Talk:Slavic studies

contemporary Slavists

It should be usefull to have a better list of contemporary slavists... --Millosh 08:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

history

The article states that Slavistics is interested only in language, culture and literature. That seems rather limited to me - what about history? Similary, I think that not only linguist or philologist can classify as a Slavist. Comments?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, sure, just like any humanist, a Slavist could be a professional semiologist, philosopher, archaeologist or sociologist. However, the studies are primarily associated with language studies, while historical studies on early Slavs are just that: a branch of history rather than branch of Slavistics. At times such studies are considered a part of Slavistics, at times they're not. Or am I wrong? //Halibutt 04:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Halibutt here. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there is confusion between more linguistic focuses slavistics and broader slavic studies, and a split is needed?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. (Early closure as obviously uncontrovertial -- not a proper noun). A case could be made for a move to Slavistics though, as arguably more common. Duja► 12:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

To Slavic studies. Completing for nom, neutral for now. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

1. Support. Generaly, we don't capitalize article names, do we? Why should we vote about this? Compare English studies, German studies, etc. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 03:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Sure - this doesn't even need a survey, I think... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Of course I support the move. I am the responsible mover. Sorry I did this without following this protocol. If votes prefer the old name, I will not tamper. If accepted, I hope the broader and more up-to-date name will lead to improvements of this article to reflect the breadth and many innovative directions of the field. I don't object to lower-case "studies"Peshkov 03:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Slavic and Slavonic

As the adjective "Slavonic" is more common in British and Irish English than "Slavic", I am adding it to the beginning of the article. Iain (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Reference #1 has a broken link to the target document. The correct link, as of 220220, is: https://porownania.amu.edu.pl/archiwum/porownania-nr-162015/slavic-but-not-russian-invisible-and-mute/

I'm sadly illiterate in how to make this change, so I apologize in advance for the inconvenience to whomever authors the reference. DannChic (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Numbers are needed

The page suggests parity of the languages and cultures.

Russian studies dominate US universities.

Canada has a strong Ukrainian minority.Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussing Wikilink Tag

This article is marked as needing wikilink cleanup. On review, it seems that the tags, while definitely omnipresent, are useful for navigating to relevant pages, and fit within the context of the article. Any more experienced editors have input here? Fireboltsilver (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fireboltsilver: I had the same thought. I did go ahead and unlink most of the country names, on the theory that anyone interested in Slavic studies has surely heard of Russia, Ukraine and Poland. I left some that someone might want to look up, such as Galicia. I looked at all the department/institute names in the list of schools, and the ones I sampled were external links. These are, as a rule, frowned upon within the body of the article, but, as you say, this is information. My thought would be that the external links could become references to the fact that such and such a university has a Slavic studies department. This would improve compliance with the Manual of Style, retain the useful information, and open up some white space in the article. But I don't feel moved to do this particular bit of fiddly wikignoming just this moment. It is however a suggestion for anyone who comes by here before I come back. Another idea might be to see if we have a page for Germanic studies, Romance language studies, etc, and see how it is handled on those pages. It somes likely, given that this is wikipedia, that someone has instituted a policy for how to handle this. Elinruby (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the tag may have been added due to the exhaustive list of related studies at the bottom, which you don't see very often. But to my eyes it is helpful and thoughtfully put together. I will go ahead and remove the tag. 184.67.135.194 (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)