[WikiEN-l] The Economist on "notability"

[White Cat]

There are over trillions of stars in the are of space we can see via naked
eye or instruments. The analogy generally used to describe is that there are
more stars in the universe than sand in the beaches of this entire planet.
Clearly a star is a notable object in space worthy of an article. And it is
feasible to write entire articles on each and every one of them if something
as dull as Proxima Centauri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri)
is any indication. We should not dump them for being "Astronomy cruft". We
should expand them instead.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger at gmail.com> wrote:

> Those presenting "detailed articles" or "good general overviews" as
> mutually incompatible are presenting a false dichotomy.  There's no
> reason we can't have *both* an episode list and a more detailed
> article for each episode.
> We do have lists of minor planets (for loading, broken into chunks of
> 10000) which just list the name, number, provisional designation,
> discoverer and discovery date, additionally some (though not yet all)
> minor planets have more detailed articles that fall under the list,
> for those who want to know more.  There's no reason to pick one or the
> other when we can do both and not neglect a significant component of
> our readers.
>
> Unless disk space suddenly got way more expensive?
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>