Talk:A posteriori (languages)

Requested merge

Oppose - this article and its partner (A priori (languages)) are still little more than stubs despite being in existence for several years each. They could quite easily be incorporated as a new section in the larger article (constructed languages), for example between the Overview and History sections. Both the current "stubs" could remain as redirects. Green Giant (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a merge request, not a move request and has been listed as such since on the respective pages since 2011. These pages are a posteriori (languages) and a priori (languages) [sic]. A Priori is a redirect to A priori and a posteriori and should continue to direct there or to A priori (a dab page). If you want to merge the two pages into a single a priori and a posteriori languages, fine with me. They are probably better dealt with together either in a single article of their own or, as User:Green Giant suggests, another related article. The issue has also been discussed a couple of time before at Talk:A priori (languages) — AjaxSmack 05:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - whatever happens "a priori" has no caps. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Constructed language with A priori (languages) This is just a classification of one aspect of constructed languages, and therefore it makes sense to have it in the main article on constructed languages, since there doesn't seem to be a lot to say about it. It also makes sense to discuss it along with a priori languages, as the antithesis. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]