Difference between revisions of "Talk:Portal:List of portals"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Dkleinecke (talk | contribs) (New page: At the very least Glottopedia needs a portal for "Historical Linguistics" and I would advocate one for "Linguistic Classification" as well. At this point I don't feel close enough to the p...) |
Wohlgemuth (talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Yiyuan (talk) to last revision by Wohlgemuth) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
At the very least Glottopedia needs a portal for "Historical Linguistics" and I would advocate one for "Linguistic Classification" as well. At this point I don't feel close enough to the project to actually edit in these changes. [[User:Dkleinecke|Dkleinecke]] 00:21, 27 October 2007 (CEST) | At the very least Glottopedia needs a portal for "Historical Linguistics" and I would advocate one for "Linguistic Classification" as well. At this point I don't feel close enough to the project to actually edit in these changes. [[User:Dkleinecke|Dkleinecke]] 00:21, 27 October 2007 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Note that there is a proposed portal called "Diachrony" (this is also the name of the corresponding category). You might want to make a case to rename it, but I find it more elegant than "historical linguistics" (and note that one can study languages like Latin or Sumerian purely synchronically). As for "classification", I would prefer the term "genealogical classification", because it is more precise.--[[User:Haspelmath|Haspelmath]] 18:13, 28 October 2007 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :How about one for typology?[[User:MagnusPH|MagnusPH]] 21:16, 10 January 2008 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Actually, the choice of topics for portals should be quite free. If someone wants to write lots of articles on artificial auxiliary languages and maintain a portal on interlinguistics, why not? Typology certainly seems suitable as well, though it's not so clear that typology has its own subject matter (it rather seems to be defined by the perspective it takes -- cross-linguistic). Anyway, what Glottopedia needs most urgently is more articles -- portals make sense only if they give access to articles.--[[User:Haspelmath|Haspelmath]] 13:01, 11 January 2008 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::: Portals also make sense to collect desiderata and to coordinate writing, editing and maintenance of articles. If someone creates a portal and takes care of "filling" it and the articles associated with it, that should be fine. --[[User:Wohlgemuth|Wohlgemuth]] 12:11, 27 June 2008 (CEST) | ||
Latest revision as of 07:57, 13 April 2012
At the very least Glottopedia needs a portal for "Historical Linguistics" and I would advocate one for "Linguistic Classification" as well. At this point I don't feel close enough to the project to actually edit in these changes. Dkleinecke 00:21, 27 October 2007 (CEST)
- Note that there is a proposed portal called "Diachrony" (this is also the name of the corresponding category). You might want to make a case to rename it, but I find it more elegant than "historical linguistics" (and note that one can study languages like Latin or Sumerian purely synchronically). As for "classification", I would prefer the term "genealogical classification", because it is more precise.--Haspelmath 18:13, 28 October 2007 (CET)
- How about one for typology?MagnusPH 21:16, 10 January 2008 (CET)
- Actually, the choice of topics for portals should be quite free. If someone wants to write lots of articles on artificial auxiliary languages and maintain a portal on interlinguistics, why not? Typology certainly seems suitable as well, though it's not so clear that typology has its own subject matter (it rather seems to be defined by the perspective it takes -- cross-linguistic). Anyway, what Glottopedia needs most urgently is more articles -- portals make sense only if they give access to articles.--Haspelmath 13:01, 11 January 2008 (CET)
- Portals also make sense to collect desiderata and to coordinate writing, editing and maintenance of articles. If someone creates a portal and takes care of "filling" it and the articles associated with it, that should be fine. --Wohlgemuth 12:11, 27 June 2008 (CEST)
