Talk:Lower Sorbian language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorbian Wikipedias[edit]

There is a bug report at Bugzilla requesting the creation of Wikipedias for Lower Sorbian (dsb:) and Upper Sorbian (hsb:). If anyone else is interested in seeing these Wikipedias created, please log on to Bugzilla and vote for the bug. User:Angr 10:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - it has now been created, according to the List of Wikipedias. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On not unnecessarily avoiding redirects[edit]

As WP:NOTBROKEN explains, there are plenty of concrete reasons not to write [[Upper Sorbian language|Upper Sorbian]] when Upper Sorbian is a redirect to Upper Sorbian language:

  1. It unnecessarily increases the size of the article.
  2. It makes the edit box harder to read.
  3. If Upper Sorbian language ever gets moved to Upper Sorbian (which might happen since that name isn't ambiguous), you'd just have to move it back again.
  4. None of the exceptions mentioned at WP:NOTBROKEN applies here, so there's no reason not to follow the guideline.
  5. Writing [[Upper Sorbian language|Upper Sorbian]] is utterly pointless and has absolutely no benefits.

In short, writing [[Upper Sorbian language|Upper Sorbian]] instead of simply [[Upper Sorbian]] makes this article worse. —Angr (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give you my take on this:
  1. By a staggering 23 bytes!
  2. If one has trouble reading syntax this simple, then one should take a little time to familiarize oneself with it (that's what I did when I was new, now it doesn't make it harder to read for me), as there are plenty of cases where this and more complicated syntax has to present itself.
  3. If you think it should move, do it/request it, otherwise it's my time to "waste" (see below). Also, when I believe a link to a redirect could be a viable candidate for a separate article, I keep it for the reason listed at WP:NOTBROKEN.
  4. It doesn't say one should revert those who ignore it for some reason, see below.
  5. Well, the little "redirected from ..." box in the upper left has a tendency to distract me. And even the fact that the redirect's URL is shown by the browser has managed to bug me a few times (yes, really!). I know, these things must look like splitting hairs to you, but I have not seen any reason why your browsing/editing experience would really be worse off when bypassed. I once came across a case in which this was the case, and then I'm happy to accept it.
In short, for me it gets a little better, so if it doesn't make your experience worse off, what's wrong with keeping it? --JorisvS (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lower Sorbian language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 January 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Lower Sorbian language → Lower Sorbian – I'm requesting a move to the new article, along with its associated talk page, because per WP:NCL, there's nothing else called 'Lower Sorbian'. PK2 (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck███ 22:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PK2 and Buidhe: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The convention is to include "language" even when there is not another article to disambiguate from. Also, Lower Sorbian people also exist. (t · c) buidhe 09:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Lower Sorbian" is the general adjective for everything related to the Lower Sorbs (also called "Lower Sorbians", German: Niedersorben). There is no primary topic, so the natural disambiguator "language" is required per WP:NCL. –Austronesier (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no benefit to readers. As stated "Lower Sorbian" is the general adjective for everything related to the Lower Sorbs In ictu oculi (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lower_Sorbian_language&oldid=1205555917"