We now have an extensive and linked list of imaginary countries, including my personal favorite, "Purple Bunny" (I kid you not). Another link is to the Confederate Online States. Will we have an article for each state in the "confederacy" too? I think this is getting a tad excessive. Anyone else think so too?
Danny
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 21:20, daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
We now have an extensive and linked list of imaginary countries, including my personal favorite, "Purple Bunny" (I kid you not). Another link is to the Confederate Online States. Will we have an article for each state in the "confederacy" too? I think this is getting a tad excessive. Anyone else think so too?
My question is, so what? Wikipedia is not paper. If you think it's excessive, then don't contribute to it.
The real problem is that most of the entries are being written in CIA World Factbook style, not Wikipedia style.
|From: The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com |Sender: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |Date: 07 Jan 2003 21:59:54 -0500 | |On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 21:20, daniwo59@aol.com wrote: |> We now have an extensive and linked list of imaginary countries, including my |> personal favorite, "Purple Bunny" (I kid you not). Another link is to the |> Confederate Online States. Will we have an article for each state in the |> "confederacy" too? I think this is getting a tad excessive. Anyone else think |> so too? |> |My question is, so what? Wikipedia is not paper. If you think it's |excessive, then don't contribute to it. | |The real problem is that most of the entries are being written in CIA |World Factbook style, not Wikipedia style. | |_______________________________________________
Redondan nationalists loyal to King Leo removed all signs of King Bob's rival Redondan regime, charging ahistoricism and POV.
But hey, they're only web pages, so I put King Bob back on the page.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
We now have an extensive and linked list of imaginary countries, including my personal favorite, "Purple Bunny" (I kid you not). Another link is to the Confederate Online States. Will we have an article for each state in the "confederacy" too? I think this is getting a tad excessive. Anyone else think so too?
The [[Micronation]] page is OK. The [[List of micronations]] page is a bad idea, because it suggests that we want separate articles for every single fantasy project out there, which is not the case. It should be incorporated into the [[Micronation]] article, with links only to those micronations with some actual history and participation and the others listed, without links, in the "creative fiction" department.
I again submit my key criterion for inclusion of information in Wikipedia: The information needs to be *factually verifiable*. If someone adds information about their fictional micronation project to Wikipedia, our main problem is this: If this is not written down anywhere except by that person, it is not sufficiently verifiable. Nobody else can update the article because nobody else can, with reasonable effort, attain the degree of factual familiarity necessary.
Furthermore, we do not like articles that are destined to remain stubs forever - these should better be incorporated into other articles.
Compare [[K. Kay Sheain]]. Kay is a Wikipedia contributor (Isis) and has created an article about herself. To make the information factually verifiable, she has uploaded scanned newspaper articles (further information can be found on the web as well).
Regards,
Erik