Talk:Ollam
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
To delete or not to delete, that is the question...
editHey folks. It sure seems to me like this page has become positively useless now that the proper Wikitionary entry has packed most of the good stuff. The only relevant internal links point to the articles for Rí, Fili, Ollom Fotla, and Chief Ollam of Ireland, all of which, after a quick verification, would not suffer from having "ollam" being redirected to Wikitionary instead of this minute Wikipedia "article". But must also be considered the great number of pages that link here. I've checked a couple and came to the conclusion that maybe a compromise could be made between keeping this "article" as it is and deleting it outright by simply turning it into a soft redirection using the {{Wi}} template.
Whatever is decided and subsequently put into motion will entail a few hours of going through all Wikipedia articles pointing here to modify them appropriately. I'm hoping someone who uses special softwares and/or tools for editing could give us a hand, since I'm not equipped to do so. Please manifest yourselves and speak up about the destiny of this article before I simply decide to set out on the course of action I've opted for it. Cheers!
• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ {KLAT} • 08:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- The dictionary entry is just that - just the word meaning and etymology - it isn't a reasonable replacement, what really needs to happen is that the related encyclopedic entries need to be expanded to include more material relative to the social position and functions of the people who were, or are, termed ollamh.Urselius (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, my friend, if you check the article's history, you'll notice that "Ollam" has existed for more than 6 years, giving people (editors) more than plenty of time to, and I quote you, "include more material relative to the social position and functions of the people who were, or are, termed ollamh". The conclusion I and surely others have reached is that nobody's interested in doing so. Like I wrote previously, what good is it to keep such a Wikipedia article when the Wikitionary entry packs whatever interesting material gathered so far? While you state that "it isn't a reasonable replacement", I too don't believe it is a replacement: it is, in fact, the same damn thing in terms of (present) content! Why duplicate this content when it is better suited, with what we have now and certainly for years to come, for Wikitionary? Your arguments, even if honest, do not allay my severe doubts about the pertinence of this article's existence.
• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ {KLAT} • 20:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, my friend, if you check the article's history, you'll notice that "Ollam" has existed for more than 6 years, giving people (editors) more than plenty of time to, and I quote you, "include more material relative to the social position and functions of the people who were, or are, termed ollamh". The conclusion I and surely others have reached is that nobody's interested in doing so. Like I wrote previously, what good is it to keep such a Wikipedia article when the Wikitionary entry packs whatever interesting material gathered so far? While you state that "it isn't a reasonable replacement", I too don't believe it is a replacement: it is, in fact, the same damn thing in terms of (present) content! Why duplicate this content when it is better suited, with what we have now and certainly for years to come, for Wikitionary? Your arguments, even if honest, do not allay my severe doubts about the pertinence of this article's existence.