Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/22 Charles Matthews <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com>: > >> Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >>> If there is only one noteworthy fact about the subject, the article >>> should probably be merged per BLP1E. If there isn't more than a >>> paragraph worth of stuff to say about a subject, you need to think >>> long and hard about whether there should be an article. In some cases, >>> there probably should, but I think it most cases such a lack of >>> information is a sign that the article should be deleted or merged. >>> >>> >> This is certainly not the case in, for example, medieval history. It's >> all relative to a background: what expectation is there of ample factual >> material? >> >> And another thing - I'd resist this in all cases where there was a place >> for a person in a line of succession boxes. It is really no good merging >> an article if it messes up some useful navigation. >> > > Sure, like I said, there will be cases where it is appropriate. I > think those cases are quite rare, though. > > While it is fashionable, seemingly, to look at these small "issues" separately, as if they can be treated as isolated cases where hard-edged rules apply, I think this is the wrong approach. And I don't think it for the general good to dismiss exceptions. Anyone who formulates a general "rule" is under the obligation to think through the exceptional cases, and I deprecate the business done the other way round, where the onus is put on thoughtful people to point out that clumsy rules can do harm.
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
