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, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | WikiProject Languages was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 7 May 2012. |
Please add reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Hebrew (disambiguation)#Requested move 12 October 2025
[edit]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hebrew (disambiguation)#Requested move 12 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. PK2 (talk; contributions) 03:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:English language § Requested move 12 October 2025
[edit]An editor has requested that English language be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Extra colors for Chibchan and Tucanoan languages?
[edit]Following this edit request at Template talk:Infobox language, which didn't get any participation, should new colors be added for Chibchan languages and Tucanoan languages?
Pinging editors from the previous thread: @Kepler-1229b @PersusjCP @Kwamikagami Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- In support of my argument, most American language families with large amounts of languages typically get their own family colors. Campbell (2024) highlights Arawakan, Cariban, Chapacuran, Chibchan, Macro-Jê Sensu Stricto, Pano-Takanan, Quechuan, Tukanoan (Tucanoan), and Tupían as being "larger language families" (i.e. >6 languages present).[1] Per this argument, Chapacuran should also get its own color ( ). 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC) 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
References
- ^ Campbell, Lyle (2024-06-25), "Indigenous Languages of South America", The Indigenous Languages of the Americas (1 ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 182–279, doi:10.1093/oso/9780197673461.003.0004, ISBN 978-0-19-767346-1, retrieved 2025-10-18
Requested move at Talk:Je–Tupi–Carib languages#Requested move 24 October 2025
[edit]There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Je–Tupi–Carib languages#Requested move 24 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Yacàwotçã (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Shetland dialect#Requested move 16 October 2025
[edit]There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Shetland dialect#Requested move 16 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 11:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 14 § Lower Frisian. PK2 (talk; contributions) 10:17, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Altaic (disambiguation)
[edit]An editor has requested that Altaic (disambiguation) be moved to Altaic, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. PK2 (talk; contributions) 22:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
There is an uncomfortable back and forth going on the talk page in Talk:Pictish language#Influence On Gaelic. Extra eyes and input would be very welcome. The Banner talk 00:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
- I've added my tuppence worth. Hopefully it will not need to be escalated. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
The article really seems to be a hoax made somewhere in 2005, because it is based on a single source made around the same time, and the evidence of it is two undeciphered inscriptions, which absolutely cannot be taken as a separate language. I suggest maybe creating a new Eastern Celtic article which will combine small evidence of Noric with a broader evidence of Eastern Celtic toponyms in total, to form a better-sourced unified article? From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- I doubt it is a hoax. The author of the cited source, David Stifter, is a professor of Old Irish. From 2000 to 2008 he worked at the Department of Linguistics at the University of Vienna, where he probably became acquainted with the fragmentary inscriptions.[1] However, the source is a transcript of a lecture, which does not meet the criteria of WP:RS. The topic certainly does not qualify for a stand-alone article. Donald Albury 16:30, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
- Well the source is indeed authorative, but it's single. There's, for example, Brythonic colony of Britonia in Galicia, and I being an authorative scholar can write an article about a separate language there. Will local language considered separate then? Yeah, I doubt so. We need more sources on the language to proclaim it's "independence".
- On other hand Eastern Celtic in total has a lot more sources made by other authorities scholars, so a unification with the inscriptions of Noricum seems to be logical. From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
I have a disagreement with Cookiemonster1618 regarding the speaker parameters in the Indonesian language, specifically the year of the source. The infobox currently lists: L1: 75 million (2020)
, L2: 177 million (2020)
, and Total: 252 million (2020)
, all sourced to Ethnologue (https://www.ethnologue.com/language/ind/). In my view, the year should be 2025 rather than 2020, because the figures come from the 28th edition of Ethnologue. He insists that 2020 is correct. I would like to invite other editors from WP:LANGUAGE to help clarify this issue. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
About the "importance" of different Arabic dialects to the project
[edit]Hello all.
I just added Qatari Arabic to the project, and started wandering through other Arabic language articles. I found that while dialects such as Peninsular Arabic and Egyptian Arabic are defined as "high importance", only Levantine Arabic is defined as "top importance" (alongside MSA and Arabic overall).
The distinction in importance is probably itself not very important in the grand scheme of things, but just seemed to me an odd and irksome enough inconsistency to ask about here.
Does anyone have any explanation/argument as to why it is this way, and why it shouldn't be changed?
Thanks and good tidings, غوّاص العلم (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Content assessment#Priority assessment explains the purpose of importance assessment. This project has criteria for assigning importance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages/Assessment#Importance scale. As far as I know, importance ratings for articles of interest to this project are usually set by individual editors without consultation with other editors. Personally, in 20 years of editing I have never set an article importance rating as anything other than low (and then only when I have added a project template to an article talk page), and otherwise ignore such ratings. Donald Albury 18:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I guess I'll just let it be, then.
- Good tidings, غوّاص العلم (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2025 (UTC)