Wikipedia:Wikipedia has more...: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 12:
And any combination of the above.
There is never any suggestion of what the ideal situation should be – How many chemists we should cover? Should we delete some of our coverage of Britney Spears? And of course never any offer to leap into the breach and help. (One early example says no-one will read
Apart from the logical fallacy (assuming that because X is better covered than Y, Y is badly covered), these claims are often – as I like to say – ''plain wrong''.
In the sections below references to "now" or "currently" should reflect the numbers (more or less) at the time of reading.
==Wikipedia has more information on ''Pokémon'' than on the Bible.==
Line 47 ⟶ 49:
* Source: [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1402278002-VnQc7BHJc54ytGL3s4L2SA ''The New York Times'']
* Verdict: Apparently true at the time (January 2011), not true now.
* Reason: ''The Simpsons'' characters are easy to write about. All 45 articles have existed for years. Moreover, they are easier to categorise. At the time of writing we have 493,560 articles about writers, far more than all our fictional character articles. Note however that most, if not all, of the items that have been added to the writers category since, already existed either on English WP, or Spanish WP. (Thanks to [[User:Rosiestep]] for translation.)
"Is a category with five Mexican feminist writers impressive, or embarrassing when compared with the 45 articles on characters in ''The Simpsons''? "{{Break}}
Note the MFW's now number {{PAGESINCATEGORY:Mexican feminist writers}}, while the
Pop quiz: name as many Mexican feminist writers as you can. Name as many ''Simpsons'' characters as you can.
| |||