Difference between revisions of "Talk:Flemish"
From Conservapedia
(In defence of Flemish...) |
(We encourage conciseness here.) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I can see why you suggest this. However, the article is no shorter than many in the 'Category:Languages' list, to which it might usefully be linked; unless all of these are merged with the 'mother nation', it would seem inconsistent to do so with Flemish. I'll try and add a bit more information, though. | I can see why you suggest this. However, the article is no shorter than many in the 'Category:Languages' list, to which it might usefully be linked; unless all of these are merged with the 'mother nation', it would seem inconsistent to do so with Flemish. I'll try and add a bit more information, though. | ||
+ | |||
+ | :This article seems to be a shining example the kind of concise article Conservapedia wants. At [[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia]] (4.) it is clearly mentioned that ''We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts.'' | ||
+ | :[[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 08:25, 19 May 2007 (EDT) |
Revision as of 12:25, May 19, 2007
I can see why you suggest this. However, the article is no shorter than many in the 'Category:Languages' list, to which it might usefully be linked; unless all of these are merged with the 'mother nation', it would seem inconsistent to do so with Flemish. I'll try and add a bit more information, though.
- This article seems to be a shining example the kind of concise article Conservapedia wants. At Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia (4.) it is clearly mentioned that We encourage conciseness here, like a true encyclopedia. Wikipedia implicitly encourages (through its use of stubs) long-winded, verbose entries, making it difficult to recognize the essential facts.
- Auld Nick 08:25, 19 May 2007 (EDT)