New Wikipedia articles: Threat or Menace?

[Poetlister]

That's niz.
I was quoted in an LA Times article back in 07.

It will be 99.9% forgotten in a week or less.
But blog it...whathell.

The fascinating thing is that even in 2007, people were hinting that nearly all the obvious articles had been written and editors should focus on improving existing ones. Yet still the article tally rises.

[Ghost In The Machine]

That's niz.
I was quoted in an LA Times article back in 07.

It will be 99.9% forgotten in a week or less.
But blog it...whathell.

The fascinating thing is that even in 2007, people were hinting that nearly all the obvious articles had been written and editors should focus on improving existing ones. Yet still the article tally rises.

Yes, the triumph of quantity over quality.
Not only in terms of content but the contributors thereof.

[Vigilant]

That's niz.
I was quoted in an LA Times article back in 07.

It will be 99.9% forgotten in a week or less.
But blog it...whathell.

The fascinating thing is that even in 2007, people were hinting that nearly all the obvious articles had been written and editors should focus on improving existing ones. Yet still the article tally rises.

Yes, the triumph of quantity over quality.
Not only in terms of content but the contributors thereof.

Since the number of active editors is falling, dramatically, this is doubly damning.

[Randy from Boise]

The fascinating thing is that even in 2007, people were hinting that nearly all the obvious articles had been written and editors should focus on improving existing ones. Yet still the article tally rises.

Yes, the triumph of quantity over quality.
Not only in terms of content but the contributors thereof.

Since the number of active editors is falling, dramatically, this is doubly damning.

It's actually really interesting, is it not? It actually seems to me that the pace of new articles created is increasing, while at the same time the very active editor count is (at best) flat and the count of active administrators is falling. How does one explain this?

Both WP Regulars and those who spend their time critiquing WP and its participants overemphasize the place of very active editors, I think. I theorize that the bulk of new content comes from "casual editors," who create a piece on somebody or something that interests them. Things are thereafter gnomed into form by the Regulars.

Somebody should be keeping a tally of how many days lie between 100,000 article intervals.

RfB


====

Checking a statement above, the count of Very Active Editors for March 2013 for English WP is up slightly over March 2012 and the three month average for 2013-QI is up slightly over 2012-QIV. I think "flat" is the correct way to describe this count.

[Vigilant]

The fascinating thing is that even in 2007, people were hinting that nearly all the obvious articles had been written and editors should focus on improving existing ones. Yet still the article tally rises.

Yes, the triumph of quantity over quality.
Not only in terms of content but the contributors thereof.

Since the number of active editors is falling, dramatically, this is doubly damning.

It's actually really interesting, is it not? It actually seems to me that the pace of new articles created is increasing, while at the same time the very active editor count is (at best) flat and the count of active administrators is falling. How does one explain this?

Both WP Regulars and those who spend their time critiquing WP and its participants overemphasize the place of very active editors, I think. I theorize that the bulk of new content comes from "casual editors," who create a piece on somebody or something that interests them. Things are thereafter gnomed into form by the Regulars.

Somebody should be keeping a tally of how many days lie between 100,000 article intervals.

RfB

Something else that would be interesting would be how many of these new articles are offshoot articles like "Controversy surrounding X" or "X in Y situation" type of articles.
How many are lists/categories or other housekeeping types of things.

[greybeard]

Somebody should be keeping a tally of how many days lie between 100,000 article intervals.

Yes, someone should, taking into account stubs, redirects, articles that are quickly deleted, and fancruft such as "Season 17, Episode 27 of ..." inanity. The latter belong in IMDB or "Jimbo's Big Book O' Trivia", not an encyclopedia. I think the results would be surprising.

[Randy from Boise]

Something else that would be interesting would be how many of these new articles are offshoot articles like "Controversy surrounding X" or "X in Y situation" type of articles.
How many are lists/categories or other housekeeping types of things.

I really encourage people interested in this stuff to spend some time every week taking a glance at the new articles queue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages


RfB

[Vigilant]

Somebody should be keeping a tally of how many days lie between 100,000 article intervals.

Yes, someone should, taking into account stubs, redirects, articles that are quickly deleted, and fancruft such as "Season 17, Episode 27 of ..." inanity. The latter belong in IMDB or "Jimbo's Big Book O' Trivia", not an encyclopedia. I think the results would be surprising.

That's an excellent point.
How much of article generation is off in fancruft land?

I'm looking at you Ryulong.

[thekohser]

Both WP Regulars and those who spend their time critiquing WP and its participants overemphasize the place of very active editors, I think. I theorize that the bulk of new content comes from "casual editors," who create a piece on somebody or something that interests them. Things are thereafter gnomed into form by the Regulars.

All of my paid editing socks would be considered "casual editors". Each of them creates either one or two new articles. Typically, they require very little additional gnoming, since I am awesome.

[Zoloft]

Don't forget bot-created stubs. People even give bots barnstars.

[greybeard]

I really encourage people interested in this stuff to spend some time every week taking a glance at the new articles queue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages

Oh yes. My day is immeasurably brighter by reading the contributions of JC12345 (T-C-L), an apparent "Fairyfly" enthusiast.

[Vigilant]

I really encourage people interested in this stuff to spend some time every week taking a glance at the new articles queue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages

Oh yes. My day is immeasurably brighter by reading the contributions of JC12345 (T-C-L), an apparent "Fairyfly" enthusiast.

While a narrow field of study, it's heads and shoulders above Ahlbeck_(near_Ueckermünde) (T-H-L) or The_Teenage_Show (T-H-L) or Japanese_youth_culture_in_Europe (T-H-L) or Morena_(Romanian_singer) (T-H-L) or ... or ... etc

My take is that most of the new articles are not things that are likely to ever be needed or wanted.
Obscure TV shows, singers, locations, etc.

