Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/User:Rambot

message: ======Support======
# Eequor
# supadawg - 
======Oppose======
# Schnee (Feel free to rewrite all Rambot-created articles with better versions, but as long as we don't have anything better, keep them and be thankful that there is *some* information on these places etc. at least.)
# This is idiocy. The city/town/village entries are slowly being worked on, and if you have a problem on them as you find them, here's a neat idea: go to google, and look up the town, even the titchiest little town usually is listed on county pages with historical information, etc. Rhymeless 18:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Permanently ban [[User:Rambot]] and any variant of its script

message: # Schnee (Feel free to rewrite all Rambot-created articles with better versions, but as long as we don't have anything better, keep them and be thankful that there is *some* information on these places etc. at least.)
# This is idiocy. The city/town/village entries are slowly being worked on, and if you have a problem on them as you find them, here's a neat idea: go to google, and look up the town, even the titchiest little town usually is listed on county pages with historical information, etc. Rhymeless 18:56, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Any reasonably small limit could be used.  Mostly I picked this number because:
# it's close to 1000
# it isn't a multiple of 10
# it appears more arbitrary
--Eequor 22:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 1111

message: * Most of its articles have irrelevant statistics, including percentages less than 1% and mentions of 0%.
* All are poorly wikified (inconsistent, redundant, unintuitive), particularly with regard to ethnicity.
::County articles also list cities/towns/villages contained with, also a good aggregation of info and good linkage. See Roscommon County, Michigan, for example. Niteowlneils 22:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been debated in a number of forums, as different states use different ways to distinguish population areas. EG Some have formal defintions of "village" and "town", but many don't. I've also specifically seen Wikipedians enter strong objections to calling everything a "city". Niteowlneils 22:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Tables generally get added once the article gets long enuf that the table won't overwhelm it. See Seattle, Washington, or most any of the large cities in the US. Niteowlneils 22:21, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an excellent article.  The material by Rambot is hardly visible.  Even so, the quality of the article takes an abrupt plunge at Seattle, Washington#Demographics, returning to normal immediately after.  It's very strange that nobody has edited the Rambot sections, when every other part of the article has been rewritten.  Is the bot really a better editor than every real user?  --Eequor 23:00, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: More evidence that Rambot is evil

message: I'm confused.  Isn't Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:Rambot an even less appropriate place for this poll?  There doesn't seem to be any interest in the proposal.  --Eequor 23:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but I think Rossami moved it there by accident when sie was splitting the vote into two chunks. If that's the case, there's no harm in someone speedy-deleting the redirect left lying there. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 23:27, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I saw his comment saying he did it, so I guess he meant to.  This is a policy discussion, plain and simple, and both arbitration and deletion pages aren't appropriate.  People add proposed policies to the wikipedia name space all the time, and that's where I think this idea should have been all along. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 23:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration 

message: I've seen (and contributed to) a lot of talk about whether these old Rambot articles belong in Wikipedia, and I just remembered an exercise I went through that shows they do have value, even as is.
A few months ago, I was trying to figure some kind of rough estimate of the economic conditions between my hometown and county, and my current town and county. Since I already had a Wikipedia window up (when don't I? ☺), I just checked the four relevant articles for some basic population and income data. I found it very useful to have these statistics available. (I also found myself wandering through a few more neighboring towns, just out of curiosity.) I've tried to penetrate U.S. government data websites before and have mostly given up unless the issue were really important. I think these basic articles are not only a good starting point for robust ones, but they have their uses even in their raw form. — Jeff Q 00:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  These statistics *are* useful for ordinary mortals