mav wrote:
Having the default behavior of "Random pages" to be "Random article" would be nice to (that is, only pages that are automatically detected as articles would be displayed).
Not if an article must be 500 bytes--then how do we find stubs? Frequently I'll find a stub and add a sentence or so to it--that e.g. Tony Hawk has a popular series of skateboarding video games on various platforms, etc.
I would always like stubs to turn up through "random page."
kq
koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
mav wrote:
Having the default behavior of "Random pages" to be "Random article"
would be
nice to (that is, only pages that are automatically detected as articles would be displayed).
Not if an article must be 500 bytes--then how do we find stubs?
Frequently I'll find a stub and add a sentence or so to it--that e.g. Tony Hawk has a popular series of skateboarding video games on various platforms, etc.
I would always like stubs to turn up through "random page."
kq
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
How about this: we call what the existing count measures "article entries" or "entries" and articles that fit the new, more tightly defined count's rules are then called "substantial articles" or just "articles".
So, the Main Page would say,
"we already have 31522 substantial articles (out of a total of 43726 article entries)"
We could then have both "Random article" and "Random entry".
Neil
Neil Harris wrote:
How about this: we call what the existing count measures "article entries" or "entries" and articles that fit the new, more tightly defined count's rules are then called "substantial articles" or just "articles".
So, the Main Page would say,
"we already have 31522 substantial articles (out of a total of 43726 article entries)"
We could then have both "Random article" and "Random entry".
That sounds better to me... I use the random button as a means of finding double redirects, year templates without any content, pathetic stubs, spelling mistakes that need correcting etc. If all of these were cut out, its usefulness to me would be slashed. When I come to a lengthy page with the random button I just move on, because I assume that the article doesn't need my sort of work on it anymore.
Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
We could then have both "Random article" and "Random entry".
That sounds better to me... I use the random button as a means of finding double redirects, year templates without any content, pathetic stubs, spelling mistakes that need correcting etc. If all of these were cut out, its usefulness to me would be slashed. When I come to a lengthy page with the random button I just move on, because I assume that the article doesn't need my sort of work on it anymore.
I am all for keeping the stubs in the "random article", or for creating a second function (or maybe make that a user preference...). Just be advised that you can find stubs with the "short pages" special page, and double redirects with a database query you can find on "wikipedia:Database queries".
Neil Harris wrote:
koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
Not if an article must be 500 bytes--then how do we find stubs?
Frequently I'll find a stub and add a sentence or so to it--that
I would always like stubs to turn up through "random page."
kq
How about this: we call what the existing count measures "article entries" or "entries" and articles that fit the new, more tightly defined count's rules are then called "substantial articles" or just "articles".
We could then have both "Random article" and "Random entry".
I can support that solution. Access to all "entries" can often be very useful.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org