On 9/15/05, Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:
geni writes:
It isn't going to happen. Moreover it seems to run against the wiki
philosophy. Article creation is *supposed* to be cooperative. If an
editor comes along and decides something needs merging, he should do it.
He can hardly do it if someone speedies it in the meantime!
perhaps but we have ask if the person is better off working from a
null base or this stuff.
I'd take issue with your designation of the share
index article as a
substub. The article was short, but that didn't stop it explaining
adequately what the index is and giving an external link as a reference
from which it could be extended indefinitely. Thus it cannot possibly be
described as a substub.
Did it explain what FTSE meant? did it give any information that could
not be figured out from the title?
By the way, I take issue with one or two of the
example substubs on the
Wikipedia:Substub article. For instance: "Anthony J. Drexel Biddle (1876
- 1948) was the man the play and film The Happiest Millionaire was based
upon" is a perfectly good stub. It gives Biddle's full name and his
lifespan, and an inkling of where you might have heard that name before
(The Happiest Millionnaire is a fictionalized biography and features
Biddle under that name). The stub is already useful in itself, and
absolutely nothing else would be required for any reasonably competent
editor to expand it indefinitely.
Is that still around?
Well yes, but that's because there's only one
of you and the Library of
Babel is truly vast. If you found any dross in there I hope you tagged it
for deletion. If you didn't then the fact that the text wasn't (horrors!)
wikified doesn't detract so much from its informational value that this
must be viewed as a serious problem. Every article has a search box into
which the reader can type anything he wants to know about.
nah for the most part if it was dross I just left the other cleanup
tags in place ( I still think they should include an element of
apology).
--
geni