<quote> * They have to do lots of original research; it is impossible to follow development of the railway infrastructure and operations using only high quality published sources;
* They got bitten a bit by the "notability" discussions in their field; they want to document every track, every junction and every locomotive and they are tired of discussing how "notable" a particular piece of railway equipment really is. </quote> Notability discussion seem to spring up on every wiki, and often seem to lead to very heated discussions. The question of notability is also somehow tied to reliable published sources. I remember a discussion where an article on a game with >20 milllion players was removed because of lack of appropriate sources. Imho it is good that we do have rules on notability - we dont want to have every wikipedian describe his entire family - but every rule seems to have its quirks. On the dutch wiki i recently encountered a discussion on notability of Tolkien articles. Fans are describing every corner of the Tolkien world, but in this discussion the notability of beetle species, plant species and chess openings was also raised. Personally I don't mind too much about notability - if the stuff seems relevant enough for a specialized paper encyclopedia, i feel it's worth including it in a wikipedia. ''Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge'' I wish you health and happiness Teun Spaans _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