How many more articles on roads does RSChen need to create and expand?
When was the last time someone outside the road pr0n group looked up state route 85 in CA?
It's almost all irrelevant garbage.

[thekohser]

My favorite new article is Tagalog Jokes (T-H-L). Seriously, I am amused that they even slap a warning on this and let it fester for up to 7 days, rather than just deleting the garbage and blocking the creator.

For posterity's sake (some of the world's best jokes are about rape victims, so there's no surprise the Filipinos have one, too):

NEWBIE:

BOSS: Bakit ka nanginginig?

SECRETARY: Ngayon lang kasi ako nakapasok ng Motel eh.

BOSS: Asan kaya yung remote ng T.V?

SECRETARY: Nandiyan sa drawer,sa may kanan yung kulay grey.

________________________________________________________________

MOTEL:

BOY: Alam mo love ikaw palang ang unang babae na dinala ko dito sa motel.

GIRL: Sinungaling!!! sabi nila madalas ka daw dito eh.

BOY: Oo nga pero ikaw lang talaga ang girl.

______________________________________________________________

LOAD:

PEDRO: Hahahaha naloko ko yung tindera kanina sa tindahan.

JUAN: pano mo naloko ano ginawa mo?

PEDRO: Nagpaload ako sa kanya.

JUAN: Oh tapos?

PEDRO: Eh wala na

____________________________________________________________

NURSE: Dok bakit tinangihan nyo yung pasyente kanina?

DOC: Alin? yung Bakla?

NURSE: Oo baka sabihin nila namimili tayo porket bakla siya.

DOC: Eh ano naman raraspahinko sa kanya?

__________________________________________________________________

THINGS You dont want to hear during your own Surgery:

1. " Asan na yung gunting na bago? Bakit may kalawang to?"

2. " Doc ubos na po pala yung Anesthesia"

3. " Nahulog yung salamin ko sa loob ng bituka nya"

4. " Sunog! Sunog! Sunog! Labas kayong lahat!

___________________________________________________________________

PULUBI:

Isang araw sa may tindahan......

PULUBI: Boss palimos po..

MAMA: Wala po...patawad

PULUBI: Sige napo kahit magkano lang.

MAMA: Sya sige ito dos!

PULUBI: Pagbilhan nga marlboro yung mentol ha


__________________________________________________________________


The Religious Lion:

A man was cornered by a lion.He prayed...." Lord, pls make this lion a christian ". The lion suddenly knelt down and prayed.......

LION: " Bless this food that I'm about to receive thru Christ out LORD, AMEN."

___________________________________________________________________

ETHICS:

Teacher: Class what is Ethics?

Juan: Sir ethics are those cousins of ducks!what can you say sir?

Teacher: Very nice answer! That ducks will lay an egg and that egg will be your grade!!!!!

____________________________________________________________________

MAANGHANG:

ANAK: " Tay wala na naman tayong ulam?

AMA: Mahirap ngayon ang buhay Anak, tiis muna tayo, isipin mo nalang yung ulam na sasabihin ko bawat subo mo.

ANAK: Sige Tay!!!

AMA: Nilagang Baka!

ANAK: Hmmmm...Sarap Tay!

AMA: Adobong Baboy!

ANAK: Hmmm... Sarap!

AMA: Kalderetang Kambing!

ANAK: Huhuhuhuhu!!!!

AMA: Bakit ka umiyak anak?

ANAK: Tay maanghang!!!!!!


__________________________________________________________________


RAPE:

JUDGE: "Miss ilang beses ka ginahasa nitong akusado?"

RAPE VICTIM: " Tatlong beses po!!!!"

RAPIST: " Sinungaling!!! dalawang beses lang!!! "

RAPE VICTIM: " Bakit hindi ba counted yung nasa ibabaw ako? "

__________________________________________________________________

MATALIM:

Anong mas matalim? NGIPIN o PWET?

Isip...... Isip...... Isip......

Kung ang sagot mo ay pwet tama ka.....bakit?...... kaya bang pumutol ng ebak ang ngipin mo?.

___________________________________________________________________

HANGIN:

Nagpa - Check up ang isang buntis....

DOK: " Misis ayon sa Ultrasound, walang sanggol sa sinapupunan mo.puro hangin lang!.

BUNTIS: " Hoy Dok! anong akala mo sa MIster ko Compressor?

___________________________________________________________________

MENTAL PATIENTS:

Si Nurse binisita ang tatlong pasyente nya...

P1: ( Nagbabasa ng encyclopedia ) NURSE: Wow! improving ka! thats good.

P2: ( Nagbabasa ng Dictionary ) NURSE: Cool! ipagpatuloy mo lang yan.

P3: ( Nakatayo sa ibabaw ng lamesaw/arms wide open).....
" AKO ANG ILAW "

NURSE: Hoy Bumaba ka nga diyan baka mahulog ka...hangang ngayon wala kapa pagbababgo...

( bumaba ang pasyente at umupo )

P1 & P2 : AY!!! BROWNOUT?

________________________________________________________________

WITNESS:

PULIS: " Sino nakakita sa aksidente dito?

VENDOR: Ako Sir!

PULIS: Buti naman at may witness, nakita mo ba yung plate number nung nakabanga?

VENDOR: OPO! nagsisimula po sa " 4 "

PULIS: Ano kasunod ng 4?

VENDOR: REGISTRATION Sir!

____________________________________________________________________

ALIMANGO:

MISTER: Gustong gusto ko talagang kumain ng Alimango.

MISIS: Naku ingat ka sa cholesterol nyan...may kakilala ako sa Tondo na kumain ng tatlong malalaking alimango na matataba pa habang nakikipag inuman.

