Diskussion:Ill Bethisad

message: Men snälla någon! Vad är detta? Lamré 14 januari 2005 kl.19.14 (CET)
replies: text: Det verkar vara den engelska artikeln översatt med något dåligt datorprogram. //Sten A 14 januari 2005 kl.19.44 (CET)
replies: text: :Nja, då hade nog stavningen av ord varit mer korrekt, så personen i fråga har nog försökt översätta själv, vilket är trevligt. Men, tyvärr känns det mer som reklam än något annat. Gunnar Larsson 14 januari 2005 kl.19.48 (CET)
Hej!
Det är mig hu översattet sidan.  Jag studerar Svenska på Universitat Brigham Young nu.  Jag är i Svenskurs 102, och min Svenska är inte min bäste språk.  Jag vill översatt sidan Alternativ-Historia på Svenska, men jag tenker är ska flera år i futur. BoLingua
Sorry for English intrussion, my Swedish is more than passive.
There is no Poland in Ill Bethisad, but Veneda (Slavo-romanic ethnic). Please, change it in a text.
Cheers, Jan II. from the world Ill Bethisad

message: Jag tycker inte att vi skall snabbradera somn följd av den engelska diskussionen, vilket man uppenbarligen gjort på flera andra språkversioner, utan i så fall självständigt ta upp den på SFFR! Fernbom2 18 november 2009 kl. 13.34 (CET)
replies: text: Jag tycker att den kan raderas på en gång. Om man inte lyckas hitta källor till den på enwiki, så kommer det inte att göras här heller. Faller på avsaknad av verfierbarhet. Henrik Sundbom 18 november 2009 kl. 19.59 (CET)
replies: text: :Jag förstår tyvärr lika lite holländska som Ijzeren Jan förstår svenska, och jag kan tänka mig att de flesta läsare inte heller förstår det. Hade inte tidigare upptäckt att artikeln på enwp togs bort för så länge sedan som två år sedan. Snabbradera inte, men överväg sffr. Henrik Sundbom 19 november 2009 kl. 22.50 (CET)
replies: text: ::Hehe, I can understand as much Swedish as to have a basic idea what you write, Henrik. Indeed, the deletion discussion at enwiki took place almost two years ago, and Ill Bethisad has been discussed or at least mentioned in several publications since then. The Dutch shouldn't scare anybody off - just have a look at the references. I'm not saying these should settle the issue, but they should at least make it clear that the non-notability of the subject is far from obvious. Cheers, IJzeren Jan 19 november 2009 kl. 23.04 (CET)
Hello! If I may weigh in here: I have no idea what's going on here, but it seems like some vandal is trying to get all articles about Ill Bethisad deleted from other language editions. Sadly, it seems he has succeeded in a few cases. His only argument appears to be that the article from wp.en has been deleted as well, almost two years ago (!). Well, as far as I know, there is no policy that says that deletion discussions about other language editions take place in the English version. Besides, the project is referred to in several most independent sources, including a German scientific paper, a Polish magazine, and as far as I know, as few books. I have no idea what the motive behind this crusade is, but if I may make a humble suggestion: don't pay attention. Thanks! :nl:Gebruiker:IJzeren Jan, 19 november 2009 kl. 04.17 (CET)
As for the notability question: I have added a few references to the Dutch article, which has already been undeleted: :nl:Ill Bethisad. I would happily add them myself, but unfortunately I don't know any Swedish. Regards, IJzeren Jan 19 november 2009 kl. 15.36 (CET)

text: What makes this relevant? It sounds like a hobby project. E.G. den 20 november 2009 kl. 16.44 (CET)
replies: text: :It ís a hobby project, just like any other form of non-commercial art is. The same can after all be said of most constructed languages as well: Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Ithkuil, Khuzdul, Lingua Franca Nova, Lojban, Quenya, Slovio, Toki pona... all hobby projects. Same goes for the works of Homeros and Shakespeare. And for Wikipedia, for that matter. Does that make them less relevant?

text: :The relevance of Ill Bethisad, I think, lies in two things. First of all, it is probably the oldest and largest alternate history project created online, and probably the most elaborated alternate history project ever created in general. Secondly, it is highly centered around constructed languages. Ill Bethisad is the cradle of an entire subgenre of constructed languages, the so-called alternative languages. It forms the artistic background of at least two languages whose relevance is well-documented and beyond dispute. I have carefully tried to avoid any links to internet fora, mailing lists and the like, but it is a fact that Ill Bethisad is a well-known phenomenon among people interested in althistory and/or constructed languages.

