Talk:Schola Gladiatoria

List of competitions & instructors[edit]

Matt,
I think it would be a good idea to keep the list of competitions and attending instructors. At least some of them. Ulrich von Lichtenstein (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Schola Gladiatoria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Advertisement![edit]

So when do you plan to write an actual article? --91.5.102.128 (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anon, this article is not protected, so anyone is welcome to edit it, including yourself. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This article (...) may interest only a particular audience"[edit]

Please excuse my naivety and consider these two questions as 'actual', i.e. genuine questions free of rhetoric, irony etc.. Just wondering, since I had been abstinent from contributing to wikipedia for over a decade. I am not related in any way with Mr. Easton or HEMA in general, the only relation is me occasionally stumbling upon and viewing a video or reading a forum post when looking for information on traditional blade shapes and geometries as well as the context of their use.

What size of audience is large enough to not be considered too particular/peculiar to not be a potential candidate for deletion? The entity's (schola gladiatoria) youtube channel has regularly ca. 200k 'views' per video (in quotation marks because actual number the video has been watched can be considered a multiple of youtube's 'views', >250k subscribers for the channel. HEMA seems, at a glance, to be of interest for hundred thousands of people and this is an article appears in an immediate context to the subject. I am asking because if I return to contributing to wikipedia this question seems relevant to me in the context of whether an article is worth the effort of e.g. redacting an article, correcting grammar and spelling, and/or, if applicable, contributing citable/referenced content and/or missing references. (Yes I do rtfm - habitually ;-> still not clear though).

What are logically comprehensible, transparent arguments to not preserve knowledge of particular interest, relevant to 'only' a few? (As long as quality standards are met, naturally). A bit of lunch break OSint harvesting suggests that wikipedia is well equipped financially as well as re. competent staff, etc., to provide data storage figuratively in abundance. When taking a 'classic' encyclopedia as reference (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica) one of the hallmarks of an encyclopedia in comparison to, say, a textbook, advertising or propaganda has always been the intricate level of detail and the inclusion and preservation of oddities and rarely used terms relevant only to few. In this context, I wonder why a few kB are considered to be 'too particular' even if only a dozen people are interested in the topic - given the article serves the minimum standards of a neutral source of knowledge, void of propaganda, not blatantly abusive advertising/pr, citations that reference what is stated in the article, etc., of course.

TL;DR What is the minimum number of people interested for an article to be not 'too particular'? (Rough estimate would be fine since there seems to be no definition of a discrete threshold). In an era where the price of storage and network traffic for a few dozen Kilobytes is small enough to be barely tangible, what are the actual arguments (i.e. not opinions, claims, but logically comprehensible, transparent reasoning) to not include 'particular topics' of (currently) only seemingly of interest to a small number of people?

Well, I did refer to my possible, or perceived as such, naivety but these questions jump into (figuratively) anyone's face who is for the first time seriously trying to contribute, or as in my case when returning after a longish leave of absence. I do consider wikipedia in general as one of the most important innovations of the last few decades but have also learned to despise the amount of illogical emotionality that sometimes tends to erupt in this context. A link pointing me to sth helpful re. my question would be highly appreciated, a direct answer even more (though I wouldn't dare to hope... ;-) ). Cheers \m/