On 5/12/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 12, 2007, at 5:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
On 12/05/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
See [[User:Uncle G/On notability]] for a comprehensive answer to that question.
See, that doesn't actually answer the question I asked - it just says "WRONG QUESTION!"
Though I appreciated the link, if only because it made me see one of the weirdest things about the current notability guidelines. By relying on multiple independent sources, they essentially establish a higher verifiability threshold for article topics than article content. In other words, nothing whatsoever prevents inclusion of this ski field on a list of NZ ski fields - that's verifiable information. But something now has to be super-verifiable to be an article topic.
What is gained by creating this second class of verifiability? Why do article topics need to be super-verified? Or, more specifically, why is normal, garden-variety verifiability not good enough for article topics? And if it's not good enough for article topics, why is it good enough for your garden variety information?
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Context. It's the same reason we prohibit POV forks, but might perfectly well allow the same information from the POV fork in a comprehensive article that presents all sides. If all there is to be said about something is "It exists", and some very basic information about it, we should present it in the context of a more comprehensive article, not by itself.