User talk:IMeowbot/1

--Flockmeal 03:26, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Hell on Wheels
Hi, IMeowbot. Please refer, if you care to, to Hell on Wheels talk page. I'm interested in satisfying your issues to the point that you will remove the scarlet A from the article. --M. E. Smith

WP:FAC
Thanks! I appreciate your vote of support :-) Oh, incidently, Merry Christmas! Ta bu shi da yu 14:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration against Everyking
I have sought arbitration against Everyking on RFAr after it has become clear he refuses to alter his attitude. As you have been involved, I was wondering if you would be keen on participating or contributing evidence if the case is accepted (or even just making a comment on the page). Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retaining school information
It's a way forward but I don't think it will work as a compromise. Teh deletionists won't like it. They'll think you're trying to sneak in those filthy schools by the back door. In some places, there are dozens of schools. That poses a problem.Dr Zen 03:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think your school is notable purely because of its importance to the community it serves. Wikipedia has the possibility of being something awe-inspiring and wonderful: an edifice of knowledge.

Three problems with merging schools into cities:

1/ You cannot find the school if you search for it. You must go through the city. What harm does a short article actually do? The problem I have with the deletionists is that they take a "table of contents" view of Wikipedia: that somehow it's a bad thing if we have broad coverage, because we will "look bad" because we cover unworthy things. But there is no such table of contents, and no one's to know that we cover X high school unless they look. It simply does not matter, so long as each article is encyclopaedic in a broader sense (contributes to the encyclopaedia), how many articles there are or how "granular" they are. The concept of hub article and subarticles is Wikipedia's model, for subjects that grow beyond a certain limit. If Improv and the other deletionists wanted to see better organisation of the school articles, or even just better articles in a common format, we wouldn't be having this discussion; we'd be working on doing it. But they don't take that constructive approach. 2/ Some cities have many schools and their articles will quickly become enormous. Of course, most big cities have districts, but as an example take London. It has boroughs, each of which has several schools. The boroughs are the lowest form of division in London, but each is quite large, a town in itself. Including informative subsections on their schools will bloat the borough articles. The schools will need to be broken out and then the fight is on again. The deletionists will fight to have the new articles deleted or merged. We'll end up spending our days fighting over whether schools should be broken out from bigger articles. Some inclusionists will bloat the school sections on purpose (as they have some school articles, which are utter rubbish). 3/ It will, as I suggested, be seen as inclusionism by the back door. I suggest that the inclusionists stick to insisting that schools should be in, first and foremost, and then argue about how. Personally, I agree that they could be included in the bigger article, with a redirect, until they are big enough to need breaking out. This is precisely what we do with other things, so why not? If we were doing this, we wouldn't need VfDs to force merges (an abuse of the process). Those who spotted small school articles could simply merge the information and make the school page a redirect. This is just being bold and doesn't need admin involvement.Dr Zen 01:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)