Talk:Kristianstads nation
(Redirected from Talk:Kristianstad Nation, Lund)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This article should be posted under Kristianstads nation, Lund, just like the original swedish article, shouldn't it?
"Kristianstads Nation, Lund" would be acceptable. Fred-Chess 14:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)The article on Swedish wikipedia was moved to Krischansta Nation. // Fred-Chess 15:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)- The proper name is Kristianstads Nation, Lund, so why move the correct swedish article? As this is an encyclopedia, isn't the correct way to use the proper name, move the english article, and then redirect Krischansta Nation, Lund to Kristianstad Nation, Lund? Oddjob se 16:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Kristianstad Nations stadgar Oddjob se 06:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree this should be either "Kristianstads nation" (official Swedish name) or "Kristianstad Nation" (reasonable anglicized form) - the spelling "Krischansta" is just an expression of student humour, fun once or twice perhaps, but a bit silly in the long run. As it is commonly used, it should be mentioned prominently in the lead. But it is still silly... u p p l a n d 07:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not a Swede (just a Brit who understands Swedish) so my vote might count for less, but I also agree that the article should probably be entitled "Kristianstad(s) nation". Although the official website uses Krischansta Nation, when it deals with official stuff (such as "Kristianstad Nations stadgar" and the history of the nation section), it does defer to Kristianstads nation. But as Uppland points out, "Krischansta" certainly deserves a prominent mention in the intro. CLW 08:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree this should be either "Kristianstads nation" (official Swedish name) or "Kristianstad Nation" (reasonable anglicized form) - the spelling "Krischansta" is just an expression of student humour, fun once or twice perhaps, but a bit silly in the long run. As it is commonly used, it should be mentioned prominently in the lead. But it is still silly... u p p l a n d 07:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)