Difference between revisions of "Talk:Flemish"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(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 08:25, 19 May 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)