This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
There is a bug report at Bugzilla requesting the creation of Wikipedias for Lower Sorbian (dsb:) and Upper Sorbian (hsb:). If anyone else is interested in seeing these Wikipedias created, please log on to Bugzilla and vote for the bug. User:Angr 10:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
None of the exceptions mentioned at WP:NOTBROKEN applies here, so there's no reason not to follow the guideline.
Writing [[Upper Sorbian language|Upper Sorbian]] is utterly pointless and has absolutely no benefits.
In short, writing [[Upper Sorbian language|Upper Sorbian]] instead of simply [[Upper Sorbian]] makes this article worse. —Angr (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me give you my take on this:
By a staggering 23 bytes!
If one has trouble reading syntax this simple, then one should take a little time to familiarize oneself with it (that's what I did when I was new, now it doesn't make it harder to read for me), as there are plenty of cases where this and more complicated syntax has to present itself.
If you think it should move, do it/request it, otherwise it's my time to "waste" (see below). Also, when I believe a link to a redirect could be a viable candidate for a separate article, I keep it for the reason listed at WP:NOTBROKEN.
It doesn't say one should revert those who ignore it for some reason, see below.
Well, the little "redirected from ..." box in the upper left has a tendency to distract me. And even the fact that the redirect's URL is shown by the browser has managed to bug me a few times (yes, really!). I know, these things must look like splitting hairs to you, but I have not seen any reason why your browsing/editing experience would really be worse off when bypassed. I once came across a case in which this was the case, and then I'm happy to accept it.
In short, for me it gets a little better, so if it doesn't make your experience worse off, what's wrong with keeping it? --JorisvS (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)