[WikiEN-l] Asteroids

[Gordon Joly]

At 08:17 +0200 30/8/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
>On 8/30/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  a) Would people accept a mass-created set of articles like this, if
>>  done neatly and tidily and well-referenced? They're not of desperate
>>  general interest, but they're not going to clutter the namespace
>>  (nothing except asteroids is called "5464 Obscurename"), they're not
>>  going to demonstrate any particular cultural bias... and, hey, it's
>>  not like they're unverifiable.
>
>Speaking very personally, the asteroid articles annoy me. It's an
>irrational hate, I agree. But when doing various types of maintenance,
>they always seem to pop up, often in the "most wanted redlinks"
>(because hundreds of asteroid articles seem to link to each other, or
>to missing asteroid articles).
>
>Maybe I just personally find them uninteresting? Maybe because for the
>vast majority, nothing interesting will *ever* be written about them.
>At least for Hicksville West, Somecountry, there's the chance that a
>local resident will write a paragraph about how Mr Famous spent 3
>nights there in 1934.
>
>By definition, any information which can be added automatically and
>never improved on does not strike me as exceptionally encyclopaedic.
>But then, I've already said this is a probably an irrational distaste,
>and I don't know if there are really any good reasons for not wanting
>20,000 articles about unnamed, insignificant asteroids.
>
>Steve


Asteroids, cricket statistics, all the same really.

Gordo

-- 
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly at pobox.com///