MISTER: Talaga? tapos ano nangyari?

MISIS: lumabas lang siya sandali para umihi ayun bigla nalang bumulagta....PATAY!

MISTER: Inatake sa puso?

MISIS: Hindi, sinaksak ng adik! marami talagang loko dyan sa Tondo eh!

[Vigilant]

The guy who posted that has a sterling list of contributions.
My favorite?

List_of_Naruto_characters (T-H-L)

[Vigilant]

[Note to mods: everything after post 39693 should be split to another thread. I'm guilty too here.]

Agreed.
Perhaps "New crap articles and the downfall of reason"?

[Ming]

I see Blofeld has taken over the Gibraltarpedia project with such hot topics as Sir Herbert Miles Road (T-H-L).

[TungstenCarbide]

Both WP Regulars and those who spend their time critiquing WP and its participants overemphasize the place of very active editors, I think. I theorize that the bulk of new content comes from "casual editors," who create a piece on somebody or something that interests them. Things are thereafter gnomed into form by the Regulars.

All of my paid editing socks would be considered "casual editors". Each of them creates either one or two new articles. Typically, they require very little additional gnoming, since I am awesome.

[Cla68]

There are a lot of military history related articles that could be added that would help complete WP's canon. For example, only a fraction of the Japanese WWII aerial aces, both Imperial Army and Navy, currently have articles. I was planning on eventually completing them but gave it up after I got squashed by our favorite mathematician a few months ago. There are a number of WWII Pacific battles, especially from the Philippines Campaign, that also have yet to have articles. If I put my mind to it, I could probably list 500 or so topics just from the Pacific War that justify their own articles in WP that have yet to be created, but I won't be the one adding them if I'm unblocked.

[EricBarbour]

How many more articles on roads does RSChen need to create and expand?
When was the last time someone outside the road pr0n group looked up state route 85 in CA?
It's almost all irrelevant garbage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_85
That is typical of road articles. Mostly unsourced, babbling useless information, written by a small group of people prior to 2006 who
live in the area of SR85. And guarded since then by Rschen, SPUI and a few other members of the Roads Wikiproject. But not improved.

Mute testimony to the successful control that the roads nuts have had over their content disputes.

[Randy from Boise]

Maybe sometime when I'm bored I'll microanalyze a week of new articles. My impression is that the vast majority deal with sports biographies or popular culture topics.

I usually play in the queue every week or so, picking through the 5 days old list to approve slam-dunk GNG passes. I never tag-and-flag, I'm only interested in greenlighting stuff that could reasonably be presumed a Keep at Articles for Deletion. I usually find four or five in half an hour; sometimes I tweak the style a little, correcting footnote form and such.

That's about all the stomach I have for it.

The great majority of stuff that has not been patrolled after 5 days is weak and borderline. The really terrible stuff is usually taken care of by then.


RfB

[Scott5114]

(Full disclosure: I'm a member of the "road pr0n group".)

I'm not sure how you can argue a road article is cruft. Given that a state highway represents the expenditure of millions of dollars by a state government, and the tremendous impact a highway (especially a freeway) can have on a city (displacement of residents/eminent domain/legal challenges/environmental effects/what have you), it seems like a more reasonable subject of an article than random Pokémon or television show articles. If the "road pr0n group" were arguing for the inclusion of every minor street, you'd have a point, but USRD generally draws the notability line at "state highways and above", and even then, minor state highways are often merged to subsections of more important articles.

It is possible to write a good, compelling article on a highway and its effects on the area it runs through (look at some of the road featured articles), but the problem is that it requires a lot of research to do so, and USRD has only just now developed the maturity and mindset to do such a thing. USRD has been emphasizing quality over quantity for years now—there was a stub expansion drive in 2010 and 2011, a goal to add no new stubs in 2012, and a "no stubs in 25 states" goal for 2013. A lot of these stubs have been eliminated by judicious merging or deleting.

It's somewhat unfair to focus on California as an example of USRD, because the California road agency, Caltrans, is not a very transparent and cooperative agency. In other states, the road agencies tend to release tons of information on their websites, like every state-published road map from the beginning of time until now (Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, and some other states do this, for example). Caltrans doesn't do this, so writing a good California road article means you have to dig for sources in newspaper archives, which is of course eminently doable, but more work than writing an article on a road in, say, Oklahoma, which has pages on its website giving you exact dates of when the road was approved, moved, decommissioned, etc., along with a full archive of state maps and sometimes even transportation commission meeting minutes. And part of it is just that a competent editor hasn't gotten around to expand or fix a particular article; as USRD articles go, CA-85 sucks.

I think it's interesting that another thread on the first page, people are lamenting the lack of consistency between articles, and yet, in this thread, when the topic of a subject matter is raised where such consistency has been a goal of the responsible project, suddenly it's "successful control that the roads nuts have had over their content disputes." You can't have it both ways; either you can have a group of editors trying to keep things consistent, or you can have hands-off inconsistency, but you can't keep things consistent while leaving the IPs and random loons to run roughshod over articles. Again, California road articles have the unique challenge of seeming to draw an unusual number of anonymous loons, compared to the rest of the country, probably because of California's higher population. A lot of this is also due to roads being a "color of the bikeshed" type subject; roads are so familiar to most people that they think they know a lot about them, but are in actuality overestimating their competence to edit articles in that subject.

SPUI/NE2 is no longer an active member of Wikipedia, and hasn't been for over a year. Most of the road drama over the years has been "SPUI vs. the rest of USRD", and now that he's been gone, people have settled down and actually manage to focus on improving articles instead of dealing with his humongous ego.

[Ming]

I really encourage people interested in this stuff to spend some time every week taking a glance at the new articles queue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPages


RfB

Well, I see that Carlossuarez46 (T-C-L) created something on the order of 250 stub placename articles on May 1-2.

