[WikiEN-l] Notability and ski resorts (was: Newbie and not-so-newbie biting)

[David Goodman]

So put them in another space: call it directory space.

The problem is that having a distinct article is treated as a question
of merit--we word  things this way ourselves: "deserves an article".
Thus there is a continual pressure from spammers and hobbyists to
include a separate article for every company, lawyer,  band, author,
athlete, railway station, street,  toy, song, football match, and
fictional character. (note that 1/ for some of these we do include
articles on all, some not 2/that it's easier to decide on people, than
objects 3/that the list does not reflect my own views about what is
more or less suitable)

But the question should be content. We could very well say we should
have content on every one of the above, although not articles. We
might even find it easier to write such content if we didn't have the
overhead  & metadata necessarily associated with separate articles.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Surreptitiousness wrote:
>> Andrew Gray wrote:
>>
>>> I think we can easily distinguish, though; the
>>> notability-by-association thing really needs most of the set to be
>>> desirable topics for articles (*most* ski runs are interesting, or at
>>> least let us assume they are for this discussion!) and for that set to
>>> be well-defined (you can always tell if a ski run is in Australia or
>>> not).
>>>
>> Yes, this is exactly the sort of gradation we should have and should be
>> able to implement, but is also the sort of gradation that the
>> NOTINHERITED group of editors seek to stamp out. The notability guidance
>> has also become a spanner in the works of Summary Style.  You can't now
>> split an article up if it is too long unless you split it in a way such
>> that each separate article is notable by itself. And even if you manage
>> to do that, there are editors who will accuse you of forking.
>>
> Rightly, in my view. I come down on the (conservative) side of this
> discussion, and agree with the now-ancient decision that article space
> should not admit subpages (which is what subarticles without credible
> free-standing topics amount to).
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>