Mailing List Archive

Might I add, [[en:Simpsons_Roasting_on_an_Open_Fire]], which exists in 16
languages, was deleted in the Hebrew Wikipedia.

proper disclosure: I was involved in writing the above article.

Yonidebest

2009/5/2 Yoni Weiden <yonidebest@gmail.com>

> The Hebrew Wikipedia community decided that Southpark episode named "Chef
> Aid" is not worthy of an article, not because of it's content, but because
> it is an unimportant episode.
>
> I now wonder. This episode is available so far in the following wiki
> Languages: English, French, Hungarian and Russian. I am aware that the
> foundation does not like to intervene in local community decisions, and I am
> not looking for a overturn, but rather to understand how this case fits it's
> views and objectives.
>
> Here we have an episode available in 4 languages (and will probably we
> available in more - just a matter of time), but in the Hebrew language it
> will never we available.
>
> "*Imagine a world* in which every single human being can freely share in
> the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." -- not in the Hebrew
> language (and perhaps, others too?).
>
> see google translated vote page:
>
> http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=iw&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhe.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D7%2595%25D7%2599%25D7%25A7%25D7%2599%25D7%25A4%25D7%2593%25D7%2599%25D7%2594%3A%25D7%25A8%25D7%25A9%25D7%2599%25D7%259E%25D7%25AA_%25D7%259E%25D7%2595%25D7%25A2%25D7%259E%25D7%2593%25D7%2599%25D7%259D_%25D7%259C%25D7%259E%25D7%2597%25D7%2599%25D7%25A7%25D7%2594%2F%3A%25D7%259E%25D7%2595%25D7%25A4%25D7%25A2_%25D7%2594%25D7%25A1%25D7%2599%25D7%2595%25D7%25A2_%25D7%259C%25D7%25A9%25D7%25A3&sl=iw&tl=en&swap=1
>
> Opinions, please.
> Yonidebest, hewiki user
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 17:17, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here we have an episode available in 4 languages (and will probably we
> available in more - just a matter of time), but in the Hebrew language it
> will never we available.

Not never. People come and go, people change their opinions.

That said, i also wish that there was more cross-wiki policy
uniformity. It is discussed on this mailing now and then, but no real
decisions are made.

(This is not an opinion about the matter of TV series' episodes - i
don't have a strong opinion about it.)

--
Amir E. Aharoni

heb: http://haharoni.wordpress.com | eng: http://aharoni.wordpress.com
cat: http://aprenent.wordpress.com | rus: http://amire80.livejournal.com

"We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace." - T. Moore

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest@gmail.com> wrote:

> The Hebrew Wikipedia community decided that Southpark episode named "Chef
> Aid" is not worthy of an article, not because of it's content, but because
> it is an unimportant episode.


In spanish wikipedia we soemtimes delete articles found in others.

The usual cry is "but the english wikipedia has it" and the usual reply:
yes, but each wikipedia has a different set of standards.
And as far as I know, Wikipedia does not try to be the sum of ALL human
knowledge, it's not in its mission statement nor the foundation. that was a
phrase said by jimbo, but it's his particular vision
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The question is - shouldn't there be one set of standards for all
Wikipedias? I think it is "unfair" that I can read about Simpsons episodes
in the English Wikipedia, while those how speak Hebrew cannot.

2009/5/2 Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez@gmail.com>

> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The Hebrew Wikipedia community decided that Southpark episode named "Chef
> > Aid" is not worthy of an article, not because of it's content, but
> because
> > it is an unimportant episode.
>
>
> In spanish wikipedia we soemtimes delete articles found in others.
>
> The usual cry is "but the english wikipedia has it" and the usual reply:
> yes, but each wikipedia has a different set of standards.
> And as far as I know, Wikipedia does not try to be the sum of ALL human
> knowledge, it's not in its mission statement nor the foundation. that was a
> phrase said by jimbo, but it's his particular vision
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 21:09, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest@gmail.com> wrote:
> The question is - shouldn't there be one set of standards for all
> Wikipedias?

I do think that there should be one set of standards for all
languages. But it may be hard to enforce it on an existing community.
WMF can try and enforce copyright policy or maybe Biographies of
Living People policy, because these issues may have severe legal
implications, but it is next to impossible to enforce Notability or
Verifiability policies.

