Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages

Help: Prekmurje Slovene; survey

Hello! I have attempted to correct and provide sources for this article. Where can I request proofreading? Doncsecz^talk 08:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Yvy Marãeʼỹ#Requested move 2 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Yvy Marãeʼỹ#Requested move 2 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Altaic languages#Requested move 4 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Altaic languages#Requested move 4 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Austronesier (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This move discussion is relevant because it implictly put into question our rationale in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(languages)#Language_families: X languages is preferred over X language family because it leaves the actual nature of the grouping (genetic, geographic, or otherwise) an open question, which saves us from nit-picking about the article title in the case of controversial families. While the guideline does not explicitly say that X languages is preferred over X hypothesis in the case of controversial families, it clearly says that X languages leaves the actual nature of the grouping an open question. Feel free to join the current nit-picking. –Austronesier (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Okjeo language

Okjeo language has been nominated for deletion. Comments are welcome at the discussion. Kanguole 22:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gyat#Requested move 12 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gyat#Requested move 12 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 17#Template:Austronesian_languages

There is a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 17#Template:Austronesian_languages that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Austronesier (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Kartvelian languages

Template:Kartvelian languages has been nominated for merging with Template:Georgian language. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PK2 (talk; contributions) 04:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dargwa language#Requested move 22 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dargwa language#Requested move 22 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Does Nivkh currently have one alphabet or two?

This is under discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Nivkh alphabets discussion, but doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, and the moderator suggested continuing here. It relates to the article Nivkh alphabets.

Unicode has published statements by linguists working on Siberian languages that the difference between the 'ticked' and curved variants of extended Siberian letters like Қ қ Қʼ қʼ Ң ң Ҳ ҳ vs Ӄ ӄ Ӄʼ ӄʼ Ӈ ӈ Ӽ ӽ are allographs, and Unicode has therefore refused to encode additional pairs. Nivkh isn't mentioned specifically, but we've had a similar debate with Khanty, and there it's quite clear that the forms of the letters is an editorial choice, and makes no difference to the orthography. In the case of Nivkh, we have publications using either set of allographs.

For Nivkh, we have an editor who insists that this is not allography, but two entirely separate alphabets, and that when govt agencies currently use the ticked variants of the letters, they're using the 'old' alphabet, even though they include the new letters that were introduced with the latest orthographic change.

Anyway, if someone could chime in, we'd appreciate it. — kwami (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Common Era has an RfC

Common Era, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jeaucques Quœure (talk) 07:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

LINGUIST list codes in language infoboxes

In a string of good-faith mass-edits, User:Spino-Soar-Us has started to add LINGIUST list codes into quite a few language articles. While in most cases, I see don't any "harm" in it (except for producing redundant bloat in articles with multiple LINGLIST/ISO-codes, e.g. here[1]), do we actually need these entries? LINGIUST list codes are no longer maintained (the parameter produces Web Archive links!) and for historical reasons are mostly identical to ISO-639-3 codes. This is hardly in line with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE which is to provide key facts at a glance. I think most would agree that ISO- and Glottolog-codes are key data points, but what about a deprecated and almost always redundant set of codes? Maybe it's time to deprecate the parameter entirely. Austronesier (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a single case of a language having a LingList code that doesn't have an identical ISO 639-3 code? If not, we can certainly drop it from infoboxes. Even if there is, there's no point in recording the ones that were copied into ISO 639-3. Deprecating or dropping the parameter also seem reasonable, given that LingList is no longer active. Kanguole 13:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

ISO codes of languages extinct before 1950 were maintained by LingList, which is why we linked to them. I don't know what we should do if a code isn't maintained by anyone. But no, if the code is maintained by SIL/ISO, we shouldn't link to LingList, which wasn't a RS even when they were functional. — kwami (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

honorifics

Hi friends, I came across German honorifics which is currently unsourced and was wondering if there was any consistency in these kinds of pages across different languages. I'm not entirely sure who to ask, appreciate any advice because I'm not seeing good references which could be added. Thanks. JMWt (talk) 09:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with such articles, but it you search for articles containing "honorifics", a number of articles appear, including many titles in the form of Korean honorifics, French honorifics, Thai honorifics, etc. If you are inclined to pursue this, you can look at those articles. Donald Albury 17:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Redlinked tracking categories

Nearly every run of Special:WantedCategories, for cleaning up redlinked (i.e. non-existent) categories that have to be either created or removed as pages aren't allowed to sit in redlinked categories, always contains at least one, and much more frequently several, new template-generated categories of the "Articles containing [Language]-language text", "Articles with [Language]-language sources (lang-x code)" and/or "Pages with [Language] IPA" varieties, because somebody has added new lang-x templates to a Wikipedia article for a language that didn't already have those categories in place yet.

Since like other categories they can't stay red, but unlike most redlinked categories they're template-generated and thus impossible to remove without removing the template entirely (which would be disruptive), I end up having to invest my time into creating the categories on your behalf even though I'm not a member of this project.

Since these are maintenance-tracking categories which are allowed to be empty, however, nothing would stop this project from just preemptively creating every possible category of this type right off the bat, so that the category is already there when needed instead of turning into a redlink cleanup problem for me to fix. So would somebody associated with this project be willing to tackle creating any missing categories of those types for any and all languages that don't have them yet, so that it stops becoming my problem? (You could almost certainly farm the drudgery part of that out to a bot instead of having to do it all manually, but you guys are in a much better position than I am to figure out which categories are missing in the first place.) Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)