From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page. |
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload. |
Stub |
This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. |
Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale. |
|
This article needs the Ethnic group Infobox to be added and/or populated. |
|
|
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. |
|
[edit] Fenni, Phinnoi, (Skritfinni)
I was wondering if we should merge the articles Fenni and Phinnoi with some new content on the Screrefennae of Jordanes, the Scritobini of Paul the Deacon and the Scrithiphini of Procopius. We could use [1] as a source (with, of course, quotations). We could call it Classical references to the Sami people? What do you think? Please respond here. Harris Morgan 00:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC).
- An overview of classical refernces to the Sami would be useful. But I think the question is whether to merge all the articles as suggested above, or to keep the seperate articles (and create new ones) and have a subsection with a short description in Sami history? Perhaps the best way to do this was to add a subsection to Sami history, and then decide whether a seperate article is necessary? Labongo (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- OK. I'll start work on it later. What would you recommend I entitle this new section? 'Classical references'? Shall I place it imbetween 'Prehistory' and 'Before 15th century'? Harris Morgan 13:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
- Great. How about 'Early references'? The history article is a mess, but as you suggest after 'Prehistory' is probably best. Labongo (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)