[Silent Editor]

I see Blofeld has taken over the Gibraltarpedia project with such hot topics as Sir Herbert Miles Road (T-H-L).

THE Sir Herbert Miles Road? That's a very important road, because the Caleta Hotel (T-H-L) is along it. And note that the Caleta Hotel has "received Gibraltar's Leading Hotel Award on four occasions", "operates one Italian restaurant and has a wide selection of guest rooms and suites", "has a spa, outdoor grill, business centre and café" and "provides free Wi-Fi service to its customers".

And not only that, the Caleta Hotel article was created by the winner of the Gibraltarpedia contest. I wonder if Bill William Compton chose to stay at the Caleta Hotel on his free trip there? It does have free wi fi after all.

[Midsize Jake]

I think it's interesting that another thread on the first page, people are lamenting the lack of consistency between articles, and yet, in this thread, when the topic of a subject matter is raised where such consistency has been a goal of the responsible project, suddenly it's "successful control that the roads nuts have had over their content disputes."

Okay, but you don't really "find it interesting," you're just miffed that someone might have cast aspersions on your way of doing things. That's all fine and dandy, but since hardly anyone here reads every single thread, I don't suppose you could link to the topic in which people are "lamenting the lack of consistency between articles"...? I can't seem to find it for some reason.

You can't have it both ways; either you can have a group of editors trying to keep things consistent, or you can have hands-off inconsistency, but you can't keep things consistent while leaving the IPs and random loons to run roughshod over articles.

Agreed, though of course the ideal would be to have neither of those things going on. In a properly-managed reference work that wasn't subject to near-constant anonymous revision, you might have trouble keeping things current, but consistency would be fairly easy to attain if that's what everyone really wanted.

[Scott5114]

I think it's interesting that another thread on the first page, people are lamenting the lack of consistency between articles, and yet, in this thread, when the topic of a subject matter is raised where such consistency has been a goal of the responsible project, suddenly it's "successful control that the roads nuts have had over their content disputes."

Okay, but you don't really "find it interesting," you're just miffed that someone might have cast aspersions on your way of doing things. That's all fine and dandy, but since hardly anyone here reads every single thread, I don't suppose you could link to the topic in which people are "lamenting the lack of consistency between articles"...? I can't seem to find it for some reason.

viewtopic.php?p=36836#p36836 - In a post by one of the site admins, no less. Granted, you may not share Greybeard's view.

Besides, I do find what's on this site to be interesting, because if I didn't, I wouldn't bother reading it.

You can't have it both ways; either you can have a group of editors trying to keep things consistent, or you can have hands-off inconsistency, but you can't keep things consistent while leaving the IPs and random loons to run roughshod over articles.

Agreed, though of course the ideal would be to have neither of those things going on. In a properly-managed reference work that wasn't subject to near-constant anonymous revision, you might have trouble keeping things current, but consistency would be fairly easy to attain if that's what everyone really wanted.

That's true. But given that the project we are discussing is, by design, subject to near-constant anonymous revision, is there a better way to ensure consistency than what USRD does (i.e. watch the set of articles it's interested in, as a group, and try to revert edits that break consistency)?

[Peter Damian]

It is possible to write a good, compelling article on a highway

SR 85 begins at an interchange with US 101 and heads due west through San Jose. Near the Westfield Oakridge Mall in San Jose, SR 85 has an interchange with the southern terminus of the SR 87 freeway. SR 85 continues west into Los Gatos, where it intersects the SR 17 freeway. SR 85 briefly enters Campbell and reenters San Jose before crossing into Saratoga. SR 85 turns northwest and briefly reenters San Jose before entering Cupertino and passing right next to De Anza College. SR 85 then interchanges with I-280 before briefly entering Sunnyvale and Los Altos and then entering Mountain View, where it first intersects SR 237 before terminating at US 101 near the Ames Research Center.

[Scott5114]

It is possible to write a good, compelling article on a highway

SR 85 begins at an interchange with US 101 and heads due west through San Jose. Near the Westfield Oakridge Mall in San Jose, SR 85 has an interchange with the southern terminus of the SR 87 freeway. SR 85 continues west into Los Gatos, where it intersects the SR 17 freeway. SR 85 briefly enters Campbell and reenters San Jose before crossing into Saratoga. SR 85 turns northwest and briefly reenters San Jose before entering Cupertino and passing right next to De Anza College. SR 85 then interchanges with I-280 before briefly entering Sunnyvale and Los Altos and then entering Mountain View, where it first intersects SR 237 before terminating at US 101 near the Ames Research Center.

as USRD articles go, CA-85 sucks.

[Peter Damian]

It is possible to write a good, compelling article on a highway

SR 85 begins at an interchange with US 101 and heads due west through San Jose. Near the Westfield Oakridge Mall in San Jose, SR 85 has an interchange with the southern terminus of the SR 87 freeway. SR 85 continues west into Los Gatos, where it intersects the SR 17 freeway. SR 85 briefly enters Campbell and reenters San Jose before crossing into Saratoga. SR 85 turns northwest and briefly reenters San Jose before entering Cupertino and passing right next to De Anza College. SR 85 then interchanges with I-280 before briefly entering Sunnyvale and Los Altos and then entering Mountain View, where it first intersects SR 237 before terminating at US 101 near the Ames Research Center.

as USRD articles go, CA-85 sucks.

No true Scotsman ....

[Hex]

I'm not sure how you can argue a road article is cruft. Given that a state highway represents the expenditure of millions of dollars by a state government, and the tremendous impact a highway (especially a freeway) can have on a city (displacement of residents/eminent domain/legal challenges/environmental effects/what have you), it seems like a more reasonable subject of an article than random Pokémon or television show articles.

