Template talk:Slavic languages

Molise Slavic

Molise Slavic is really the only name for this microlanguage I had ever heard, but never mind. I saw that the Wikipedia community had chosen to use Molise Croatian dialect as the name for the article and to have Molise Slavic language redirect there. But this "Croatian dialect" is nowhere mentioned in the whole article Croatian language, so it has to be mentioned in this template. However, the template lists languages, not dialects. Consequently, if the template treated Molise Slavic as a Croatian dialect, then it could nowhere be found, not even via Croatian language. Therefore please either treat Molise Slavic in the article Croatian language or let us use the name Molise Slavic at least in the template (as non-Croatian scholars like Aleksandr Duličenko or Peter Rehder usually do). --Daniel Bunčić 17:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article should really be called Molise Slavic or Molise Slavic language, but Croatian Wikipedians would have us think otherwise. - FrancisTyers · 18:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "Molise Slavic" to "Molise Croatian". I just applied the name of the page itself, just like it's case with other 36 links in the template. --Ante Perkovic 09:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the question how to call that speech form should really be going on on Talk:Molise Croatian dialect. The main thing here is not to have dialect in the name, as we don't have language in other names, either. Thanks! --Daniel Bunčić 14:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian vs. Bosniac

Oh, please. That discussion is definitely decided. Bosnian is both the official name of that language (if it is a language; in my personal opinion it isn't, but that's not the question here) according to the Dayton Agreement and the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the most common one in English. See the long discussion at Talk:Bosnian language#Naming. --Daniel Bunčić 17:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegrin disputed

Many "languages" here beside Montenegrin are disputed (Bosnian, Bunjevac, even Croatian), as there are not only true languages listed here, but dialects as well (Old Novgorod dialect, Banat Bulgarian). Therefore, it is not neccessary to mention that Montenegrin is disputed as a separate language. This template is a list of many Slavonic languages, dialects, and speeches. --Djordje D. Bozovic 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting of Slovio - to all Slavic users

Recently, article Slovio is deleted. As I've seen, no Slavic user from en.wiki contributed on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slovio_(2nd_nomination), after the 2nd time was nominated for deletion.
This should't happen. This is one blooper, that Wikipedia cannot allow to itself. Slovio is most known constructed Slavic language, or put it this way, a constructed language with Slavic languages as its base.
Deletion of Slovio shows the typical anti-Slavic bias of non-Slavic Wikipedia users. Some, if they could, would delete everything Slavic from the Wikipedia. The deletion was done by-non-Slavic Wikipedia users who don't understand the topic and have absolutely no idea about Slavic languages and cultures.

Please, gave your opinion here. If we collect enough votes, we can try to bring it back to life and end any further nominations for deletions. Kubura 07:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at Talk:Slavic languages.

Let's continue the discussion there. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Slovio is a major mistake. The entry is alive and well in over 20 other Wikipedias, thus a rare example of voices missing in the English one. Slovio is also alive on the net, see at http://www.slovio.com/. Please restore the Slovio entry! MGTom 23:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slovio is not alive anywhere else except www.slovio.com , so it fails notability criteria. --Amir E. Aharoni 05:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A moment's googling would show you that it is alive other places besides slovio.com. Goulo (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Slovio" is a word in the Croatian language, which easily explains the huge number of results.

Those results that do refer to the the Slovio language aren't anywhere near the requirements of notability, verifiability and no original research. If you can convince me that i am wrong, go on. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template content

