[WikiEN-l] Notability and ski resorts (was: Newbie and not-so-newbie biting)

[Charles Matthews]

Surreptitiousness wrote:
>> Why? You would be better advised to draft in userspace rather than 
>> just type straight into the box, but I don't understand why you think 
>> it doesn't still work in principle.
>>   
> I can't do now what I did then.  IP's cannot create new articles, and 
> you have to wait four days after creating an account to create a new 
> article.
In fact "A user who edits through an account they have registered, may 
immediately create pages in any namespace (except the MediaWiki 
namespace, and limited to 8 per minute)" while "Autoconfirmed status is 
required to move pages, edit semi-protected pages, and upload files or 
upload a new version of an existing file". Seems there are 
misconceptions. (From [[Wikipedia:User access levels]]).
> You just lost me. It doesn't still work either in principle or in 
> practise.
>>> The point I was making was that we were not the high-ground; we 
>>> don't exist to publish academic research.      
>> No, we exist to regurgitate it.
>>   
> Hmm. Not sure I agree, but I think we'd head into a primary versus 
> secondary sourcing argument. I'd certainly argue our mission would be 
> to contextualise and explain the research through recourse to 
> secondary sources, rather than to simply regurgitate it. I think 
> there's a viable argument that regurgitating it would fall foul of NOT 
> NEWS.
>>
>> The closure was a compromise, rather than a consensus emerging. 
>> ([[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 11#Deans of 
>> Lincoln]], for mavens.) While "Dean" and "Lincoln" were both deemed 
>> individually ambiguous, one side only was disambiguated. But not for 
>> a specific clash. So in a sense I lost the argument, it seems. But it 
>> could have been worse.
>>
>>   
> Hmm.  Yes, interesting debate.  That's one of the reasons I avoid CFD 
> these days. I think a major point that got missed is that no-one asked 
> the question of at what point would context not do the 
> disambiguating.  Only then would there be a need for disambiguating. 
And only if the category page wasn't there to help out with an 
explanation. I really don't see that you can make as full an explanation 
of the category in the title as you could with a couple of paragraphs on 
the category page. It seems to me that the editable part of the page is 
provided for that.

Charles