text: :Cheers, IJzeren Jan 20 november 2009 kl. 19.11 (CET)
replies: text: ::There is of course a difference: what we do at Wikipedia is made for the public eye, the creators of Esperanto and Volapük published their works for everyone to see, Shakespeare was paid for his works. If you write a novel which you don't publish, it is not relevant, but if you write a novel and sell it in many copies, it might be relevant. The former is a hobby writer, the later is a profesional writer.

text: ::Has any of the works created in Ill Bethisad ever been published and sold to people outside of the project? Has the project been subject to any social scientific studies? Is it well known by people not really interested in it? What are those languages "whose relevance is well-documented and beyond dispute"?

text: ::I must say I have never heard of Ill Bethisad before today, and I am still not uninterested in languages or novels of alternate history. E.G. den 20 november 2009 kl. 19.43 (CET)
replies: text: :::Of course, you are right. But let's be honest, Shakespeare's work is relevant not because he was paid for it, but because of all the noise that was made about it by others. I think it is pretty dangerous to use money as a quantifier for the relevance of art. As far as "publishing" goes, I think you should distinguish here between the pre-internet and the internet era. In the former, a book or a magazine was practically the only way for sharing anything with the rest of the world. Nowadays, things are different: whatever you have to share with the world, you can simply put it on a website, and presto: it has been published (= made public). Of course, you won't make any money that way, but perhaps that is not the point at all. A website nobody visits is not something substantially different from a book nobody reads.

text: :::To answer your second question: as far I'm aware, nothing has ever been sold. But again, selling something has never been the objective of the project. A novel is about to be published, but that is a side thing rather than the purpose. Ill Bethisad is an internet phenomenon, and as such you can only judge it by the attention it has attracted. The sources I give should give an indication that it has received some in the regular press. How well-known it is outside a certain realm... well, hard to say, really. Links to IB-related material appear regularly in all kinds of blogs and discussion groups. Here in Poland I've stumbed upon people who knew about the project without knowing that I was involved in it myself; possibly because it has been written about by a popular-scientific paper and by one of the largest internet portals in Poland. But honestly, I have no idea how well-known the project really is among people who are not interested in conlangs or althistory. Not that it matters much, though; how many people have heard of naphthoquinone? ;)

text: :::As far as the languages go, by "whose relevance is well-documented and beyond dispute" I mean that their presence in Wikipedia is not questionable, because they match all the notability criteria necessary for inclusion (articles in the popular and scientific press, referred to in books, etc.). That goes for Brithenig and Wenedyk. As a matter of fact, Brithenig is one of the very few constructed languages that have an ISO-639-3 code.

text: :::Cheers, IJzeren Jan 20 november 2009 kl. 21.19 (CET)
replies: text: ::::You are answering my text peice by piece, but that was not my intention for it. I was trying to give you an impression of what it is that makes things notable. You still seem to have a feeling for that, with the rumour Shakespeare made for himself. But please, explain the notority and relevance of Ill Bethisad instead of discussing what makes other things relevant enough to include in Wikipedia. E.G. den 21 november 2009 kl. 00.12 (CET)
*The article should be deleted as Original research (for more information see :en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ill Bethisad). The sources are either trivial, or not independent, or not reliable. Actually the user IJzeren Jan has a conflict of interest with the subject (see here: "I am personally involved in: Ill Bethisad"). Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.  Algébrico 20 november 2009 kl. 23.15 (CET)

text: :There is no reason at all to turn this into a personal attack. I have never denied that I am personally involved in the project. It is not only written on my English user page, I also wrote it here above (you would have noticed if you had cared to read it, which you obviously didn't). However, providing reliable sources has nothing in common with conflicts of interest. On the contrary, I think a person who knows what he is talking about can be of some value in any discussion. I suppose you wouldn't deny a Catholic priest the right to participate in a discussion about the Roman Catholic Church rites, now would you? Besides, I am acting honestly and openly, under my own name and in my own field of expertise and interest. Can you say the same about yourself?

