.
Yes, we are.
I laugh at your exaggerated statement. Movies and actors - if they have an entry on IMDB, they absolutely should be kept. They are verifiable.
You're starting to sound like an inclusionist now. Many movies and actors on IMDB are deleted.
Then they probably shouldn't.
But, I actually disagree that movies and actors on IMDB are all verifiable. I know people with movies on IMDB, and I know what kind of verification was done. Virtually none. That said, most movies and actors on IMDB are verifiable.
Yup, most. If we must set a standard, probably an actor with more than two performances should be kept.
If their articles are deleted, it's a shame. I think few deletionists would agree [you mean disagree?] with me. Sometimes inclusionists just
love giving
deletionists positions they don't hold.
Movie articles are regularly *speedy deleted*.
They are? If they aren't worthless substubs, then it's a contravention of policy.
I'm certainly not giving anyone a position they don't hold. After this conversation, I'm not giving you any position, because I really can't figure out what your position is.
I'm just continuing a long tradition of flip-flopping. I waffle on just about everything - my heroes are [[Linus Torvalds]] and [[Bill Gates]]; I think both the Republicans and Democrats are worthless; and I think politicians from both the ruling party and opposition parties in Malaysia should be shot dead. This is just another instance of me having positions on a subject not easily classifiable into one of two partisan sides.
Anthony
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
With the year pages I can see your point, I guess. They're similar to lists, which even though I think they're clearly unencyclopedic, should
I don't look at these kinds of pages so much as part of the encyclopedia, but more as a navigation aid, kind of like the index in a book, but more informative and flexible.
They're kind of an artifact of "inadequate" software, really. They'll be unneccessary when someone comes up with an AI good enough to generate such things on the fly to a user's specifications, complete with annotation.