I have to agree with my honorable colleague in the League Of People Who Happen To Be Named Scott on this. Roads are a nexus of geography, history, and economics, with all of the effects described above.

[Poetlister]

I have to agree with my honorable colleague in the League Of People Who Happen To Be Named Scott on this. Roads are a nexus of geography, history, and economics, with all of the effects described above.

Les distinguish between "worthy of a mention" and "needs a long article with loads of guff". Let's have a list of every Interstate highway with about three lines on each, and a few references at the end for further details. How many people other than roads obsessives would want more?

[Vigilant]

I have to agree with my honorable colleague in the League Of People Who Happen To Be Named Scott on this. Roads are a nexus of geography, history, and economics, with all of the effects described above.

Les distinguish between "worthy of a mention" and "needs a long article with loads of guff". Let's have a list of every Interstate highway with about three lines on each, and a few references at the end for further details. How many people other than roads obsessives would want more?

And the pictures, dear glub, the pictures.
Thousands of grainy, out of focus pictures of nondescript and featureless bits of 4 lane highways.
Thanks RSChen, that's exactly what we need.
If it is impossible to tell one highway from another by your pictures, then either you are a shitty photographer or the pictures don't really add much to the articles.

Beaver on, you crazy road pr0nners.

[Randy from Boise]

I'm not sure how you can argue a road article is cruft. Given that a state highway represents the expenditure of millions of dollars by a state government, and the tremendous impact a highway (especially a freeway) can have on a city (displacement of residents/eminent domain/legal challenges/environmental effects/what have you), it seems like a more reasonable subject of an article than random Pokémon or television show articles.

I have to agree with my honorable colleague in the League Of People Who Happen To Be Named Scott on this. Roads are a nexus of geography, history, and economics, with all of the effects described above.

I think a big majority of Wikipedians probably have no problem with articles on major roads and highways. However, I have run into some at AfD that have been very irate about pieces on the large streets of major metropolitan centers. It's definitely something that does rub some people the wrong way.

Done properly, such a piece is an informative snippet of urban history. Unfortunately, as with much on WP, many or most are not done properly. Which is not to say they can't be or won't eventually be.

RfB

[Midsize Jake]

viewtopic.php?p=36836#p36836 - In a post by one of the site admins, no less. Granted, you may not share Greybeard's view.

Ahh, okay. There's probably much more support for the idea that all country maps should look substantially the same (and at least have scale indicators) than there is for the idea that the structures of all country articles should be the same... I'd almost have to say that Mr. Greybeard is in the minority there, but I don't suppose there's ever been a poll or anything.

Consistency helps some people (mostly with comprehension and ease-of-lookup), but would probably upset others (in this case, those who wish to emphasize a specific national conflict or political issue, most likely). I guess the obvious difference here between countries and, say, roads, is that the stakes are way, way higher with articles about countries, with new people showing up literally all the time, so the group of people you have (who are all in agreement about the common structure) would have to be much, much larger.

Anyway, I'm probably in the minority with you in thinking this is an interesting subject in itself - if you can't realistically have and maintain consistency in one group of articles, due to their tendency towards controversy and such, should you even bother trying to achieve it in another group where the lack of controversy actually makes it realistic? Personally I'd agree with you and say "yes," but I suspect most people (even on this website) wouldn't care one way or the other and might see that attitude as nothing more than sheer bloody-mindedness.

...is there a better way to ensure consistency than what USRD does (i.e. watch the set of articles it's interested in, as a group, and try to revert edits that break consistency)?

To ensure consistency? Hmm, given the limited technical features for, say, non-editable structural style-sheets or section-protection (or all-but-one-section protection), almost certainly not.

I guess if you wanted to get fancy with it you could have a template-article called "SR85 Trivia" or something, transclude the template into the article, and have an admin protect the article (but not the template). That would let you breathe a little easier in terms of people breaking the standard format "up top," but it would take a lot of effort to set that up for such a large number of articles. (Wouldn't necessarily have to be all of them, though... anyway, you've almost certainly already considered that.)

[Ming]

The thing about doing articles on state roads is that the detail in them is frequently inaccurate because the states re-route them, relabel them, de-number them, etc. almost constantly. All the transit WikiProjects are heavily populated by train/plane/subway/whatever buffs with an obsession with nerdy detail, not to mention all the "it was invented by a little old lady in Leningrad" and "Hungary's electric trains ran on 445 and a half VDC" nationalists. The trains project in particular is populated by Euro-trainspotters who make the American foamers look far more normal by comparison: at least the Americans can figure out that writing an article on every flag stop in the country is stupid.

[Vigilant]

Here's what I mean about road pr0n.
California_State_Route_52 (T-H-L)

This is a FEATURED ARTICLE. On a smallish section of road.
With these pictures...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... pening.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ute_52.JPG[

And 111 citations.
Just look through the citations.
My eyes bleed.

This is what wikipedia is becoming.
Boring, trivial shit that is essentially transcribing AAA triptychs for FA points.

[Cedric]

Here's what I mean about road pr0n.
California_State_Route_52 (T-H-L)

This is a FEATURED ARTICLE. On a smallish section of road.
With these pictures...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... pening.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ute_52.JPG[

And 111 citations.
Just look through the citations.
My eyes bleed.

From I-805 to SR 163, the highway passes through an area with visible Pliocene sedimentary rocks estimated to be 10 million years old.[3] After passing the Miramar Recycling Center and an interchange with Convoy Street, SR 52 intersects SR 163, a freeway heading towards downtown San Diego.[2] SR 52 intersects Kearny Villa Road before an interchange with I-15. A collector-distributor road serves these three interchanges.[2]

[Scott5114]

No true Scotsman ....