Few he-wikipedians care about it, but he.wikipedia did quite well for
several years without a clear written policy on any of the following:
Living People, Notability, Original Research and Verifiability. All
decisions on these matters are made ad hoc. To our friends from
en.wikipedia it must seem surreal :)

I think that there should be written policies about those things and i
am very slowly working to fix it, but the reality is that writing and
correcting articles somehow ends up being more urgent.

> I think it is "unfair" that I can read about Simpsons episodes
> in the English Wikipedia, while those how speak Hebrew cannot.

Everything should be written; not everything has to be written in
Wikipedia. If something is not in Wikipedia, it doesn't mean that it
doesn't exist.

Until you fix the policies in he.wikipedia to your liking, you can,
for example, set up a Hebrew Simpsons/Southpark Wiki in Wikia. It may
seem imperfect, but it's much better than nothing.

--
Amir E. Aharoni

heb: http://haharoni.wordpress.com | eng: http://aharoni.wordpress.com
cat: http://aprenent.wordpress.com | rus: http://amire80.livejournal.com

"We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace." - T. Moore

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Amir Elisha Aharoni wrote:
> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 21:09, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The question is - shouldn't there be one set of standards for all
>> Wikipedias?
>>
>
> I do think that there should be one set of standards for all
> languages. But it may be hard to enforce it on an existing community.
>
No, because we are not able to reach a concensus across all the language
communities. Thus each project community should reach their own
concensus. Personally I find this diversity also a very good thing
because one can always get ideas from other projects, good ones to
follow, bad ones to avoid or to change.
> WMF can try and enforce copyright policy or maybe Biographies of
> Living People policy, because these issues may have severe legal
> implications, but it is next to impossible to enforce Notability or
> Verifiability policies.
>
correct. And in the example BLP the resolution of the board is
purposefully so soft. It only urges the communities to notice the
problem and to take care about it, it didn't say what each individual
community must do, in respect of the autonomy of the projects.
> Few he-wikipedians care about it, but he.wikipedia did quite well for
> several years without a clear written policy on any of the following:
> Living People, Notability, Original Research and Verifiability. All
> decisions on these matters are made ad hoc. To our friends from
> en.wikipedia it must seem surreal :)
>
No, this is the ideal state. Actually I don't like written rules. Rules
are dead things and often they don't really fit to the actual situation.
If one can discuss every case and reach a concensus without a fix rule
this is for me the best case. But this only works in a relatively small
community and doesn't fit a very big and diverse community.

--
Ting

Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On a practical note, we have sufficient difficulty in getting
consensus on policies in individual encyclopedias!


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de> wrote:
> Amir Elisha Aharoni wrote:
>> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 21:09, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The question is - shouldn't there be one set of standards for all
>>> Wikipedias?
>>>
>>
>> I do think that there should be one set of standards for all
>> languages. But it may be hard to enforce it on an existing community.
>>
> No, because we are not able to reach a concensus across all the language
> communities. Thus each project community should reach their own
> concensus. Personally I find this diversity also a very good thing
> because one can always get ideas from other projects, good ones to
> follow, bad ones to avoid or to change.
>> WMF can try and enforce copyright policy or maybe Biographies of
>> Living People policy, because these issues may have severe legal
>> implications, but it is next to impossible to enforce Notability or
>> Verifiability policies.
>>
> correct. And in the example BLP the resolution of the board is
> purposefully so soft. It only urges the communities to notice the
> problem and to take care about it, it didn't say what each individual
> community must do, in respect of the autonomy of the projects.
>> Few he-wikipedians care about it, but he.wikipedia did quite well for
>> several years without a clear written policy on any of the following:
>> Living People, Notability, Original Research and Verifiability. All
>> decisions on these matters are made ad hoc. To our friends from
>> en.wikipedia it must seem surreal :)
>>
> No, this is the ideal state. Actually I don't like written rules. Rules
> are dead things and often they don't really fit to the actual situation.
> If one can discuss every case and reach a concensus without a fix rule
> this is for me the best case. But this only works in a relatively small
> community and doesn't fit a very big and diverse community.
>
> --
> Ting
>
> Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Yoni Weiden wrote:
> The question is - shouldn't there be one set of standards for all
> Wikipedias? I think it is "unfair" that I can read about Simpsons episodes
> in the English Wikipedia, while those how speak Hebrew cannot.
>

Such a policy would have had to be decided several years ago. At this
point, even the best compromise proposal would likely mean major changes
for some projects. And on the largest projects, even a small change to
the primary inclusion guideline would likely have a big impact.