Doncsecz, please stop edit-warring and discuss the content of this page. Provide some scholarly references for your position instead of your personal opinions. I suggest that you start with these recent works:
http://books.google.si/books?id=G2bsJdYrwD4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false (page 2)
http://books.google.si/books?id=5hOtPBF6XWwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=indo-european+language+and+culture&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false (pages 375–378)
Check the books out from your nearest library. If you cannot support your position with verifiable sources, then please stop contributing to this template. Doremo (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in Slavic microlanguages, please read this: Микроязыки. Языки. Интеръязыки. Сборник в честь ординарного профессора Александра Дмитриевича Дуличенко. Тарту, 2006. Doremo (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you come with the articles of Cambridge University. In the Slavic era other the assignment. The Russian linguist and other Slavic linguists class to the Banat Bulgarian, Prekmurian, Burgenland Croatian languages in this group, as every one had standard language, literature. Besides the Prekmurian, and Banat language was educational language in the schools and churchs, while the Gradišće (Burgenland) language also today is language of the schools and liturgy in Burgenland and Hungary. In my University educate to the language of Croatians in West-Hungary and Burgenland. Not likely, that Cambridge University ken to the Prekmurian, Banat and Burgenland-Croatian languages, but i reckon if come to know, probably not disregard. Doncsecz^talk 10:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some scholarly references for your position. Do you disagree that Cambridge University Press is an authoritative source? Doremo (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duličenko's book in german: Das Banater-Bulgarische (1998), also discuss to the separateness of the Banat Bulgarian language. For the present i have no russian book with me, where went the prekmurian language, but Ágoston Pável also was class to, like notable separate Slavic dialect (language). Doncsecz^talk 11:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template addresses Slavic languages in general. Please cite a scholarly work on Slavic languages in general (as I did above) that supports your position, not a dialect-specific study. Doremo (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doncsecz, I do not understand your "perish the communism, also perish the dogmas" comment. Please explain. Doremo (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here a new solution: new group of the separate dialects and disputed languages. Separate the Prekmurian, Resian, Banat Bulgarian, Gradišće languages, disputed the Šokac and Bunjevac. And Doremo: you be a stranger, that what dogmas was in the communistic Yugoslavia on the score of the solid language. Overall was efface to this old traditional regional languages, allude to the internationalism, the "Solid Yugoslav nation," the Magyarization, and other. Doncsecz^talk 15:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not understand your comment. The content of this template should follow standard scholarly works on Slavic languages in general. If you cannot cite any such works supporting your position, you should remove your changes. Doremo (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gospoud moj! See the sources in the article of Prekmurian! And to top it all Ágoston Pável was appreciated, salient learned, i build upon him. Doncsecz^talk 16:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try keep the conversation in English on English WP (for other users' benefit). So far you have failed to provide any relevant sources supporting your position at Talk:Prekmurian_dialect and you have also failed to provide any relevant sources supporting your position here. Doremo (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tou je že trno stara hištorija. Doncsecz^talk 17:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is an old story that is still relevant. Good WP content is based on verifiable sources (Wikipedia:Verifiability), and you have not provided any. "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies," and you are refusing to provide anything except edit-warring to back up your position. Your edits are not verifiable, they contradict standard scholarly literature, and you have not defended them in any meaningful way. You should delete them. Doremo (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which the received standpoint? As the foreign and slavic linguist have 20-30 several standpoint, for ex. the Silesian language in the group of the West-Slavic languages. Few linguist decline, that this is language, but simply polish dialect. All the better the quesition of the Serbocroatian languages. You be a stranger to the theme. For nothing the official standpoint, for ex. Yugoslavia also was beguile the outside world on the score of some dialects and languages. Doncsecz^talk 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same old story...

I would strongly suggest you people stop editwarring over Serbo-Croatian, Montenegrin etc. This is a navigation template, for heaven's sake, not a political pamphlet! Its purpose is to give links to the Slavic languages as well as the major Slavic dialects and microlanguages, just to facilitate navigating between them. This is surely not the place for all kinds of statements regarding who disputes what. Nobody denies that Upper and Lower Sorbian are two separate languages, but I haven't heard anybody complaining about them being grouped together between brackets under a common header. The same should also go for Serbo-Croatian, BCMS, or whatever anybody wants to call it. That is completely justified since all four standard languages are nearly identical to each other. This is definitely not the place to fight for the emancipation of whatever language or dialect, simply because that is not what this template is for. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 01:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-Croatian doesn't exist at all.
BCMS is Frankestein-project. You can also cut the pig's head, goat's legs, peacock's tail, tuna's fin and sew them all on the cow's body and say: the pig-goat-peacock-cow-tuna (PGPCT) exists! Same thing is so-called Serbo-Croatian. PGPCT.
These Slavic languages aren't nearly identical. They are different, live with that. Related, but different.
In Croatian is:
Sjest ću za stol i naručiti ću juhu od mrkve, pečenu tuku, sol, papar i bocu vina. Obvezno moram popiti kavu s mlijekom.
In Serbian is:
Sešću za sto i poručiću supu od šargarepe, pečenu ćurku, so, biber i flašu vina. Obavezno moram da popijem kafu s mlekom.
I'm not sure how these sentences are said in Bosnian and in Montenegrin.
This template is not for emancipation of the dead political project, and the project of so-called Serbo-Croatian is exactly that - dead political project.
Just like the Serbo-Croato-Slovenian language, the name of the official language in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
Finally, you're just another anonimous Wikipedian. This author isn't Srpsko hrvatski nikad nije ostvaren jer nije postojao. Kubura (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kubura, we've been over this for a billion times. Stop vandalizing and find something useful to do instead. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slovianski

Shouldn't Slovianski be listed as part of the Pan-Slavic languages? Gringo300 (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Maybe it should be included in the other section. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kajkavian language

I will remove this entry per these sources.^[1][2] It is a subset of Croatian. For balance all or none of the subsets of Croatian should be mentioned. The source provided earlier seems to be a company website and is not a reliable source. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Klaus J. Mattheier (1991). Sociolinguistica. M. Niemeyer. ISBN 978-3-484-60368-4.

2. Stig Eliasson; Ernst Håkon Jahr (1 January 1997). Language and Its Ecology: Essays in Memory of Einar Haugen. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 29–. ISBN 978-3-11-014688-2.

addition of philology in template

Why is it that this template has more info about philology unlike the templates for Celtic, Germanic and Romance languages? -- PK2 (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to add relevant material to the Celtic, Germanic, and Romance templates. Doremo (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. -- PK2 (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serbo-Croatian does not exist anymore

It has to be written italic in the table. How to do this? It would be good to have the languages that have once been clustered into Serbo-Croatian first and then Serbo-Cratian in the brickets and italic behind them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umno22 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Serbo-Croatian, recurring themes in the talk header (common name). Doremo (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]