Re: Wikipedia:Verifiability - Mailing lists as sources

On 26.2.2008 Mark J. Reed wrote:
 > I don't see any reason for most individual conlangs to
 > have wikipedia entries. Not to say that all the things
 > that have entries should, but it's just silly. If you
 > don't know what conlanging is, Wikipedia will tell you and
 > refer yoiu to several external sites that will lead you to
 > all sorts of conlangs. There's no need to have articles
 > for them.

Agreed. It is better to devote our energy to making
Langmaker into an inventory of artlangs as comprehensive as
possible, and make sure it is prominently linked from
relevant WP articles (preferably with in-text mention).

 > Esperanto, Klingon, and Quenya are probably the only ones
 > that warrant full entries.

And Sindarin. After all most names in The Lord of the Rings
are Sindarin.

This said I think deletionism and the insistence that WP
articles cite *printed* sources idiotic. The move away from
printed books to electronic publication and storage is
inevitable and a Good Thing. I only wish for a reader
application which opens like a book, with two screens one of
which is a touch-screen with OCR. If I got such a one I
might really quit printing/writing things on paper, and quit
killing trees.


/BP 8^)>
--
Benct Philip Jonsson -- melroch atte melroch dotte se
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   "C'est en vain que nos Josués littéraires crient
   à la langue de s'arrêter; les langues ni le soleil
   ne s'arrêtent plus. Le jour où elles se *fixent*,
   c'est qu'elles meurent."           (Victor Hugo)