--
Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest@gmail.com> wrote:
> The question is - shouldn't there be one set of standards for all
> Wikipedias? I think it is "unfair" that I can read about Simpsons episodes
> in the English Wikipedia, while those how speak Hebrew cannot.

The German Wikipedia has always had much tighter inclusion criteria
than English. While English is open to having an article on every
Pokemon, every episode of the Simpsons, and lots of other pop culture,
German has defined inclusion criteria that are much more like a
traditional encyclopedia in scope. As a result, they have
significantly fewer topics.

Andrew Lih, author the Wikipedia Revolution, pointed out a consequence
of this that I had never appreciated. Because German is much more
"encyclopedic" in scope and appearance, they also get taken more
seriously and are seen as more reliable. (Flagged revisions and other
tighter editorial controls also help.) As a result they have an
easier time approaching governments and others for assistance, such as
arranging image donations.

Historically, I've always felt more was generally better, but this
helped me realize there can also be advantages to choosing to focus on
less.


Back to the original question, given that there do exist substantial
differences in inclusion criteria even amongst the largest projects,
any attempt to standardize at this point would be massively disruptive
to someone, and so it is probably not a good idea.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Robert Rohde <rarohde@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The question is - shouldn't there be one set of standards for all
> > Wikipedias? I think it is "unfair" that I can read about Simpsons
> episodes
> > in the English Wikipedia, while those how speak Hebrew cannot.
>

And to play devil's advocate. Several of the largest wikipedias are commited
to build a true free-content encyclopedia (yes it's possible!), therefore
disallow unfree images. Yet I don't see people advocating english wikipedia
should disallow them because several large wikipedias do on behalf of
standarization.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The question is - shouldn't there be one set of standards for all
>> Wikipedias? I think it is "unfair" that I can read about Simpsons episodes
>> in the English Wikipedia, while those how speak Hebrew cannot.
>>
>
> The German Wikipedia has always had much tighter inclusion criteria
> than English. While English is open to having an article on every
> Pokemon, every episode of the Simpsons, and lots of other pop culture,
> German has defined inclusion criteria that are much more like a
> traditional encyclopedia in scope. As a result, they have
> significantly fewer topics.
>
> Andrew Lih, author the Wikipedia Revolution, pointed out a consequence
> of this that I had never appreciated. Because German is much more
> "encyclopedic" in scope and appearance, they also get taken more
> seriously and are seen as more reliable. (Flagged revisions and other
> tighter editorial controls also help.) As a result they have an
> easier time approaching governments and others for assistance, such as
> arranging image donations.
>

My experience is that people outside of Wikipedia community (the pure
users or people that only heard of Wikipedia) in Germany don't
differentiate between the qualities of the language versions. I don't
think that the quality of the German Wikipedia had the impact on the
outreach to government or libraries. It is more the organization and
professionalism of the chapter.

Personally I don't think that take the classical encyclopedia as a
measure is a good thing. The classical encyclopedia was restrained on
the unpossibility of to print books in such big volumes. An electronic
encyclopedia has far more possibilities and if we take an old fashioned
measure as our measurement we artificially abondane some of the
possibilities that the new technology offer us.

--
Ting

Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de> wrote:
> Amir Elisha Aharoni wrote:
>> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 21:09, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The question is - shouldn't there be one set of standards for all
>>> Wikipedias?

Perhaps for issues so important that they demand standardization. We
roughly try to do this for truly core policies, legal updates, &c.
Are TV-program-episode notability guidelines are one of those highly
important standards? I'm not so sure.

>> I do think that there should be one set of standards for all
>> languages. But it may be hard to enforce it on an existing community.
>
> No, because we are not able to reach a concensus across all the language
> communities. Thus each project community should reach their own
> concensus. Personally I find this diversity also a very good thing
> because one can always get ideas from other projects, good ones to
> follow, bad ones to avoid or to change.

