[WikiEN-l] What is happening to the community

[Oldak Quill]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/03/2008, Steve Bennett  wrote:
> On 3/7/08, Oldak Quill  wrote:
>  > Definitely. See the following for just some of the subjects "at arms'
>  >  length": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons
>  >
>  >  A selection:
>  >  *"The Guide Star Catalog II has entries on 998,402,801 distinct
>  >  astronomical objects searchable online."
>
>
> Do we want an article on every distant object, no matter how little is
>  known on it? I doubt it.

According to [[Guide Star Catalog II]], "998,402,801 coordinate
entries... and has positions, classifications, and magnitudes for
455,851,237 objects". Each one also has imaging data associated with
it. So that's hundreds of millions of viable article subjects.

>  >  *"The British Library is known to hold over 150 million items."
>
>
> I don't think we want an article on every single arrowhead, pottery
>  fragment or piece of flint.

As geni said, these are "books and book like items". A good percentage
make viable article subjects.

>  >  *"The National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) GEOnet Names Server
>  >  contains approximately 3.88 million named"
>
>
> Named what?

Names of geographical objects.

>  >  *"31 million CAS registry numbers have been allocated for chemical compounds."
>
>
> We could do  with some lists, but an article on every compound is
>  probably too much, when so little can be said for so many of them.

Again, presumably many of their structures are known (to know that
they are molecules), their names, their discoverers, their context,
&c.

- --
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://firegpg.tuxfamily.org

iD8DBQFH0HT3WNupeezvVkYRAlTBAKCydwDQ7kpXshB0tEVwHadr6e5bxwCfY1eE
qbR5sHUl/sibg1s3YV6g7X0=
=pjSV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----