Talk:Ivan Karasev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merge proposal

Arahau seems to be notable only in the scope of this writer's works. I propose to merge that article into the article about the writer. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Arahau is not less known language, than sona, ro, aUI, edo etc. These languages are present on pages Wikipedia though about their authors it is not known. These articles cannot even be merged with author's works... Esperanto at first there was a language known as the author's project. Your opinion prejudicedly.Neemus (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a proof that Arahau is a well known language. Currently all the proof is on the author's own website. This is a self-published source, which is not a good proof.

Note, that i am not proposing to delete Arahau completely, but to merge it into this article.

(Если тяжело, можешь писать по-русски, я переведу.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Amir, я и не утверждаю, что арахау является Most notable conlangs. Но с другой стороны отличие от большинства других конлангов разительные. Это и подвигло на написание отдельной статьи. Источников, наверное все-таки чуть больше чем авторский сай. Neemus (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(Translation of Neemus' message) Amir, i am not claiming that Arahau is among "Most notable conlangs". But on the other hand the difference between it and most other conlangs are striking. That's why a separate article was written. There are more sources here than the author's site. (translation by Amir E. Aharoni (talk))

А я вот как раз не вижу существенных источников, кроме авторского сайта. Детальное описание языка в википедии основано только на авторском сайте, а это primary source (см. WP:PSTS). Omiglot и garshin.ru ничего не добавляют, так как на них всё переписано с авторского сайта, а Langmaker это вики, а потому неприемлемый источник, см. WP:SPS. Прошу простить за использование этих бюрократических сокращений, но эти правила очень логичны. Нет смысла переписывать всю информацию с авторского сайта сюда, достаточно дать ссылку.

(Translation:) Actually i don't see any significant sources except the author's site. A detailed description of the language in Wikipedia is based only on the author's site, which is a primary source (see WP:SPS). Omniglot and garshin.ru don't add anything, because all the information there is copied from the author's site, and Langmaker is a wiki and hence not an acceptable source (see WP:SPS). I am sorry about using such bureaucratic acronyms, but these rules make a lot sense. There is no point in copying all the information from the author's site here, it is enough to provide a link. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Если следовать логике вики-правил, то удалить бы следавало за недастаточность источников статьи о Ro, aUI, Sona etc. (Честно сказать, этого бы не хотелось: конланги все-таки любопытны сами по себе; иногда надо следовать не только букве закона, но и его духу). Конечно, арахау не эсперанто, но проект ведь не сиротский... Вообще, считаю к искусственным языкам должны существовать несколько иные критерии отбора. Неудивительно, что до сих пор не появились статьи об эльюнди, ларимин и Ygyde. Neemus (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm against merging the language's stub article with the author's biography because it interferes with indexing the language. That is, it makes Wikipedia a worse encyclopedia to merge the articles. As for notability, constructing a language is a large effort, at least comparable to any of an author's other book-length works, which also are described and indexed separately. Ray Van De Walker (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)