Yes. I do think that over a longer period of time good policies for
which there is some benefit to standardization can become standard for
the larger global community. We should probably have a more definite
process for this. So far it hasn't been a critical issue (though
freeness of images has made as good an argument as any discussion I've
seen so far).

>> implications, but it is next to impossible to enforce Notability or
>> Verifiability policies.

Again, this is also true within one project. It is only 1-2
magnitudes harder across projects, not necessarily different in
quality. [.this process would be easier if the cross-wiki policy
pageson meta were clearer and easier to add to, it is true. I copy
the underused wikimediameta list for the sake of propriety...]


>> Few he-wikipedians care about it, but he.wikipedia did quite well for
>> several years without a clear written policy on any of the following:
>> Living People, Notability, Original Research and Verifiability. All
>> decisions on these matters are made ad hoc. To our friends from
>> en.wikipedia it must seem surreal :)
>>
> No, this is the ideal state. Actually I don't like written rules. Rules
> are dead things and often they don't really fit to the actual situation.
> If one can discuss every case and reach a concensus without a fix rule
> this is for me the best case. But this only works in a relatively small
> community and doesn't fit a very big and diverse community.

+1 (this is true whether the unwritten rules are 'across many wikis'
or just 'for your one wiki'... or just understood among editors in a
given subject area.)

SJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/5/3 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>:
>
> My experience is that people outside of Wikipedia community (the pure
> users or people that only heard of Wikipedia) in Germany don't
> differentiate between the qualities of the language versions. I don't
> think that the quality of the German Wikipedia had the impact on the
> outreach to government or libraries. It is more the organization and
> professionalism of the chapter.
>
> Personally I don't think that take the classical encyclopedia as a
> measure is a good thing. The classical encyclopedia was restrained on
> the unpossibility of to print books in such big volumes. An electronic
> encyclopedia has far more possibilities and if we take an old fashioned
> measure as our measurement we artificially abondane some of the
> possibilities that the new technology offer us.
>
> --
> Ting

I think that if the public does /not/ differentiate, that is actually
quite a compliment. That actually shows that the quality is better,
because it corrects for the lower quantity and the assumptions that
English must be better because more people. For example in the
Netherlands, a lot of people still say " well, yes, I use Wikipedia,
but of course only the English, which is much better and extensive" .
This while the Dutch version is absolutely not small (>500k articles)
and imho not with a very low quality. So if people don't
differentiate, that already tells something about the German version
:)

Best, Lodewijk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

effe iets anders wrote:
> I think that if the public does /not/ differentiate, that is actually
> quite a compliment. That actually shows that the quality is better,
> because it corrects for the lower quantity and the assumptions that
> English must be better because more people. For example in the
> Netherlands, a lot of people still say " well, yes, I use Wikipedia,
> but of course only the English, which is much better and extensive" .
> This while the Dutch version is absolutely not small (>500k articles)
> and imho not with a very low quality. So if people don't
> differentiate, that already tells something about the German version
> :)
>
sorrowfully I don't know dutch and nl-wp, so I cannot say about why the
dutch people would prefer en-wp. Maybe one of the reason is also because
most dutch people are really multilinguals.

There are a few reasons why some german would go for en-wp but not
de-wp. The first reason is history. Historically en-wp had more content
and was better. de-wp had catch up a lot in the last two years. But if
you had mostly used en-wp earlier, you would probably remain there and
think it is still so. This is not so, I quite sure know that. I
translate a lot of articles to zh-wp. Three years ago most of the
translations come from en-wp. Now I even think I use more de-wp as basis
for the translation than the en-wp.

I think the threshold of notability (where in de-wp is far more higher
than in en-wp). Say, I am interested in Simpsons, I would definitively
go to en-wp which have far more content about topic as in de-wp. Not all
peole search internet for information because they want to do research
work. Most of people do it because they are simply interested in
something, a place, a person or a movie, a game. In these cases a
language version like the en-wp with a lower notability threshold is
more useful.

--
Ting

Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

If the bottom line is that people resort to en-wp because they have the
information which other wikis don't have, people who cannot read English
have a disadvantage. I do not think this is the foundation's intention.

