Talk:Abandoned village
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Useful? Merge?
I don't know how useful this article is, perhaps it should be merged with Ghost town. A mcmurray 20:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- The term "abandoned village" is more commonly used in a European context in particular for the Middle Ages. "Ghost town" is an American term mostly associated with the phenomenon of towns in the West. I see the articles trying to encompass each other which is probably original research, I'm not sure the sources would support it except by loose analogy, they emphasis different things. -- Stbalbach 02:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Weak oppose. I guess that both articles will grow and that in the future we would have to create separate artices again. I might change my oppinion if somebody explains structure of the merged article. JanSuchy 09:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Conceptually the ideas are similar, but the terms are used in very different context's, by very different groups of people, on purpose. They emphasis different things and deal with different historic periods - these terms are different for a reason. It's no different than the term black earth which has multiple articles of various names depending on who uses it (british, brazilian or russian archaeologists). -- Stbalbach 14:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Weak oppose. However similar the concepts are, there's definitely a different context for each, and both articles seem reasonably long enough to keep. Mr. Absurd (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Abandoned village" vs. "Lost village"
I'm far more familiar with the usage "lost village" for this subject than its current name. For example, the title of Maurice Beresford's book, The Lost Villages of England (Sutton, 1954) ISBN 0-86299-108-0 Why was this name selected over "lost village"? -- llywrch 19:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)