Difference between revisions of "Talk:Flemish"
(In defence of Flemish...) |
(Those are the 'the essential facts'.) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| 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) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Not so shiny. It merely likens Flemish to Dutch and says it's spoken in Belgium. I vote for a merge and redirect: | ||
| + | *[[Belgium]] because it's spoken there; or, | ||
| + | *[[List of European languages]] or [[Languages of Europe]] - a proposed article on the languages of Europe. This would be especially useful for countries which don't have a national language. I assume they speak Polish in Poland, and French in France, but where is German spoken? In Austria as well as in Germany? | ||
| + | |||
| + | There's "concise", and there's also "too short to be of any real use". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:36, 19 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: ''too short to be of any real use'' - <winces>. I'd say certainly better to have an article on European languages than to merge Flemish in Belgium. But this raises the points: | ||
| + | 1. Europe has dozens of languages, many current, many extinct. Such an article would be very large. | ||
| + | 2. It's easy to say, for example, that the national languages of Belgium are Flemish and French, and link to each. | ||
| + | 3. If Flemish were only part of a Eur,. languages section, we'd have to say, in the Belgium article, something cumbersome like 'the antional languages... are french and Flemish (see [[European Languages]]).. | ||
| + | 4. If Flemish were to be subsumed within Belgium, people who wanted to read about Belgium would learn about Flemish, but someone searching for European languages might miss it; | ||
| + | |||
| + | and finally | ||
| + | |||
| + | 5. If Flemish were to be just a sub-section of Belgium,but multi-nation languages like English, French and German had separate language categories, it would lead to what is in effect preferential treat,ment for those multi nation languages, even though many single-nation languages are in many ways as important. | ||
| + | |||
| + | My recommendation, for what it's worth, is to go with a separate entry for Flemish (and indeed for other languages) within a 'languages' category. I know this might mean a lot of small articles, and I can appreciate that many users don't look on that with favour, but it seems less an issue tonline than in, say, a paper encyclopaedia. [[User:Alba|Alba]] 08:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :"''Not so shiny. It merely likens Flemish to Dutch and says it's spoken in Belgium.''" Those are the ''essential facts''. The Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_%28linguistics%29] is longer, but essentially states the same but also includes links to three ''long-winded, verbose entries'' on various Flemishes. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:25, 19 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 15:25, 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)
Not so shiny. It merely likens Flemish to Dutch and says it's spoken in Belgium. I vote for a merge and redirect:
- Belgium because it's spoken there; or,
- List of European languages or Languages of Europe - a proposed article on the languages of Europe. This would be especially useful for countries which don't have a national language. I assume they speak Polish in Poland, and French in France, but where is German spoken? In Austria as well as in Germany?
There's "concise", and there's also "too short to be of any real use". --Ed Poor 08:36, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- too short to be of any real use - <winces>. I'd say certainly better to have an article on European languages than to merge Flemish in Belgium. But this raises the points:
1. Europe has dozens of languages, many current, many extinct. Such an article would be very large. 2. It's easy to say, for example, that the national languages of Belgium are Flemish and French, and link to each. 3. If Flemish were only part of a Eur,. languages section, we'd have to say, in the Belgium article, something cumbersome like 'the antional languages... are french and Flemish (see European Languages).. 4. If Flemish were to be subsumed within Belgium, people who wanted to read about Belgium would learn about Flemish, but someone searching for European languages might miss it;
and finally
5. If Flemish were to be just a sub-section of Belgium,but multi-nation languages like English, French and German had separate language categories, it would lead to what is in effect preferential treat,ment for those multi nation languages, even though many single-nation languages are in many ways as important.
My recommendation, for what it's worth, is to go with a separate entry for Flemish (and indeed for other languages) within a 'languages' category. I know this might mean a lot of small articles, and I can appreciate that many users don't look on that with favour, but it seems less an issue tonline than in, say, a paper encyclopaedia. Alba 08:50, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
- "Not so shiny. It merely likens Flemish to Dutch and says it's spoken in Belgium." Those are the essential facts. The Wikipedia article [1] is longer, but essentially states the same but also includes links to three long-winded, verbose entries on various Flemishes. Auld Nick 11:25, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
