Talk:Treasure language

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Endangered languages, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Endangered languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Endangered languagesTemplate:WikiProject Endangered languagesEndangered languages articles

Languages

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles

Notability

In response to feedback about notability: is there any consideration of the fact that an indigenous community does not have ready access to the kinds of communication channels considered pertinent for Wikipedia? Stevenbird (talk)

Whether a term is used in a small indigenous community or worldwide, this is still just another term for a concept that there is an existing article about. New articles aren't normally created for each synonym. – Uanfala (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any good synonyms; the only near-synonyms are pejorative. Stevenbird (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are heritage language and indigenous language pejorative? – Uanfala (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rama people have articulated the reasons why these terms are pejorative in the linked article, on page 18. Accordingly, it would be ironic if the page for Treasure language was to be merged with any of the alternatives they criticised. Stevenbird (talk)

Yes, but that's a difference in the term used, rather than the concept denoted. Again, wikipedia isn't a dictionary and we don't have separate articles for synonyms. – Uanfala (talk) 10:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Would you please clarify which term you believe to be synonymous? Stevenbird (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, that's heritage language and indigenous language. – Uanfala (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage language and indigenous language have separate entries. They must not be synonyms. Can you explain to me how Treasure language can be synonymous with two terms that are not synonyms? Stevenbird (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage language and indigenous language may be merged in the future if they are deemed to be synonymous. The fact that they are currently separate isn't an argument that treasure language merits an entry separate from them, which it doesn't seem to because it is obviously synonymous (WP:DICDEF) and the topic is covered elsewhere. Catrìona (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After taking another look at all three articles, it seems like this one should be merged with indigenous language or perhaps minority language rather than heritage language, which has a distinct technical meaning. Catrìona (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. The term is connected to community aspirations, not continuous occupation of land since precolonial times, so the 'indigenous' label does not apply. However, these are certainly minority languages and I will merge this entry with the entry for minority language soon. The point that 'wikipedia is not a dictionary' (made twice now) is entirely subjective. And the repeated point about synonymy contradicts the contents of the entry which make it clear that a treasure language may not be endangered, indigenous, or heritage. I think the relevant point concerns notability and I accept, with regrets to the marginalised Rama people, that 'treasure language' isn't sufficiently notable to merit its own entry here. Stevenbird (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the content to [language]. If no one objects to the new content there, I'll go ahead and remove it here. Stevenbird (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

I see a discussion that trailed off two months ago about merging this article, and I see two voices arguing for a merge, and one, the creator, arguing against. I agree with the former that this term doesn't appear to have attained enough significance to warrant a separate article. To me, 3-1 is enough of a consensus to move forward, and so I am merging this text to indigenous language. A separate article can be restored if this term gains greater significance in the future. Any restoration of this article must be the result of a discussion resulting in a consensus. —swpb^T 19:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]