"Steve Bennett" wrote
But an encyclopaedia with an entry on every single ski area in the world? That would be great. There's just no reason to avoid entries on minor ski resorts. There can't be an infinite number of them, as there's a finite amount of skiable terrain in the world (ignoring ski resorts in Dubai, Adelaide etc.)
I think you're talking about a list. This has shades of the "WP is not a directory" discussion. I believe in Norway cross-country skiing is favoured over downhill; but just about any country hotel in Norway might be a 'ski resort' in winter? Oh, you want facilities! Well, going back to the NZ article, it sounds mininalist.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
The extent to which WP should not be a directory is subject to redefinition:
Hypothetically, suppose we reverse "Not a directory", and say "a directory as well as an encyclopedia."
Perhaps it is now possible for us to incorporate these terns of millions of potential small entries without harm to its primary function. For an example, can anyone provide a reason why it would not be possible and practical for every elementary school in the world to have its own article?
I. Exactly how will this cause confusion to the users?
II. In what way will it be worse than the present situation: that many elementary schools have their own entry, a small number because they are notable, but the great majority because they haven't yet been deleted.
(This is a hypothetical question--I am in fact one of those trying to combine or delete articles on non-notable elementary schools. That's why I picked this example--it is not a reflection of my personal prejudices.)
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
On 5/13/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
I think you're talking about a list. This has shades of the "WP is not a directory" discussion. I believe in Norway cross-country skiing is favoured over downhill; but just about any country hotel in Norway might be a 'ski resort' in winter? Oh, you want facilities! Well, going back to the NZ article, it sounds mininalist.
Sounds like a defiinitional problem. Resorts have hotels. Hotels are not resorts. More likely, you could approximate a small mountain village with a resort/ski area. That's the case for many small villages in France, and certainly no one is arguing that we avoid including articles about "non notable" villages.
Wikipedia *is* a directory of certain kinds of things. We have an article on every single episode of every moderately successful sitcom, without regard to whether each article is itself "notable". Perfect example: [[Leonardo Is Caught in the Grip of an Outbreak of Randal's Imagination and Patrick Swayze Either Does or Doesn't Work in the New Pet Store]] - what could be less notable than an episode that never went to air?
I don't believe anything is "inherently notable", as some people put it, but I do believe we can for practical purposes include articles on whole categories of things, and just ignore the issue of notability in the interests of comprehensiveness.
Steve
If a single entry is needed to complete a list, I think serious thought should be given to doing so. I don't see why including skiing areas in a country where there's a very limited amount of them is a bad thing. Skiing resorts/slopes can be seen as businesses, but can just as easily be seen as locations and there's plenty of precedent for keeping articles on geographical locations no matter how small it is. The most problematic thing I see in the article is its substub status, which I hope can be improved upon.
Mgm
On 5/14/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/13/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
I think you're talking about a list. This has shades of the "WP is not a
directory" discussion. I believe in Norway cross-country skiing is favoured over downhill; but just about any country hotel in Norway might be a 'ski resort' in winter? Oh, you want facilities! Well, going back to the NZ article, it sounds mininalist.
Sounds like a defiinitional problem. Resorts have hotels. Hotels are not resorts. More likely, you could approximate a small mountain village with a resort/ski area. That's the case for many small villages in France, and certainly no one is arguing that we avoid including articles about "non notable" villages.
Wikipedia *is* a directory of certain kinds of things. We have an article on every single episode of every moderately successful sitcom, without regard to whether each article is itself "notable". Perfect example: [[Leonardo Is Caught in the Grip of an Outbreak of Randal's Imagination and Patrick Swayze Either Does or Doesn't Work in the New Pet Store]] - what could be less notable than an episode that never went to air?
I don't believe anything is "inherently notable", as some people put it, but I do believe we can for practical purposes include articles on whole categories of things, and just ignore the issue of notability in the interests of comprehensiveness.
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