Talk:Classifier constructions in sign languages
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Rosguill in topic "Polymorphemic verb" listed at Redirects for discussion
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Proposed merge with Classifier handshape
editClassifier construction is broader and has more content, no point having two articles on basically the same topic. Wug·a·po·des 22:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Classifier handshapes would warrant their own article. Incorporating it as it is now would be problematic for two reasons. First of all there practically no sources and secondly they are already described in the article as "whole entity" classifiers. It would put undue weight on them if they were the only ones being described in detail. I think it would make more sense to just link to this article from the bigger classifier constructions article.--Megaman en m (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- If there aren't sources, it shouldn't have its own article per WP:N. I'm not particularly worried about undue weight here. We aren't saying that handshapes are the most important part, the other parts just haven't been written yet. Wug·a·po·des 09:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'd have no problem with it if there were proper sources. I'd find some, but I wouldn't know where to begin to find sources for these specific claims. As it stands, I would remove any claim added without citation in the interest of maintaining a high level of verifiability.--Megaman en m (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- I just redirected it then. If coverage of classifier handshapes gets large enough to spin out into its own article, someone can just remove the redirect. Wug·a·po·des 16:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'd have no problem with it if there were proper sources. I'd find some, but I wouldn't know where to begin to find sources for these specific claims. As it stands, I would remove any claim added without citation in the interest of maintaining a high level of verifiability.--Megaman en m (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- If there aren't sources, it shouldn't have its own article per WP:N. I'm not particularly worried about undue weight here. We aren't saying that handshapes are the most important part, the other parts just haven't been written yet. Wug·a·po·des 09:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
"Depictive construction" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Depictive construction. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 06:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
"Polymorphemic verb" listed at Redirects for discussion
edit An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Polymorphemic verb. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 06:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)