On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:31 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
As long as there is a notable -contemporary- literature, vocabulary problems will be minimal.
What is "notable"?
Notable enough to have a Featured Article about [[Modern Latin literature]] or [[Modern Coptic literature]] on English Wikipedia or another major-language Wikipedia.
I think this proposed criteria is too subjective and naive. Specially regarding to the fact English Wikipedia is not always good at humanities, in particular non European literatures. Having a FA may too be occasionally I'm afraid.
But I like the idea of "notable authors". They are notable since they have a decent size of readership. It means their writings are read and surrounded by the reader community which the language in question is actively, at least, read and have a possibility to be written again. And even if we still use Wikipedia again, "having an article of that author" is a less opportunity driven criteria, I think.
Of course it would be a powerful incentive to develop some of those non-European literature articles. And one that could probably be met by a dedicated person or small group with a medium effort.
But actually having an FA wouldn't be so important as demonstrating that such an FA is possible. Really, it's an idea of making an outlet where the notableness of the subject would be absolutely demonstrable.
"Notable authors" is another idea that could certainly work, though this might be complicated a bit by some authors being notable for work in more than one language, and that some borderline languages might have notable contemporary literatures, without many notable individual authors. Still, it's a concept that could help a lot.
Thanks, Pharos