Talk:Arca

Fairly substantial cleanups; does it look okay?
Thanks for catching the spelling mistake. Do the rest of the cleanups look okay? It was a bit of a hack-and-slash to get it closer to MoS-compliance. (All I wanted to do was add the KM3NeT link!) 71.41.210.146 (talk) 12:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've not looked at MoS for DAB pages for a long time, and only drove by to correct the spelling! However, since you ask, the layout looks better, though I think a couple of entries are taking on an encyclopedic nature of their own, which I personally don't think looks right, and ought to be shorter. (These are the two racing club-related entries.) Regarding KM3NeT, I'm not confident the actual article and its current references makes enough of ARCA to warrant a DAB page entry. Maybe if you added this reference, it might seem more robust? Hope this helps.Parkywiki (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Than you for a second pair of eyes. Yes, I noticed the racing club entries, too, but given their confusing similarity I thought a longer-than-usual entry listing the differences was probably justified.  (Note that I didn't expand them, I just refrained from abbreviating them).
 * As for your second point, the issue is not so much the quality of the existing article (yes, KM3NeT could use improvement), but rather whether it's likely that people will arrive at WP with only the ORCA/ARCA names. Since they're real things now (the first strings have already been deployed), I think there will be news about them and people looking for more information.  As physics results come out, people are likely to name the detector as the data source, rather than the project or site.  Just look at the already-published theses and see how all the names switched from "KM3NeT" to "ORCA" after 2012. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)