Talk:Landsker Line

Edit of Article 28 Sept 06
I have added a lot more text, including citations. I was half inclined to delete all the existing text, since it is covered by my text. However, I'm aware that to do so might be overly contentious. I just removed a couple of plainly factually incorrect statements. I would welcome discussion of what further edits to make.LinguisticDemographer 20:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Please see my comments on Talk:Little England beyond Wales. --MacRusgail 20:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think this article is more valid and more encyclopaedic than Little England beyond Wales, and the merger should work the opposite way from what is being suggested. Deb 22:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This merge-flag has been up for a while now. I'm neutral on the question.

Pro-argument: the two subjects are logically inseparable - you can't discuss one without discussing the other, and when discussed separately, there will be some duplication.

Anti-arguments:
 * the set of people who know the term Landsker, and the set of people who know the term Little England are not coincident, and different people will web-search the individual terms for different reasons.
 * every boundary has a dual nature, and looks two ways. To say that the Landsker "belongs" to Little England is no different from saying that it "belongs" to Cymru cymraeg (if there were such an article).

Spurious anti-argument: you might as well say that "Offa's Dyke" ought to be merged with "Wales" (or "England", for that matter. Or "England" should be incorpoated in "Offa's Dyke" because the latter is a better article. Hm!). But Offa's Dyke is a Fiat Boundary: a visible object (in fact a Landsker in the true sense) whereas the language boundary in a Bona Fide Boundary, defined only in terms of the ever-expanding and contracting zones that it separates. Maybe this is a pro-argument.

It should really come down to what's most useful for the casual link-clicking user, and I really don't know what the answer to that is. If no-one else knows, maybe we'd just better remove the merge-flag. . . . LinguisticDemographer 14:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)