text: :It might be of interest for you to know that my primary interest on Wikipedia is linguistics, mostly focused on constructed languages. Among other things, I am the author of most articles in the field on the Dutch wikipedia, and I also maintain the Constructed Languages Portal at wp.en, among other things. My involvement in this discussion is therefore also the logical extension of my broader interests. I have participated in many deletion debates before, although I generally avoid talking about subjects I'm not competent in.

text: :It may sound odd to you, but I have no interest whatsoever in perserving any of the articles that you so vehemently try to have deleted. Of course, I am happy when people visit Ill Bethisad and enjoy it, but that is about as far as it goes. Nobody in Ill Bethisad is trying to make money with it, and that is not what the project is for. Deletion of all wikipedia articles, as you seem to endeavour, would probably mean a few visitors less, but we are in no way dependent on those visitors. What makes my blood boil, however, is highly offensive texts like "cross-wiki spam". In case you haven't noticed, "spam" means "aggressive, undesired advertisement". As far as I can judge, the articles about Ill Bethisad have an informative and not an advertising character, and they are definitely not aimed at selling something. They have been written by different people at different times. There is nothing aggressive or otherwise offensive about them either; if you are not interested, simply don't read them, just like I don't read articles about biochemistry or porn actresses. I always find it strange how some people seem to feel offended by the presence of articles about subjects that don't interest them. Besides, you might have noticed that I'm nowhere saying the article must be preserved; I am merely providing arguments, and disputing deletion for the wrong reasons.

text: :I'm not sure what you mean by "disrupting Wikipedia". Perhaps you could explain that. To be frank, you seem to be the person who is disrupting wikipedia by violating standard procedure. First of all, when you want an article deleted, you can nominate it and open a discussion; you haven't done that anywhere, which is not only disrespectful to the authors of the articles, but also to the wikipedia editions themselves. Secondly, you have to provide good arguments; your only argument is a link to a discussion at wp.en, which took place almost two years ago. To say the least, I find it strange that you accuse me of disruption, while I am the one who is operating openly and providing arguments, neither of which can be said of yourself. I would very much like to know the real motives behind your crusade.

text: :"The sources are either trivial, or not independent, or not reliable" - it is easy for you to say that, but I have a feeling that you'd even have written that if Ill Bethisad had made it to the frontpage of The Times. I maintain that they are none of these qualifications apply to the sources given. If you make bold statements like this, you should at least take the effort to prove your point. IJzeren Jan 21 november 2009 kl. 03.18 (CET)
replies: text: ::Please note that this is Swedish Wikipedia. There is no need to import conflicts from other languages. There is also no need for Swedish users to judge this article based on arguments presented in English. This is obvious cross-wiki spam, no matter when the articles were created. Usually, people only write articles in languages they know. When they start creating articles in languages they don't know through automated translation pages, that's usually a clue to that said user is spamming... /Grillo 21 november 2009 kl. 04.10 (CET)
replies: text: :::Of course, it was not my intention to import any conflicts to Swedish Wikipedia. I merely noticed that something weird was going on and decided to make a statement and provide some source material. Please take it for what it is worth and by all means continue the discussion in Swedish. Do note, however, that I take offense to the term "spam" for the reasons I stated above; if the notability of a subject is less than obvious, that doesn't automatically turn it into spam. I have not written the article (and if you don't believe me, ask a checkuser). If it is true that the article looks like an automated translation page, that is a sad thing, but even then you should consider the possibility that it was written by a person whose L1 is not Swedish but who is still acting in good faith. Besides, even if an article has been written by the wrong person, that doesn't make the subject more or less notable. Greetings, IJzeren Jan 21 november 2009 kl. 05.30 (CET)
replies: text: ::::Förste, förlåt för mitt hemskt svenska. Jag har skrivet den här artikeln.  Och det är klart att jag är en av många som ha del i Ill Bethisads Gruppen.  Om jag har skrivade den har jag inte beskrivade den som "cross-wiki spam" - jag skrivade artikeln eftersom vi har två av våra grupp som bor i Sverige, och i Conculturekrets Ill Bethisad är jätte betydelsefull.  Jag finns att det är en typ korståg för Algébrico att eliminera alla artiklar som hållar med Ill Bethisad - kanske jag är inte rätt.  Förhöppningsvis.

text: ::::Alltidigt, det behov av alla redigerar här att korar, och jag måste accepterar vad som komma.  Tak så mycket för er tid. BoLingua 23 november 2009 kl. 18.28 (CET)
thread_title:  Radering