Jump to content

Talk:Withybrook

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

There is a long-established convention in the English Wikipedia that all places are notable. This particular place is a good deal larger than very many other places with articles.

Two questions
1. Why was this article selected?
2. What policy can be quoted that sets out agreed notablity criteria for settlements? Saga City 13:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second point - the editor proposing this added nine other 'no importance' notices within 12 hours of he/she becoming an editor. This suggests a campaign. Saga City 13:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"Any community contains a large number of places, including but not limited to churches, historic buildings, malls, masts, neighbourhoods, parks, schools, and streets, that may be well-known locally, but little-known outside the community in question. Many articles about such topics exist on Wikipedia. A significant percentage of such articles are very small, low-quality stubs that may have little potential for expansion. The question is sometimes raised as to whether one of these places "deserves" an article. It may be useful to follow the following rule of thumb: If enough reliable and verifiable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention yet at all."-MsHyde 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go away. G-Man * 20:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not very nice. For a nice suggestion, I think all of the littler towns in this category should be in the parent article, which seems to be borough of Rugby, as the above paragraph suggests for places which do not have sufficient source material for a comprehensive article on their own. I think that makes more sense for organization. Also, it is better for Withybrook, because more people are likely to see it if it is part of a bigger article instead of all by itself.-MsHyde 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I was rude I was just pretty indignant at your suggestion this should be deleted. Try reading Wikipedia is not paper and you will see that articles of this type are perfectly acceptable. There usually isn't very much that can be said about a village of 200 inhabitants, so articles of this sort are usually going to be quite small. But it is a perfectly valid encyclopedic topic. Unless you're seriously suggesting that we should try to squeeze 50+ village articles onto the borough of Rugby article. G-Man * 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you would take it personally--it's just about organization. I think that the bigger towns could be in separate articles, but yes, the littler towns should be listed in the parent article or not at all. Withybrook is only two sentences.-MsHyde 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You obvoiusly havnt read the link I provided so I will paste it here with relevant passages highlighted:


The most obvious difference is that there are, in principle, no size limits in the Wikipedia universe. It is quite possible, for example, that when you finish typing in everything you want to say about poker, there might well be over 100 pages, and enough text for a full-length book by itself. This would certainly never be tolerated in a paper encyclopedia, which is why Encyclopedia Britannica has such limited information on the topic (and on most other topics).
But there is no reason at all why Wikipedia should not grow into something beyond what could ever possibly be put on paper. Plain text takes up an almost negligible amount of disk space. At seven letters per word, a 100 GB hard drive that costs around $70 US can hold 15 billion words. That's two million words per penny!
The Nupedia FAQ rightly warned about taxing a reader's patience with rambling prose, but detailed subtopics and sub-subtopics enrich Wikipedia with information. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap.
Of course, a 100-page thesis on poker is useless to someone who merely needs an article summarizing the basic rules and history of the game. The purpose of a normal encyclopedia is to provide the reader a brief overview of the subject, while a reference book or text book can explain the details. Wikipedia can do both. Because Wikipedia is not paper, it can provide summaries of all subjects of interest and also provide exhaustive detail on those subjects, conveniently linked, categorized, and searchable for readers who want more detail.
The key to avoiding information overload is to break an article down into more than one page (long articles require many sub-headings anyway). For example, Poker can be broken into a basic "Poker" article which is only one page (about 30 KB) and links to "History of poker", "Modern popularity of poker", and variations of the game, such as "Stud poker" and "Texas hold 'em". These will be much more searchable. As a more general example:
As you see your proposal would clearly contravene the above. So in future may I suggest that you learn about the long established rules of wikipedia before you go plastering deletion notices all over the place. G-Man * 19:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borough of Rugby is not long like poker. Withybrook and other small villages will never be long like Texas hold 'em. If a two sentence article is separated from a parent article, no one will see it. I will ask for help at the help desk.-MsHyde 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Withybrook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Withybrook&oldid=1201400394"