I'm not sure how you can get "no true Scotsman" out of that. I merely said that it's possible to write an interesting road article. But I specifically pointed out that one can do better than CA-85. No true Scotsman would be if I was claiming that all road articles are good, and that CA-85 was not a true road article. That's not what I was arguing.

viewtopic.php?p=36836#p36836 - In a post by one of the site admins, no less. Granted, you may not share Greybeard's view.

Ahh, okay. There's probably much more support for the idea that all country maps should look substantially the same (and at least have scale indicators) than there is for the idea that the structures of all country articles should be the same... I'd almost have to say that Mr. Greybeard is in the minority there, but I don't suppose there's ever been a poll or anything.

Consistency helps some people (mostly with comprehension and ease-of-lookup), but would probably upset others (in this case, those who wish to emphasize a specific national conflict or political issue, most likely). I guess the obvious difference here between countries and, say, roads, is that the stakes are way, way higher with articles about countries, with new people showing up literally all the time, so the group of people you have (who are all in agreement about the common structure) would have to be much, much larger.

Anyway, I'm probably in the minority with you in thinking this is an interesting subject in itself - if you can't realistically have and maintain consistency in one group of articles, due to their tendency towards controversy and such, should you even bother trying to achieve it in another group where the lack of controversy actually makes it realistic? Personally I'd agree with you and say "yes," but I suspect most people (even on this website) wouldn't care one way or the other and might see that attitude as nothing more than sheer bloody-mindedness.

There is another benefit to this sort of consistency—it makes it easier on editors to have an idea of what the structure of an ideal article looks like. An editor knows their article will need to contain the sections specified by the project standards, so they have a template they can fill in, ensuring that they hit on all the major points those sections cover, making it meet at least that bar of comprehensiveness. And once you have worked on multiple articles in the same format, you start getting used to where you can find sources for each particular heading.

In any case, USRD is not overly strict regarding the headings; it's okay to add extra headings to discuss things that fall outside of the standard headings. It's not uncommon to see toll roads include sections on how tolls are assessed and describing any extra services the toll road authority provides (like service plazas or assistance hotlines), and some highway articles, especially those on early freeways, include sections on their initial design specifications.

...is there a better way to ensure consistency than what USRD does (i.e. watch the set of articles it's interested in, as a group, and try to revert edits that break consistency)?

To ensure consistency? Hmm, given the limited technical features for, say, non-editable structural style-sheets or section-protection (or all-but-one-section protection), almost certainly not.

I guess if you wanted to get fancy with it you could have a template-article called "SR85 Trivia" or something, transclude the template into the article, and have an admin protect the article (but not the template). That would let you breathe a little easier in terms of people breaking the standard format "up top," but it would take a lot of effort to set that up for such a large number of articles. (Wouldn't necessarily have to be all of them, though... anyway, you've almost certainly already considered that.)

This is an interesting technical solution, but you can be sure that it would be shot down by Wikipedians outside of USRD if it was attempted. One objection would be "Templates aren't supposed to contain content!" and another would be "You can't protect articles for that long! It goes against the goals of the project!" and another would be "Requiring editors to figure out that they're supposed to edit templates to change the content is BITEy!"

The thing about doing articles on state roads is that the detail in them is frequently inaccurate because the states re-route them, relabel them, de-number them, etc. almost constantly. All the transit WikiProjects are heavily populated by train/plane/subway/whatever buffs with an obsession with nerdy detail, not to mention all the "it was invented by a little old lady in Leningrad" and "Hungary's electric trains ran on 445 and a half VDC" nationalists. The trains project in particular is populated by Euro-trainspotters who make the American foamers look far more normal by comparison: at least the Americans can figure out that writing an article on every flag stop in the country is stupid.

Part of the scope of what the project tries to cover is exactly those reroutings, renumberings, and so on. That's primarily what the history section of the article is composed of. This may seem like something that would be of limited benefit to someone not into roads, but it could be a valuable reference for someone who is researching local history and is dealing with maps that show the road numbers in a different configuration than the present-day.

We make a conscious effort to try to keep details that are too trivial out of the road articles (like the font the road signs are done in on that particular road, or the fact that a given stretch of interstate is the only one signed with two interstate numbers that are the reverse of each other—the latter was something that was actually removed from the articles on I-69 and I-96) as much as possible. I'm sure you can find instances where something stupid's slipped by us, though.

essentially the same thing

These posts just read as "How dare someone be interested in a topic I'm not!"

Regarding the pictures, I'll say this: it is often rather difficult to get a technically-correct photo of a freeway at 70 MPH behind a windshield. On a two-lane road you can pull over and get a better shot, but on a busy freeway, that can be dangerous. But as with any subject you will have both good and shitty photographers taking pictures of it. To avoid making every stretch of road look the same, I try to pick a spot that has a sign when I can, so at least there's that to distinguish it. I don't see what's wrong with the first photo that's linked; that's clearly some sort of open-house to celebrate the opening, which is a significant event in the history of the road, so it's great that there's a picture there to illustrate it.

[EricBarbour]

I guess if you wanted to get fancy with it you could have a template-article called "SR85 Trivia" or something, transclude the template into the article, and have an admin protect the article (but not the template). That would let you breathe a little easier in terms of people breaking the standard format "up top," but it would take a lot of effort to set that up for such a large number of articles. (Wouldn't necessarily have to be all of them, though... anyway, you've almost certainly already considered that.)

I will say this, the USRD project has done a generally better job of deciding on a format for articles. Most of the Wikiprojects are full of
arguing and stupidity; or else they just die out. Even an index for the talkpage. Ya never see that on other projects.

This is an interesting technical solution, but you can be sure that it would be shot down by Wikipedians outside of USRD if it was attempted. One objection would be "Templates aren't supposed to contain content!" and another would be "You can't protect articles for that long! It goes against the goals of the project!" and another would be "Requiring editors to figure out that they're supposed to edit templates to change the content is BITEy!"

