Talk:Frisian language

This not appropriate use of a dabpage. If there are other languages that bear the name "Frisian", then this should be mentioned at Frisian language, not a separate disambiguation page. Dabpages are intended to be navigational aids when several articles actually share the same title.

Peter Isotalo 16:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, every one would be expecting to read the article immediately if they typed Frisian language. Graeme Bartlett 20:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that "Frisian language" has at least two meanings:
 * All of the Frisian languages collectively, especially if one considers them to be one language.
 * The West Frisian language only, because that language is the predominant variety of Frisian and is referred to as "Frisian" in Dutch and West Frisian.


 * I went through all of the incoming links to "Frisian language" and found that very roughly about 75% referred to West Frisian only, 15% to all of the Frisian languages or Frisian in general, 5% to Old Frisian or Middle Frisian, 2% to some form of North Frisian, and 3% unclear or unknown to me. I then disambiguated them.


 * From these results, I conclude that a.) the term "Frisian language" is ambiguous and b.) the primary meaning at Wikipedia is West Frisian, not the Frisian language or languages as a whole. Therefore, the statement that "every one would be expecting to read the [Frisian languages] article immediately" is not supported.


 * It is also important to make clear that the differences between the Frisian languages are significant: three unintelligible varieties and, importantly for a written encyclopedia, three different orthographies with at least 11 written varieties.  If one states for example that "the Frisian name for Frisia is Fryslân, it is simply wrong.  Frisia in West Frisian is Fryslân but in Saterland Frisian it is Fräislound and in North Frisian it can be Fraschlönj, Freesklöön, Freeskluin, Fresklun, or Friislön’ among others.  A real example of this could be found a Heligoland where the opener formerly read "Heligoland (in German, Helgoland and in North Frisian, Lun, Hålilönj)..."  Hålilönj is the name of the island in Mooring, a dialect not spoken anywhere near Heligoland, and is totally dissimilar to the native Heligolandic deät Lun.  And this ambiguity is within North Frisian.  It is incumbent that the meaning of "Frisian language" be disambiguated when possible and a disambiguation page is an important tool in that effort. —   AjaxSmack   21:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You could apply all these arguments to English and its sometimes mutually unintelligible dialects&mdash;this is not restricted to the English/Scots divide. It is reasonable for an article titled "English language" to refer largely to Received Standard and American Standard, but with ample discussion of other varieties. Similarly with other languages, including Frisian.
 * Do the majority of scholars of the Frisian language(s) insist on the plural? If they do, then call the main article "Frisian languages", and put a redirect from "Frisian language", with disambiguation comments at the front of the article. If a significant minority prefer the plural, then call the main article "Frisian language", and discuss the plurality issue at the beginning of the article&mdash;do this even if the singularising majority are just plain wrong!!
 * Disambiguation pages may be a necessary evil, but the present arrangement is needlessly annoying. Either of the two arrangements suggested should satisfy both sides, apart from the odd aspie. &mdash; Koro Neil (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)