Merge? edit
Considering the efforts to unify (Classification of Berber Languages: 1 Group: Moroccan Atlas Languages)in one Page, and the fact that they are dialects within a continuum rather than discrete languages, should we merge Central Morocco Tamazight, Shilha language (Tashelhiyt), and Atlas languages, presumably by moving the first to this or a similar name (Atlas Berber language, Atlas Tamazight) to preserve the most page history?
(I'm making this proposal on behalf of a new editor at Talk:Shilha language, but it might not be a bad idea.) — kwami (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)— kwami (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The best thing is (creating a discussion) (Adrar (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC))
- oppose merger. I don't think so. A better reason to merge would be when the articles aren't well developed enough to be stand alone articles. Several of these articles are sufficiently well developed on their own to be stand alone articles (one is a GA). The most important argument is that there seems to be a wide precedent in sources to treat them as distinct languages. Lastly being dialects within a continuum isn't a reason to merge on that account we should merge Danish, Swedish and Norwegian as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- oppose as above. Also academic sources seem to usually distinguish between Central Atlas Tamazight and Tashelhiyt. Mo-Al (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- oppose as above. These languages are considered as separate by the IRCAM (politically) and scholars (socio-linguistically), I don't see any reason to merge them. Both belong to the Masmuda group of dialects, but are clearly different. Omar-Toons (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that would appear to be unanimous. I'll remove the 'merge' tags. — kwami (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree Merge. Omar-Toons, you have no credible sources. (the National Standard Tamazight Language of Morocco) regulated by IRCAM Royal institute of the Amazigh culture in both cities Agadir and Rabat, Morocco