Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages
|This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Languages and anything related to its purposes and tasks.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12|
|WikiProject Languages was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 7 May 2012. If you wish to get involved with the Signpost, please visit the Newsroom.|
- 1 Scanian is back
- 2 Requested move at Sakha language
- 3 Chichewa tones
- 4 Indo-European peoples
- 5 Categories for languages of Spain
- 6 Goidelic languages listed at Requested moves
- 7 Merge discussions
- 8 Altaic and infoboxes discussion
- 9 Glottocodes & ISO 639-codes
- 10 Selau
- 11 Category:Nordic languages
- 12 Category:Germanic languages
- 13 RfC: What should the language infobox display when editors have not found any speaker figures?
Scanian is back
Comment needed at Scanian dialect. There's an edit war on deleting the population with various spurious arguments. The single reasonable argument is that Ethnologue did not base their estimate on a reliable source. Of course, that could be true for many of our articles, and not just ones based on Ethnologue. — kwami (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Requested move at Sakha language
- Most of the issues have now been dealt with. The only tag now left is that Dodger67 feels that it 'may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience'. As the original creator of this article and following his advice to consult WikiProject Languages, I would welcome it if any linguist reading this would offer advice on whether it is too detailed (since it seems to me that it is no more detailed than a number of other articles on languages - and also it isn't the main page on the language) and if so, where it should be shortened. Perhaps you could put the advice on the Talk page of the article. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Categories for languages of Spain
I've recently spotted some changes to languages spoken in Spain that I found strange, made by User:Marcocapelle. We have Castilian languages becoming a part of Extremaduran language. I don't believe that's typical linguistic classification...? Incredibly, Spanish is no longer a language of Spain. I understand that that's included in parent categories, but surely a reader expects Spanish to be directly listed in, also according to the guidelines at WP:EPONYMOUS. Likewise, Extremaduran is no longer a language of Spain, even though as we saw above, Spanish (aka Castilian) has become a dialect of Extremaduran. Same with Galician. The only relevant category that is left to Aragonese is the Aragonese language itself. Evidently the reader isn't interested in linking it to Iberian or Romance languages or anything.
There may be more of this that I missed. May I have a rationale, from the editor making the changes or other, for these rather counter-intuitive re-categorizations? LjL (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Most edits simply follow one of the possibilities that are mentioned in the guidelines (see Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages). With Castilian languages I can well imagine that you have some doubts. In theory one could create a Category:Castilian languages and then parent Category:Spanish language and Category:Extremaduran language to it - but it would remain a very small category so that's not really desirable. The reason I've classified the article Castilian languages in Category:Spanish language and Category:Extremaduran language is obviously not because Castilian is a dialect of Extremaduran, but because the article Castilian languages is (also) about the Extremaduran language. Categories are intended to group articles about a topic, after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Still, Extremaduran language has its own article, which can be and is made to belong to Category:Extremaduran language (although I really believe it would be very beneficial, for it and similarly other articles, to keep it directly in too); Castilian languages links to it but is not about it, in fact it's in a sense its "parent", but with this categorization, you're making it its "child".
- As to the rest, I'll let others say their opinion at point. I think having Category:Languages of Spain and possibly more in most of those articles is simply common sense and useful to the reader. Articles aren't necessarily meant to have just one category when it's useful to have several. LjL (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Goidelic languages listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Goidelic languages to be moved to Gaelic languages. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — 02:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to merge two articles at new title, Language extinction: Please see Talk:Language death#Proposed merger with Extinct language. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to move glottophagy material mostly out of Language death (and certainly out of its lead) and integrate it into the lead at Language death and expand upon it there: Please see Talk:Language shift#Glottophagy. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Altaic and infoboxes discussion
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Altaic and infoboxes; I think that the content of that discussion is actually more tied to dispute on this project's talk page than that one. And why are these separate projects to begin with? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Glottocodes & ISO 639-codes
I am currently working on ISO 639-3 codes and Glottocodes in the Wikipedia in French. I got a list of from Glottolog of 7800 languages with their Glottocodes and ISO 639-3 codes. I think it could be useful for wp.en to have these datas, that could also be used on WikiData. I have put the CSV, XLSX and ODS (better presentation) files on Mega if you want to download them. If you don't trust these files, the sortable table and CSV are also on my subpages : ISO3 codes+Glottocodes table and ISO3 codes+Glottocodes CSV. The list was put together with the help of Robert Forkel from Glottolog, using the data available as JSON from http://glottolog.org/resourcemap.json?rsc=language.
- There is one thing that might interfere. There are Glottolog codes for languages that don't have ISO 639-3 codes and vice versa. --Taivo (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- This doesn't interfere with this list : these 7800+ languages have both codes. I know that I'm not likely to be trusted or even respected by some people here as I do not contribute much on this Wikipedia compared to the one in French, I just did this to give some help, you can do what you want with it. Ѕÿϰדα×₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ You talkin' to me? 16:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyntaxTerror (talk • contribs)
Hallo, at Halia language "Selau" appears in the infobox in the "altname" field, though isn't mentioned in the text, and Selau language redirects there too. The two refs both call it a dialect of Halia. In a new stub at Selau, Papua New Guinea there's some confused, unsourced, wording about the language. Could a linguist have a look at it and perhaps sort it out? Thanks. PamD 15:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Category:Nordic languages, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. LjL (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
RfC: What should the language infobox display when editors have not found any speaker figures?
In the case that editors have looked for speaker figures, but have not found any, they can set the parameter speakers of Template:Infobox language to
?. This currently causes the infobox to display “Native speakers (no data)”. There are two questions:
- Should we display something in this case, or should we display nothing?
- If we should display something, then what should it say?
- Comment - open-ended RfC questions ("what should we..." instead of yes/no questions) are often a bad idea, because everyone comes up with something slightly different, and it's very hard to establish consensus. The first question is fine, but perhaps you could come up with a few explicit alternatives (ideally including the ones that you do not favor but were proposed by other editors) for the second. LjL (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - It is also very bad manners to not notify the principal participants in the original discussion. --Taivo (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)