[Wikipedia-l] Minimum and maximum article size

[Fred Bauder]

>Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
>
>> At some point it makes sense to include them in the main article: we
>> don't need a separate article
>> to mention that, say, New York's City Hall has a nice facade and
>> boring back because the builders
>> thought nobody would ever live north of it.
>>
>> Similarly, Nampa's landmarks and history probably should be in the
>> article about Nampa unless
>> they're of great interest and should be written about at length. A
>> statue of a president doesn't need
>> its own article, for example, though it might include links to the
>> sculptor and the president.
>
>For me this also opens up a question about optimum article size.  There
>is a large body of opinion in Wikipedia that frowns upon stubs, but we
>also have a growing collection of very long articles that could probably
>stand to be split up into articles of a more reasonable size.
>
>As things stand [[Atlas Shrugged]], [[Worms computer games]], and
>[[RFC]] all link to a long list of pages that could easily be consolidated.
>
>In the city examples above New York City's article is likely to grow
>much faster than Nampa's, but a collection of guidelines illustrating
>when and how to subdivide would be interesting.
>
>Eclecticology

Amen, Some of the pages I can't even load on my older computers. The catch
is that cutting the size of an article in half is not only boring but
promises a big fight besides; cause at least one person and probably
several feel quite passionately about the subject. Subdivision and
consolidation are two ways of accommodating all the information, but in
some cases a book has been written about a subject that a few paragraphs
would have adequately covered. Or as in the case of Tucson, Arizona, one
line.

Fred

Fred