Jump to content

Talk:Sanskrit: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
References
Enforcer1 (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 28: Line 28:
[[User:Arun|Arun]]
[[User:Arun|Arun]]
:Those phrases and others were added recently by one user ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanskrit&diff=next&oldid=26186423]) and, needless to say, have now been removed. But I agree that this article does need improvement in other places. [[User:StradivariusTV|StradivariusTV]] 00:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
:Those phrases and others were added recently by one user ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanskrit&diff=next&oldid=26186423]) and, needless to say, have now been removed. But I agree that this article does need improvement in other places. [[User:StradivariusTV|StradivariusTV]] 00:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

== References ==

I thin that there is a mistake in the References at the bottom of the page: the author of "Sanskrit Pronunciation" isn't Bruce Cameron but Bruce Cameron Hall. I think the family name is Hall, not Cameron
Alberto Todeschini

Revision as of 23:36, 27 October 2005

Archive 1 (July 2001 to September 2005)

"Sanskrit" or "Sanskrit language"?

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.

Why do we have this article at Sanskrit language, with Sanskrit as a redirect? Why not use the shorter title? We don't have an article at Esperanto language. - Nat Krause 16:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided two years ago that articles on language should be at "[x] language". Sanskrit is no exception. Esperanto somehow is, but that doesn't make it right. CRCulver 05:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages) says "Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with 'programming language' in the case of programming languages, or 'language' in the case of natural languages. If the language's name is unique, there is no need for any suffix." That seems like a better and simpler way to do it. - Nat Krause 09:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I support this position, and will put it up to WP:RM. It will be controversial; some people insist on imposing an artificial uniformity on Wikipedia, policy or not. Septentrionalis 04:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This appears not to have been so controversial after all. I'm moving it. --Angr/tɔk mi 09:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, someone already has. But the talk page needs to be moved too. --Angr/tɔk mi 09:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The article is at Sanskrit, the talk page is here at Talk:Sanskrit, the old talk is archived at Talk:Sanskrit/Archive 1, God is in his heaven, and all's right with the world. --Angr/tɔk mi 09:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I noted at least one mistake ("Sanskrit is the official language of India", instead of just "an official language of India"), and a couple of phrases that should be rewritten.

"a pure Language native only to bHaratha (Today's India)"; (I believe that is a reference to the fact that Sanskrit means "excellently made" or "pure" in Sanskrit, though it should be confirmed with non-Wikipedia sources)

"Sanskrit was the language for thousands of years even before anything similar to language with lexicon, phonetic and ontological definations occured elswhere on the globe." (I guess this is a reference to Panini, but that's ~ 2.5 thousand years back, not thousands of years back).

The rest of the article should probably be checked over for inaccuracies that either might have crept in or might have been added by zealots of various types

Arun

Those phrases and others were added recently by one user ([1]) and, needless to say, have now been removed. But I agree that this article does need improvement in other places. StradivariusTV 00:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]