Talk:History of the Moldovan language: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:33, 23 January 2006 editDalf (talk \| contribs)3,332 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:41, 23 January 2006 edit undoBogdangiusca (talk \| contribs)39,816 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:

	::Ok, seems like a good reason. Sometimes I think people split articles too quickly or for bad reasons. A lot of the best featured articles are quite long. But there does seem to be a good argument for having them seperate. Does the article on ROmanian also link here? I think a line or two mentioning Moldova and a like here (and there) might be worthwhile. ] \| ] 11:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)		::Ok, seems like a good reason. Sometimes I think people split articles too quickly or for bad reasons. A lot of the best featured articles are quite long. But there does seem to be a good argument for having them seperate. Does the article on ROmanian also link here? I think a line or two mentioning Moldova and a like here (and there) might be worthwhile. ] \| ] 11:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

			::: I put a link in ]. It should link eventually have a link in the history section, but currently that section has little on the modern history of Romanian language. ] 11:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:41, 23 January 2006

Why the article split?

I am just wondering. Was it simply to pull the content people were not arguing about out and put it somewhere? It does not leave very much in the other article. Dalf | Talk 11:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Because this part is getting very long. The other article is supposed to talk about Moldovan, the current official language of Moldova and what happend hundreds of years ago is only marginally relevant to that article. bogdan 11:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, seems like a good reason. Sometimes I think people split articles too quickly or for bad reasons. A lot of the best featured articles are quite long. But there does seem to be a good argument for having them seperate. Does the article on ROmanian also link here? I think a line or two mentioning Moldova and a like here (and there) might be worthwhile. Dalf | Talk 11:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I put a link in Romanian language. It should link eventually have a link in the history section, but currently that section has little on the modern history of Romanian language. bogdan 11:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:33, 23 January 2006 editDalf (talk \| contribs)3,332 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:41, 23 January 2006 edit undoBogdangiusca (talk \| contribs)39,816 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:

	::Ok, seems like a good reason. Sometimes I think people split articles too quickly or for bad reasons. A lot of the best featured articles are quite long. But there does seem to be a good argument for having them seperate. Does the article on ROmanian also link here? I think a line or two mentioning Moldova and a like here (and there) might be worthwhile. ] \| ] 11:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)		::Ok, seems like a good reason. Sometimes I think people split articles too quickly or for bad reasons. A lot of the best featured articles are quite long. But there does seem to be a good argument for having them seperate. Does the article on ROmanian also link here? I think a line or two mentioning Moldova and a like here (and there) might be worthwhile. ] \| ] 11:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

			::: I put a link in ]. It should link eventually have a link in the history section, but currently that section has little on the modern history of Romanian language. ] 11:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)