Jake Nelson wrote:
I'd like to chime in in support of what
Cunctator's saying. I've yet to see
an example of those given that isn't a clear case of what should NOT happen.
I would like to know about the Statue of Liberty in France, the Dutch
parliament's position on Iraq, and all of that, but I'm only good with
English.
We fully expect, and accept as tolerable, the practical state of affairs
that [[nl:]] will (in all probability) always cover this better than [[en:]].
But under no circumstances can somebody argue that this sort of material
is ''not'' appropriate for [[en:]] even if it's appropriate for
[[nl:]].
It may not get to [[en:]] very well, due to [[en:]]'s writers' proclivities,
but it is always welcome on [[en:]] whenever somebody wants to write about it.
I dont' think that my views are quite as strong as what Cunc has expressed;
for example, [[nl:]]'s main page on the current war might very justifiably
say more about the Dutch parliament than [[en:]]'s main page on the war.
This is because introductory material must choose arbitrary examples,
and these can be chosen (and dynamically changed) based on reader interest.
But in either case, an ''in depth'' coverage of the parliament's
position
would need to go on [[Parliamentary debate in the Netherlands
about the 2003 war in Iraq]] (or something along those lines),
and such an article would be a Good Thing on both [[en:]] and [[nl:]].
We won't reach the perfect encyclopedia without that article on both! ^_^
-- Toby