5 ms·

Because there is usually no or low encyclopedic content, on the one hand, Discogs already exists for that, and because every fan after comming home from a conce

Because there is usually no or low encyclopedic content, on the one hand, Discogs already exists for that, and because every fan after comming home from a concert checking wikipedia will have the genius idea to set a memorial for the idol, amounting to scribling "Metallica" in a stall. I know, because I've done both.

thriftwy 9y ago
You lost me here. I consider any art sacred. I don't see why would not there be an article for any artist that recorded anything. How about "2013 Richmond Raiders season"? Apparently this is more encyclopedic? There are no specialized sites for this? I would say you did not carry your point across.
- posterboy 9y ago
  I guess that's a complex topic to answer. Assume that the time and space complexity of maintanance increases with each article, because not every article is perfect. Then you need a good reason to increase that complexity. > How about "2013 Richmond Raiders season"? Apparently this is more encyclopedic? There are no specialized sites for this? No I'm not, I just choose to ignore sportsfandom.
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    That doesn't sound like a complete argument. How big is this maintenance increase? Does it get evened out by influx of new editors? You choose to ignore sportsfandom, but apparently it gets out of jail free card on Wikipedia. Is it a good thing? Why? Where's the motivation? Who decided that?
    - posterboy 9y ago
      > Does it get evened out by influx of new editors? no it does not. These artist articles are created in subpar condition and left to rot, most of the creators not coming back, in the extreme case but often enough. There's certainly a bunch of obscure artists, say death metal bands ... and on the other hand my local low league team doesn't have a page. The proportions you are comparing are quite different. > Where's the motivation? Who decided that? there's a thing or two to say about comercialization, I'll give you that.

thriftwy 9y ago

You lost me here. I consider any art sacred. I don't see why would not there be an article for any artist that recorded anything. How about "2013 Richmond Raiders season"? Apparently this is more encyclopedic? There are no specialized sites for this? I would say you did not carry your point across.

posterboy 9y ago
I guess that's a complex topic to answer. Assume that the time and space complexity of maintanance increases with each article, because not every article is perfect. Then you need a good reason to increase that complexity. > How about "2013 Richmond Raiders season"? Apparently this is more encyclopedic? There are no specialized sites for this? No I'm not, I just choose to ignore sportsfandom.
- thriftwy 9y ago
  That doesn't sound like a complete argument. How big is this maintenance increase? Does it get evened out by influx of new editors? You choose to ignore sportsfandom, but apparently it gets out of jail free card on Wikipedia. Is it a good thing? Why? Where's the motivation? Who decided that?
  - posterboy 9y ago
    > Does it get evened out by influx of new editors? no it does not. These artist articles are created in subpar condition and left to rot, most of the creators not coming back, in the extreme case but often enough. There's certainly a bunch of obscure artists, say death metal bands ... and on the other hand my local low league team doesn't have a page. The proportions you are comparing are quite different. > Where's the motivation? Who decided that? there's a thing or two to say about comercialization, I'll give you that.