Talk:Proto-Koreanic
Appearance
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Citations
[edit]Why does there need to be a citation for 'reconstructed?' It would be quite obvious since the very next paragraph says this. It's unreasonable to challenge the idea that it's reconstructed. Either we need a citation on both paragraphs or none.
VideōEtCorrigō (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Standalone
[edit]In the current shape[1], this page is not really useful. @Kanguole: What do you think? Should we redirect it to your recently added section Koreanic languages#Proto-language? Kwami had redirected this page before, but another editor restored it. Or we could split the section out to this page? –Austronesier (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that this article doesn't contribute any value. A large fraction of it is a misunderstanding of Vovin's spoof about Korean and Paleosiberian languages. The rest is duplicated in other articles. None of it is actually about Proto-Koreanic.
- The Koreanic languages article is of a moderate size, not so long that it warrants splitting, I think. If it were split, the summary we'd want to leave there wouldn't be much shorter than the whole section. I'd be in favour of re-instating Kwami's redirect. Kanguole 15:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)