Talk:Creolistics

Vandalisms

I have edited or reverted a number of vandalisms by the anonymous user 68.81.125.26 for resorting to unmotivated deleting and hostile counter-claims in creolistics and John McWhorter. His IP might have to be blocked. Eklir (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed synthesis

The "proposed synthesis" section appears to contain either original research, or non-NPOV phrased material ("sane approach"). Unless someone with more specialist knowledge can edit it, I think most of its content should be removed. Slac speak up! 01:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since there aren't any unsourced statements in that section, removal would be the wrong approach. If it's a matter of phrasing, do you have any suggested rewordings? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a merge with Creole language

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Creolistics into Creole language. Klbrain (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article largely duplicates similar material in Creole language. Any extra references that are given here could be useful there. Apart from those, most of the extra material on this page seems to consist either of non-NPOV commentary or, possibly, original research.

Note that the relevant section of the other article has been marked as maybe "too technical for most readers to understand", though I haven't spotted any particular offenders; it all seems not too hard to me, FWIW.

Perhaps another solution would be to merge that section of Creole language into this page? (If so, we should leave the first "See also" list item pointing here; otherwise, since the term "creolistics" is already wikilinked from that article, it's redundant and should be removed from the "See also" list.)

Opinions, please?

yoyo (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to Creole language makes sense to me. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Creolistics should stay as separate from creole as linguistics does from language. Munci (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit apples and oranges. Language and linguistics are distinct articles because distinct content on the subject and on the study of the subject, respectively appears in the respective articles. As the OP says, this is not the case for creole language and creolistics. If removing duplicate content reduces one article to a stub, it does indeed make sense to merge the two. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That at the msot shows the articles can be better written so that they describe distinct subjects, as they should. Language and linguistics is an appropriate model for the way these two articles should be redone. Munci (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not willing to bell that cat, the point is moot. They currently overlap and currently duplicate content. If someone ever has the time or inclination to include enough content that two articles is warranted, we can unmerge the articles. We shouldn't make editorial decisions based on notions of what could be the case when that depends on a large amount of effort that hasn't yet manifested, even though this article has been around for 12 years. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:40, 15 December 2019 (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.

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]