On Dec 31, 2007 10:30 AM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2007, George Herbert
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 30, 2007 5:32 PM, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/12/2007, George Herbert
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Before you go off too far on this idea, I'm
about to float something
on wikien-l about a new "Trivia:" namespace...
If it's encyclopaedic, it should go in the main namespace, if it's
not, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Either way, a trivia namespace is
not required.
Trivia is not for non-encyclopedic stuff. It's for stuff about which
notability has not achieved consensus, but which has some claim to
notability.
That just moves the goalposts, it doesn't solve anything. You would
still need notability requirements in the trivia namespace, just
weaker ones.
Yes.
If you can do without them in the trivia namespace,
you
can do without them in the main namespace, and then there's no need
for a trivia namespace.
That does not logically follow at all.
Whatever way you look at it, either a trivia
namespace won't work, or it's not needed.
This does not logically follow at all.
This should go to the discussion when I post to wikien-l, but ...
please think it out.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com