On Saturday 29 June 2002 12:01 pm, Jan Hidders wrote:
Apologies for being a bit too simplistic here. I fully
agree with you and
Axel that there should not be an exact number for this and should be judged
separately each time. On the other hand, it wouldn't hurt if we would have
some policy statement that says that these page are not supposed to be
exhaustive plus a rough estimate of what would be considered "too large"
for which periods in time. Just to given an idea of what would still be
considered "readably short" and how important something has to be in order
to be on the list.
-- Jan Hidders
No apology needed. Rough guidelines are fine with me, so long as some
exceptions are allowed for years that are just super-full of history. The
amount of listings in an of itself should also (eventually) give a person a
visual idea of how much history was made in that year. We can discuss the
specifics at the year pages (can't say where exactly, because
wikipedia.com
is not accessible right now).
--maveric149