Talk:Benrath line

message: I made redirects for the following two red links of this article:
*Saxony for the link Upper Saxon and
*East Low German for the link East Low Saxon.
I wonder if you agree or have any better ideas. -- Adam78 01:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the kind of redirect Thuringian-->Thuringia because it makes you think that a page on Thuringian exists while it really doesn't. If the link remains red, then you can see at last that the page doesn't exist. (Fortunately, a page on Upper Saxon already exists, and I've fixed the redirect.) -- j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 13:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The link Thuringian suffers exactly from the same problem as the link Thuringian. Actually, they look identical and they link to the same page. Incidently, I'd prefer Thuringian. -- j. 'mach' wust | ✑ 13:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

message: I would remove the last phrase of the article regarding a recent northward movement of the line. So far, no one could name a source for it. More or less it seems to be someone’s assumption witout a proof. Please see also the Talk:High German consonant shift.--Zarbi1 13:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent movement of the line 

message: This article is accurate and professional.  However, there is one important subset of information that is conspicuously missing.
Who prounonces what how where?
Makes me wonder what the use of the article is without, other than to let people know that there is, indeed, something called the Benrath line. Dextrose (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Full details are at High German consonant shift.  I think this article IS useful as a quick explanation of the term, but it shouldn't duplicate the full description of the shift. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, I'm looking for one, short, sentence that describes on which side they harden the ch.  Certainly there's more that's going on, but that's information pretty basic to what this article is about, and there's so not a good enough reason not to include it that it doesn't even bear thinking of one.  I'm gonna put that sentence in right now, I'm just saying, it needs to be there. Dextrose (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Dude, you are more than welcome. --Doric Loon (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details pls. 

message: The line shown on the German part of the map is the Uerdingen line, not the Benrath line. In the small Dutch part of the map, the Benrath line is portrayed more or less correctly; the German part of the line should connect to it. In the Belgian part of the map, the Benrath line is portrayed incorrectly: the blue area is all of the "German-speaking" area plus the Voerstreek/Fourons, but a large part of the North of this Belgian area actually lies to the West of the Benrath line; that is, parts of the North of the Belgian area, including Eupen, say "maaken" rather than "maachen" and so on, and therefore lie between the Uerdingen and Benrath lines. Klassi (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistakes on the map 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Benrath line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040506160208/http://www.ned.univie.ac.at:80/publicaties/taalgeschiedenis/dt/benrath.htm to http://www.ned.univie.ac.at/publicaties/taalgeschiedenis/dt/benrath.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified