Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
tarquin wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
By the way, with Ram-Man's automatic article addition, we've just
hit 80.000 English entries
Yes. We're big like a telephone directory is big. Please let's not celebrate this milestone. When we got to 50k articles we were saying "but so many are stubs",
and we're in a worse situation now, as I don't see how we can exclude these town pages from article counts.
They really are stubs, maybe not in terms of length but in terms of
content and usefulness.
It's not that I don't care about one-horse US towns (well, okay, I
don't) but I feel the entire Wikipedia has tilted.
We shouldn't delete them, but to balance we should maybe work on,
say, adding 10,000 articles to the Tree of Life project?
It's seriously tipped the balance of the wikipedia. Five times out of ten hitting the 'random' button takes me to one of these new entries... I'm sure they're very useful if you need to find information on 'Dead Horse, Arizona', but they're not very relevant in the grand scheme of things. I'll be glad once they're all in and the recent changes menu can return to usefulness. Out of curiosity, what existing entries are these new articles linked to?
Can I suggest a "stub flag" so that machine-generated articles (such as Ram-Man's and hundreds of mine) are not marked as stubs until they have been edited by an actual human user. Articles with the explicit "stub flag" set should be * shown as stubs using the stub-detector no matter what the user's setting, if it is non-zero * not shown as "Random articles" * and '''not included in the main page article count'''
Indeed, perhaps all articles should be marked as stubs until they have at least one revision by a contributor who was not the original creator. This will automatically catch any auto-generated articles.
Neil