Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010, Carcharoth wrote: > >> But really, if something is obscure enough that it doesn't get >> published in reliable sources, you are stuck. What I would support in >> such cases is an external link to a page documenting this. Kind of >> like further reading. >> > > The *character* is in a reliable source, it's just that the fact that it was > based off a fandom joke or that the character's "creator" thought it was > preexisting are not in reliable sources. > > Why is this any different from any other kind of "arcana"? And do people really lose sleep over this sort of thing? There must be a huge amount of insider-like knowledge associated with politics, sport, business, whatever. If we wait until this becomes "information" - is documented in at least some literature about the area - that should be fine. Most specialist areas have at least a magazine. I don't think simply multiplying instances where at the margin the content policy works as it is intended to by itself undermines its purpose.
Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
