I would drop them all into an article on juggling tricks/juggling moves. Perhaps a seperate one for cascades. Without reading them, I think the articles on most moves are too small to warrant their own article. Drop them together in a larger article and redirect the existing names to the new article/list.
Mgm
On 3/24/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, I really, really struggle with the idea of "notability" and attempting to work out how much information is "tolerated" in Wikipedia before people start nominating it for deletion with various words ending in "-cruft".
So, a concrete example. I would be tempted to add more information on juggling tricks into Wikipedia. There is already an excellent juggling wiki (http://www.jugglingdb.com/jugglewiki/), but this poses no obstacle: our mythical African Wikipedia reader may not have access to the net.
So, it is almost unarguable that [[cascade (juggling)]] has no place in WP. This is the most basic juggling pattern, and a term that many are likely to know.
Next down the notability scale, we have [[reverse cascade]], [[shower (juggling)]] and [[fountain (juggling)]]. Basic patterns that deserve to be documented.
Now, how about [[machine (juggling)]], [[Mills Mess]] and [[Rubinstein's Revenge]]? These are more advanced tricks that a non-juggler is unlikely to know. He may recognise the first two, but probably not the third.
Continuing, [[crossed-arms cascade]], [[contortionist (juggling)]] and [[penguin (juggling)]] would represent even less well-known moves, that are however known to almost all jugglers.
Even more obscure, how about [[Luke's Lobotomy]], [[Time-reversed Mills Mess]] or [[Manham's Mangle]]? These are unknown to anyone except serious jugglers, and very unlikely to be seen in a performance for a general audience.
And to take one final leap, how about [[Seven Ball Marden's Mayem]], [[Turbo Wally Walk]], [[Mountain Tennis]] or even [[Hermine (juggling)]]? I haven't heard of any of these, I found them on jugglewiki. The last one has possibly never been attempted by anyone other than its inventor, yet is documented thoroughly with video footage.
So, my question is: where should the line be drawn on inclusion into "the sum of all human knowledge", and on what basis? Also, is that basis really documented anywhere, or does it all come down to the caprices of the editors who one day decide that these tricks aren't "notable", and that this jugglecruft (I swear this word will be used) has to die?
Thanks all for any comments, advice etc.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l