[WikiEN-l] listcruft

[K P]

On 7/16/07, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> >

> As opposed to all the other articles that you vote to delete (or not)
> *without* reading the entire article? That's a bit disturbing. Or do I
> misread?

I often don't vote if I don't read the whole thing.  On the beauty
queen articles I read the whole thing but usually don't vote.

So, no, the emphasis was that I read the entire article whenever I see
a beauty queen article up for deletion, whether I vote on its deletion
or not.  It is not about these being the only articles that I read all
the way through that are up for deletion.
>
> Re: lists -- lists are awesome. We should treat them with the same standards
> as regular articles -- that is, not singling them out for deletion because
> they are unreferenced, which is a problem that plagues 90% of our content.
>
> FWIW, Britannica *does* include (unreferenced!) lists. On a quick search,
> for instance, I found "list of populated Dependent States" and "list of
> major disasters that occurred in 1999". Granted, the first was in a table
> embedded in the main article about dependent states, which might be a good
> route to go for many lists that have complimentary main articles. Generally:
> no, Britannica doesn't have "list of songs about x," but as we all know they
> also don't have all those troublesome articles about pop culture, movie
> plots, kinky sex, etc. etc. etc. (though they do have much better
> bibliographies, even if most articles lack references). **It's a poor
> comparison.
>
> phoebe