This template is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about 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.
Please do not revert the most recent changes because the old template not only misses tens of languages from Canada, but this one better classifies and sorts the languages found within Canada. Plus, the inclusion of syllabics mirrors other, similar templates where Chinese characters, Cyrillic script and other non-Latin writing systems are included to an extent. As such, the syllabics are included but always as a secondary notation
There is a lot of issues here on Wikipedia of unequal treatment of languages. Where the styles often call for indigenous or better naming and the equitable representation of Indigenous or Deaf languages and cultures, when it comes down to it, Indigenous and Deaf topics are much more harshly edited and reverted. Again, reversions are happening where the style would call for such representation (aka use of proper names, scripts, etc.) that would otherwise be used if not expected in other, similar articles. So, let's "Talk page" this instead of reverting slash before editing or reverting, consider how languages are written about, specifically European or Asian languages versus African, Indigenous or Deaf languages. Often and in standard linguistic practise, colonised languages are talked about, called and named "primitive" and similar unequal forms of representation. In short, this makes it appear and read like, for example, sign languages are not equivalent to oral languages in terms of scope, breadth, use, populations and more. This is why Templates like this once had and many still have separate sections for "sign languages" often underwritten, underedited and separate sometimes for no good reason
Anyhow, this here Template does a much better job at representing all the languages spoken in Canada, though I would like to see the Settler Languages get beefed up a bit. Right now it directs to "Euro-Canadians" as all the languages here are from European roots, however there are non-European settler languages and there may be non-European settler languages that have distinct variations in Canada (like Canadian Ukrainian versus European; Maritime Gaelic versus European Gaelics). Possibly a breakdown: Settler and Immigrant. Settler being those that have distinct Canadian forms, Immigrant being those that do not/are the same as from their origins?
pls read over WP:NAVBOX....not the place for non-navigational lists.--Moxy (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Read over multiple times. If you think there should be changes, change from the most recent version with all the languages rather than trying to revert back to a page missing many languages. If you think it should only be Latin script, edit out the syllabics. If you think information should be localised or organised in different ways, please edit from the current place because, once again, this accurately shows the languages of Canada. The over simplistic and false former page conflates languages in groupings that are not consistent with linguistic reality and extracts languages that should be grouped together like sign and oral languages. But stay from the current edit and work from there instead of blanket reverting. It is unproductive, pushes half-truths and falsehoods to the forefront and generally loses the important details of a navbox for the 100+ languages of Canada--Danachos (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
You're hiding the major languages.... you're adding WP:Flag icons... you're making a list that doesn't link to anything..... you're adding WP:Red links....your renaming languages to something incoherent and unreadable. Needless to say it's not an improvement to help our readers navigate.--Moxy (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)