Talk:North Slavic languages

no reputable sources

No reputable sources provided about "real" linguistics. mikka (t) 17:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Then remove the disputable first and fourth paragraph, but there is no need to delete the whole article as those artificial "North Slavic" languages have really been created. Miaow Miaow 21:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow, no less than FOUR templates in one short article. Well, no need for the first paragraph; two authoritative sources have already been provided for that. As for the fourth, I have to look for that. --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 21:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Please take a lok at Talk:List of fictional languages. mikka (t) 22:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggested references

The following references have been suggested in the course of the deletion debate.

• this or this publication by Prof. Kortlandt
• Some links, though (via google): [1] [2]
• Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett, The Slavonic languages (London, 1993), p. 75, pp. 115-119 and several other places in the same book.
• Andrii Danylenko. "The 'Greek Accusative' vs. the 'New Slavic Accusative' in the Impersonal Environment: an Areal or Structural Discrepancy?", from the ICHL Indo-European Workshop, August 2005.
• Tommola, Hannu. 2000. "On the Perfect in North Slavic." Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 441-478.
• Hult, Arne. "On the verbal morphology of the South Slavic languages (in comparison with the North Slavic languages, especially Russian", Papers from First Conference on Formal Approaches to South Slavic Languages. Plovdiv October 1995. Dragvoll, University of Trondheim, Linguistics Department (= University of Trondheim. Working Papers in Linguistics 28), ss. 105-35. (23)
• Timberlake, Alan. 1978. On the History of the Velar Phonemes in North Slavic [in Russian with English synopsis]. In Henrik Birnbaum, ed., American Contributions to the Eighth International Congress of Slavists, vol. 1, Linguistics and Poetics. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable than myself could check whether these are actually useful for this article? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added all of them. It's up to others to decide whether or not they really deserve a place in the reference section (personally, I have some doubts, because they don't prove much more than the fact that the term "North Slavic" is indeed in use. --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 09:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Old Novgorod Dialect

It seems that the most important addition that this article needs is a reference for the theory that the Old Novgorod Dialect represents an otherwise unknown North Slavic branch. Can anyone provide this?

While I'm at it, I reformatted the article so that all the natlang stuff was together - this seemed a more logical structure than natlang - conlang - natlang

--PeteBleackley 10:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Failed AFD

This article's AFD debate reached consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Accurancy tag

After User:Dbachmann's edits, I don't see any reason why accurancy tag should stay at the article page. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 00:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of conlang info

I removed the material on North Slavic conlangs for several reasons. First of all, there was no real assertion of why their existence is notable: just the statement that they happen to exist. Secondly, the material as it stood failed WP:SOURCES and WP:RS: "self-published media... [including] personal websites...are largely not acceptable [as sources]" and "Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Personal websites, made by the authors of the conlangs being mentioned, cannot be the only sources used. If the conlangs haven't been mentioned in any reliable published (preferably printed: books, newspaper articles, peer-reviewed journal articles, etc.) then they aren't notable for inclusion here. --Miskwito (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Then you missed my point. The reference I was talking about is the article by Tilman Berger, linked to in the external links section. I would suggest you to take a look at it. It's precisely what you describe as a work by "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Besides, the external links section isn't just there to provide references: links to relevant materials (including personal websites) are perfectly legitimate. Now I wouldn't go as far as to argue that the article in question makes any conlang mentioned in it relevant enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. But it definitely proves that the phenomenon of constructed North Slavic languages as such is. Hoping to avoid an editwar, I'm reverting again, because I suppose your argument has been disproven by the above. Greetings, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. For the record, I agree with the whole thing about verifiability, independent third-party sources etc. I'm surely not proposing a personal website as the only source!

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on North Slavic languages. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501234649/http://langs.com.ua/movy/zapoz/2.htm to http://langs.com.ua/movy/zapoz/2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313184208/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/linguistics/events/abstracts/rappaport/ to http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/linguistics/events/abstracts/rappaport/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611072452/http://www.veche.net/grammar/index.html to http://www.veche.net/grammar/index.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger from North Slavs

North Slavs will be merged into this article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Slavs. At Talk:North Slavs#Sources, there has been relevant discussion on which sources are reliable and which aren't, which will be important for deciding which content will be moved or deleted during the merger process. I don't have time right now to do much myself, but anyone who would like to participate in the merger process should check out the AfD and the sources discussion. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I completed the merger, but more copyediting is needed to remove duplicate, irrelevant and poorly sourced materials. I'm gonna leave it here for now. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)