No shit. I think lots of them LIKE their little bailiwicks to remain as dysfunctional as possible.

Let me guess: you've run into administrators who hate the US Roads group, and would like to break them up. Right?

[Poetlister]

I have run into some at AfD that have been very irate about pieces on the large streets of major metropolitan centers.

Nobody could doubt that some city streets are world-famous and deserve articles, such as Broadway in New York, Champs-Élysées in Paris and Oxford Street in London. The problem is then that people from every medium-sized city (at least ones where there are Wikipedia editors) imagine that they have half a dozen or more equally famous streets in their city, and all need articles. We then end up with hundreds of articles.

What we need is a clear notability policy for streets. Watching it produced should be fun.

[Scott5114]

No shit. I think lots of them LIKE their little bailiwicks to remain as dysfunctional as possible.

Let me guess: you've run into administrators who hate the US Roads group, and would like to break them up. Right?

Of course! The accusation that is usually leveled is that USRD is a "walled garden", whatever that means.

I have run into some at AfD that have been very irate about pieces on the large streets of major metropolitan centers.

Nobody could doubt that some city streets are world-famous and deserve articles, such as Broadway in New York, Champs-Élysées in Paris and Oxford Street in London. The problem is then that people from every medium-sized city (at least ones where there are Wikipedia editors) imagine that they have half a dozen or more equally famous streets in their city, and all need articles. We then end up with hundreds of articles.

What we need is a clear notability policy for streets. Watching it produced should be fun.

USRD attempted to produce one at one point, but the pushback from the inclusionists was so bad that the project decided to spin off "WikiProject U.S. Streets" and explicitly absolve themselves of responsibility for local streets, so we could get back to the business of working on the articles on state highways and up. Unfortunately, SPUI couldn't leave it alone, and kept coming up with flimsy excuses to tag local streets as part of USRD, which is one of the reasons the USRD vs. SPUI battle ended up at Arbcom a second time.

[Midsize Jake]

The accusation that is usually leveled is that USRD is a "walled garden", whatever that means.

As Mr. Everyking might say, that means you're growing and tending your flowers so that they're all roughly the same height, evenly-spaced, and so that the varieties aren't all mixed together willy-nilly... and then you're objecting when someone wants to go in there with a riding mower.

[greybeard]

viewtopic.php?p=36836#p36836 - In a post by one of the site admins, no less. Granted, you may not share Greybeard's view.

Ahh, okay. There's probably much more support for the idea that all country maps should look substantially the same (and at least have scale indicators) than there is for the idea that the structures of all country articles should be the same... I'd almost have to say that Mr. Greybeard is in the minority there, but I don't suppose there's ever been a poll or anything.

Consistency helps some people (mostly with comprehension and ease-of-lookup), but would probably upset others (in this case, those who wish to emphasize a specific national conflict or political issue, most likely). I guess the obvious difference here between countries and, say, roads, is that the stakes are way, way higher with articles about countries, with new people showing up literally all the time, so the group of people you have (who are all in agreement about the common structure) would have to be much, much larger.

The point I was making in that other post was that encyclopediae, unlike more creative forms of writing, have traditionally strived to have information on similar things presented similarly. That is, all cities will have sections on size, climate, notable buildings, or whatever, in roughly the same order. Country pages similarly, as well as everything from gemstones to physical laws, as much as possible. Generally comprehension trumps the desire to push some particular fact ahead of others because, well, real encyclopediae are not written by POV-pushing idiots, as Wikipedia is.

[Anyway, I'm probably in the minority with you in thinking this is an interesting subject in itself - if you can't realistically have and maintain consistency in one group of articles, due to their tendency towards controversy and such, should you even bother trying to achieve it in another group where the lack of controversy actually makes it realistic? Personally I'd agree with you and say "yes," but I suspect most people (even on this website) wouldn't care one way or the other and might see that attitude as nothing more than sheer bloody-mindedness.

I think Jake has this about right. My first reaction is that worrying about consistency of trivia is itself trivial. However, on further reflection, and putting aside any desire to simply see Wikipedia dry up and blow away, I think that the more that is systematized in it, the better it is likely to be. More structure gives bots and other automated means improved tools for fighting vandalism, and if that works for trivia it is likely to work for important things.

That said, I don't think that roads trivia is much more salutary than Pokemon trivia or Star Wars trivia or even military-history trivia. At a certain point, an encyclopedia which excludes nothing, obscures what is important. This trend can be only partially mitigated by good search: if you want to know what happened on December 7, 1941, you don't want to wade through an alphabetized list of everyone who was born or died on that day, and every game of football every played then, only to get down to Pearl Harbor in the "P" section on the 67th page. There ultimately needs to be some editorial judgement on what stays and what is relegated to the "Encyclopedia of North American Roads" or the "Encyclopedia of Minor Hockey Players".

[Cedric]

No shit. I think lots of them LIKE their little bailiwicks to remain as dysfunctional as possible.

Let me guess: you've run into administrators who hate the US Roads group, and would like to break them up. Right?

Of course! The accusation that is usually leveled is that USRD is a "walled garden", whatever that means.

I believe you have reason enough from the context to know just what it means: an article preserve under the control of your group (Wikispeak: "WP:OWNed") which may not have any lasting edits except those that are by your leave, i.e., in compliance with your numerous, complicated and ever growing rules. Frankly, I've read instructions for filing fiduciary income tax returns that are less complicated that USRD article standards.

However, it is not the fact that USRD maintains a walled garden that causes the other admins to hate you, but rather the fact that you do it so well. It is your relative discipline, competence and success in maintaining it which makes them despise you. You are showing them up for the schlubs that they are. That is not a thing to be forgotten or forgiven.

