
List of really, really stupid article ideas that you should not create - uladzislau
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_really,_really,_really_stupid_article_ideas_that_you_really,_really,_really_should_not_create
======
th0ma5
I often wondered ever since Wikipedia started that if they just had slightly
more involvement, they could handle all of this kind of content and the site
would still be great. I also often wonder if the content that does get
rejected should actually be there, and the site is worse without it.

That being said, there are still probably too many articles, especially in
other languages, that could use more depth, and I guess that's been the
driving force for some time, and I hope we don't give up.

~~~
x1798DE
I'm not sure that article attention is necessarily always going to be the
limiting factor, otherwise you'd expect there to be piles and piles of
fancruft all over Wikipedia, meticulously maintained by obsessive fans.

One argument for not being just a universal repository for any kind of
information is that it may make it much harder to navigate to actual
information you care about, where encyclopedias are supposed to generally be a
digest of the information available about a subject. There's also the issue of
proper namespacing for this sort of thing, since if you let there be an
article on every single person and every single piece of information, you can
imagine that there would be a large number of name collisions, making
navigation a bit tricky (The disambiguation page for common names would be
insanely long, for one thing).

I think the proper way to build a "repository of all knowledge" on top of
Wikipedia would be to spin off daughter Wikis (e.g. wikitionary), where in-
depth curated information can exist that break out content from Wiki articles
(for example, Wiki has an article about a given album, but WikiMusic has an
in-depth article on each song, with curated links to reviews and articles
about it, etc). I think we're seeing some of that already with the various
sister projects to Wikipedia.

~~~
derefr
If you really want a “repository of all knowledge”, though, the main thing you
need is standardization of wiki APIs and dump formats, such that you could,
say, create DB dump file that contained “Wikipedia, all its siblings, and
every Wikia wiki” and fixed up all the links between them.

------
logfromblammo
If there were any justice in the world, that article would be immediately
nominated for expedited deletion, and every other wikimedia site spawned due
to exclusions by wikipedia's rules would mercilessly make fun of them for it.

~~~
x1798DE
This article isn't in the main namespace, it's in the Wikipedia namespace,
which is dedicated for essays and meta discussions about Wikipedia. The rules
for deletion of Wikipedia-namespace articles are very different than the rules
for deletion of main-namespace articles.

Even if it were deleted, the author could migrate it into his/her personal
user-namespace User:username/<article title>, and it would have an even lower
standard for inclusion.

------
Shivetya
There could be a near infinite list of stupid article ideas that would just be
fine for them, namely any top 40 song; points for a page dedicated to its
video; individual episodes of select science fiction tv shows, or nearly every
anime character.

