Re: Wikipedia:Verifiability - Mailing lists as sources
| From: | Jörg Rhiemeier <joerg_rhiemeier@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, February 26, 2008, 16:27 |
|---|
Hallo!
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:14:24 +0100, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> 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).
Thirded. Not every individual conlang is noteworthy enough to warrant
a Wikipedia article. What counts on the Web is that there is a link
to it - it is secondary where the stuff is actually hosted. It need
not be on the Wikipedia. An encyclopedic wiki devoted to conlangs
and conlanging (ideally something like Langmaker and FrathWiki merged
into one) is certainly a better place for a reference article on a
conlang that is hardly known outside the conlanging scene.
There are many, many wikis devoted to particular subject matters,
and it is only fair that the less prominent subjects within those
areas are covered not by Wikipedia, but by the specialized wiki
in question. For example, an article on a minor Star Trek
character would be placed on Memory Alpha.
> > 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.
And perhaps a dozen or so others. But there aren't many conlangs
widely known by people outside the conlanging community itself.
If the conlang is known only to other conlangers (and this holds
with the vast majority of conlangs), it is not Wikipedia-worthy.
> This said I think deletionism and the insistence that WP
> articles cite *printed* sources idiotic.
Seconded.
... brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Reply