Battle on! Hasten The Day!

[Midsize Jake]

However, it is not the fact that USRD maintains a walled garden that causes the other admins to hate you, but rather the fact that you do it so well. It is your relative discipline, competence and success in maintaining it which makes them despise you. You are showing them up for schlubs that they are. That is not a thing to be forgotten or forgiven.

Agreed, but I feel compelled to just reiterate the point that most "gardens" on WP are "walled" for ideological reasons, not purely aesthetic ones. These USRD folks can do this because the stakes are low enough that the admins either don't care, or don't want to take the time to start a fight over it. If these articles were about an ethnic conflict or a major political issue or any form of sex whatsoever, they'd never be able to succeed to this extent.

...Hasten The Day!

Ah, but which day? I might dare to suggest that "walled gardens" tend to preserve Wikipedia in many respects, and actually delay its eventual replacement by a better alternative. The problem seems to be that they're appropriate for some groups of articles but not others, but WP admins are completely sold on the "one size fits all" philosophy, and can't get past it.

[Cedric]

However, it is not the fact that USRD maintains a walled garden that causes the other admins to hate you, but rather the fact that you do it so well. It is your relative discipline, competence and success in maintaining it which makes them despise you. You are showing them up for schlubs that they are. That is not a thing to be forgotten or forgiven.

Agreed, but I feel compelled to just reiterate the point that most "gardens" on WP are "walled" for ideological reasons, not purely aesthetic ones. These USRD folks can do this because the stakes are low enough that the admins either don't care, or don't want to take the time to start a fight over it. If these articles were about an ethnic conflict or a major political issue or any form of sex whatsoever, they'd never be able to succeed to this extent.

Excellent point; which is why I used the word "relative."

...Hasten The Day!

Ah, but which day? I might dare to suggest that "walled gardens" tend to preserve Wikipedia in many respects, and actually delay its eventual replacement by a better alternative. The problem seems to be that they're appropriate for some groups of articles but not others, but WP admins are completely sold on the "one size fits all" philosophy, and can't get past it.

That part was tongue-in-cheek. It is rather difficult to imagine the Roadsters actually doing much to Hasten The Day of The Great Wiki Ragnarok. You suggested it yourself: the content in their walled garden is so non-controversial and utterly trivial that it is not likely that outside admins are willing to engage in any pitched battles concerning it. Despite the fact that the Roadsters do occasionally tread on the toes of outside admins and other power users, the Frei Kultur Kinder have a larger incentive to pick their battles carefully, given the huge number of more important things to fight over.

[Poetlister]

"Walled garden" does have aprecise meaning on Wikipedia:

On many wikis, Wikipedia included, a walled garden is a set of pages or articles that link to each other, but do not have any links to or from anything outside the group. This can be a failure of linkage, or it can be an attempt to form a group of articles on essentially the same topic. This should especially be avoided on Wikipedia, where one of our core principles is building the web. While orphaned articles are far easier to detect than walled gardens, if you find several pages that only seem to link to each other, then be bold and, depending on the circumstances, add both outgoing and incoming links, or suggest a merge.

I can't see any problem with adding outgoing and incoming links where appropriate, but knowing the workings of the Wikipedia mind, I'm sure I'm missing something. Anyway, the quote is from an essay, not a policy or even a guideline, so it's safe to IAR.

[Scott5114]

"Walled garden" does have aprecise meaning on Wikipedia:

On many wikis, Wikipedia included, a walled garden is a set of pages or articles that link to each other, but do not have any links to or from anything outside the group. This can be a failure of linkage, or it can be an attempt to form a group of articles on essentially the same topic. This should especially be avoided on Wikipedia, where one of our core principles is building the web. While orphaned articles are far easier to detect than walled gardens, if you find several pages that only seem to link to each other, then be bold and, depending on the circumstances, add both outgoing and incoming links, or suggest a merge.

I can't see any problem with adding outgoing and incoming links where appropriate, but knowing the workings of the Wikipedia mind, I'm sure I'm missing something. Anyway, the quote is from an essay, not a policy or even a guideline, so it's safe to IAR.

Interestingly enough, that definition makes no sense in the context that people use it in to describe USRD (since the road articles link to a wide range of topics besides other roads, mostly geographical places). It seems more like they're trying to misuse the term to imply that the project defends the articles against outsiders editing them. Which is untrue, of course—most of the time when we revert it's because we think they're making the article worse, not because they're not a USRD member.

[Hex]

"Walled garden" does have a precise meaning on Wikipedia

Walled gardens were more of a problem in the prehistoric wiki era, when wikis were only a pile of interlinked pages with no tools to analyze them beyond RecentChanges. On the WikiWikiWeb (which was replete with gardening metaphors, hence the name "walled garden"), you would occasionally stumble across a whole network of pages that someone had created for their own pet topic, which were more or less invisible to the outside world because there were no incoming links. That's very unlikely to be possible now.

[Ming]

"Walled garden" does have a precise meaning on Wikipedia

Walled gardens were more of a problem in the prehistoric wiki era, when wikis were only a pile of interlinked pages with no tools to analyze them beyond RecentChanges. On the WikiWikiWeb (which was replete with gardening metaphors, hence the name "walled garden"), you would occasionally stumble across a whole network of pages that someone had created for their own pet topic, which were more or less invisible to the outside world because there were no incoming links. That's very unlikely to be possible now.

It's less common on Wikipedia, mostly because the urge towards promotion tends to generate dubious inward links. But one does sometimes find whole sets of parallel article versions and the occasional small cluster of unlinked articles on some obscure topic.

That said, the tendency towards ceding notability guidelines to projects tends to promote a fannish level of detail.