I believe that RichardLitt/endangered-languages is an awesome list. However, it does not match
the stipulations set in https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/issues/926 as to what an awesome
list should look like. For instance, I use GitHub descriptions instead of other descriptions for
repositories. I also include everything I can, because that is the point of the list - we use
stars to show what is popular, which is a metric of awesome contents, as opposed to having only
awesome contents. I do not want to change the whole list to match the awesome-styleguides, as that
would be arduous and I am not convinced it would improve the point of the list.
I have written about this list elsewhere, and I would like to keep it as it is currently formatted,
although I agree that it would be great if it were better in places. However, I'll get to that
when I get to it. For now, I am making this PR to suggest that the list be removed. I'd rather it
was not, but I'm trying to be respectful of @sindresorhus's wishes for list standards.
🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.
## 📋 Pull Request Information
**Original PR:** https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/pull/936
**Author:** [@RichardLitt](https://github.com/RichardLitt)
**Created:** 4/17/2017
**Status:** ✅ Merged
**Merged:** 7/6/2017
**Merged by:** [@sindresorhus](https://github.com/sindresorhus)
**Base:** `master` ← **Head:** `feat/remove-end-langs`
---
### 📝 Commits (1)
- [`eb30312`](https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/commit/eb303123b8cb029dfcbb3c873cb28d2aadb2e5dd) Remove endangered-languages
### 📊 Changes
**1 file changed** (+0 additions, -1 deletions)
<details>
<summary>View changed files</summary>
📝 `readme.md` (+0 -1)
</details>
### 📄 Description
I believe that RichardLitt/endangered-languages _is_ an awesome list. However, it does not match
the stipulations set in https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/issues/926 as to what an awesome
list should look like. For instance, I use GitHub descriptions instead of other descriptions for
repositories. I also include everything I can, because that is the point of the list - we use
stars to show what is popular, which is a metric of awesome contents, as opposed to having only
awesome contents. I do not want to change the whole list to match the awesome-styleguides, as that
would be arduous and I am not convinced it would improve the point of the list.
I have written about this list elsewhere, and I would like to keep it as it is currently formatted,
although I agree that it would be great if it were better in places. However, I'll get to that
when I get to it. For now, I am making this PR to suggest that the list be removed. I'd rather it
was not, but I'm trying to be respectful of @sindresorhus's wishes for list standards.
---
<sub>🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.</sub>
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
📋 Pull Request Information
Original PR: https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/pull/936
Author: @RichardLitt
Created: 4/17/2017
Status: ✅ Merged
Merged: 7/6/2017
Merged by: @sindresorhus
Base:
master← Head:feat/remove-end-langs📝 Commits (1)
eb30312Remove endangered-languages📊 Changes
1 file changed (+0 additions, -1 deletions)
View changed files
📝
readme.md(+0 -1)📄 Description
I believe that RichardLitt/endangered-languages is an awesome list. However, it does not match
the stipulations set in https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/issues/926 as to what an awesome
list should look like. For instance, I use GitHub descriptions instead of other descriptions for
repositories. I also include everything I can, because that is the point of the list - we use
stars to show what is popular, which is a metric of awesome contents, as opposed to having only
awesome contents. I do not want to change the whole list to match the awesome-styleguides, as that
would be arduous and I am not convinced it would improve the point of the list.
I have written about this list elsewhere, and I would like to keep it as it is currently formatted,
although I agree that it would be great if it were better in places. However, I'll get to that
when I get to it. For now, I am making this PR to suggest that the list be removed. I'd rather it
was not, but I'm trying to be respectful of @sindresorhus's wishes for list standards.
🔄 This issue represents a GitHub Pull Request. It cannot be merged through Gitea due to API limitations.