Cross-Wiki policies can be made. For example, if X (number) wikipedias have
an article about Y (subject), all other wikipedias are required to allow
creation of said article.

i.e. "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire" episode is published in no less
than 15 languages. Above policy means that the creation of this article
should be allowed in he-wp, and not deleted due to insignificance in the
eyes of 57% of the he-wp community. The bottom line is that the Hebrew
language should have a wikipedia article about said episode, and if the
community does not agree, it should be forced. Why forced? because this
situation is just ridiculous. 15 community languages think this article is
worth a page, but the he-wp community knows best. I think not.

2009/5/3 Ting Chen <wing.philopp@gmx.de>

> effe iets anders wrote:
> > I think that if the public does /not/ differentiate, that is actually
> > quite a compliment. That actually shows that the quality is better,
> > because it corrects for the lower quantity and the assumptions that
> > English must be better because more people. For example in the
> > Netherlands, a lot of people still say " well, yes, I use Wikipedia,
> > but of course only the English, which is much better and extensive" .
> > This while the Dutch version is absolutely not small (>500k articles)
> > and imho not with a very low quality. So if people don't
> > differentiate, that already tells something about the German version
> > :)
> >
> sorrowfully I don't know dutch and nl-wp, so I cannot say about why the
> dutch people would prefer en-wp. Maybe one of the reason is also because
> most dutch people are really multilinguals.
>
> There are a few reasons why some german would go for en-wp but not
> de-wp. The first reason is history. Historically en-wp had more content
> and was better. de-wp had catch up a lot in the last two years. But if
> you had mostly used en-wp earlier, you would probably remain there and
> think it is still so. This is not so, I quite sure know that. I
> translate a lot of articles to zh-wp. Three years ago most of the
> translations come from en-wp. Now I even think I use more de-wp as basis
> for the translation than the en-wp.
>
> I think the threshold of notability (where in de-wp is far more higher
> than in en-wp). Say, I am interested in Simpsons, I would definitively
> go to en-wp which have far more content about topic as in de-wp. Not all
> peole search internet for information because they want to do research
> work. Most of people do it because they are simply interested in
> something, a place, a person or a movie, a game. In these cases a
> language version like the en-wp with a lower notability threshold is
> more useful.
>
> --
> Ting
>
> Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:08, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the bottom line is that people resort to en-wp because they have the
> information which other wikis don't have, people who cannot read English
> have a disadvantage. I do not think this is the foundation's intention.

Again: if it's not in he.wikipedia, it doesn't mean that it doesn't
exist. It can be written in Hebrew in some other website.

Agreement within a given language Wikipedia community is more
important for the advancement of the Wikipedia in that language on the
whole. Taking a few articles to a different site is not a very high
price to pay for that.

> Cross-Wiki policies can be made. For example, if X (number) wikipedias have
> an article about Y (subject), all other wikipedias are required to allow
> creation of said article.
>
> i.e. "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire" episode is published in no less
> than 15 languages. Above policy means that the creation of this article
> should be allowed in he-wp, and not deleted due to insignificance in the
> eyes of 57% of the he-wp community.

Won't happen. It happens quite a lot that an article about a bogus
topic is translated to many languages, because the person trying to
promote it goes out of his way to help the well-meaning local
community members. Example:

* deleted in he and en:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shmuel_Yerushalmi_(2nd_nomination)
* ... but alive and well in es and 14 more languages:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmuel_Yerushalmi

There you go: An article in fifteen languages about a totally
non-notable poet. There are many more example of such things.

--
Amir E. Aharoni

heb: http://haharoni.wordpress.com | eng: http://aharoni.wordpress.com
cat: http://aprenent.wordpress.com | rus: http://amire80.livejournal.com

"We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace." - T. Moore

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Yoni Weiden <yonidebest@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> i.e. "Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire" episode is published in no less
> than 15 languages. Above policy means that the creation of this article
> should be allowed in he-wp, and not deleted due to insignificance in the
> eyes of 57% of the he-wp community. The bottom line is that the Hebrew
> language should have a wikipedia article about said episode, and if the
> community does not agree, it should be forced. Why forced? because this
> situation is just ridiculous. 15 community languages think this article is
> worth a page, but the he-wp community knows best. I think not.
>

I'm pretty sure he.wiki policies allow to have a page about a season
of the Simpsons where a synopsis of some or all the episodes are
present.

Cruccone

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l