Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Essays  
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.
 High  This page has been rated as High-impact on the project's impact scale.
Note icon
The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
 

WikiProject Languages (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 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.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Does this proposed article violate WP:DICTIONARY?[edit]

The Japanese language is known for its wealth of mimetic expressions, as it appears in the media, including manga and anime. I know no other major language with a comparable vocabulary. I thought that a list of Japanese onomatopoeias and the sounds they imitate would be appropriate for inclusion. The list I started more than a month ago is in its early stages. I am considering expanding the prose and obviously the list itself, and I am debating whether to axe the column for English approximations. Then, there is WP:DICTIONARY, which stipulates that Wiktionary is better suited for articles that read like dictionaries. It is worth noting that I am listing words and the sounds they represent, not so much their definitions. For example, the famous mimetic doki doki is listed with the meaning "the sound of a heart beating rapidly". It does not include a definition saying "the state of being excited or startled". So why am I worried about WP:DICTIONARY? Sometimes, you think you are doing the right thing when in fact you missed an important detail. In my case, the meanings in my list could simply be added to the etymologies of the words on Wiktionary, or so I think. FreeMediaKid$ 22:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swahili (and indeed AFAIK all Bantu languages) do something quite similar, if not perhaps so exuberantly. Supposedly so do the Dravidian languages, though that isn't something I know anything about.
But the critical point here I think is that Japanese ideophones are an open word class. You could list all grammatical suffixes in an article on Japanese grammar, or for a Bantu language list all true adjectives (there are usually only a handful), but once you get to an open-ended list, you are indeed in Wiktionary territory. A WP article should cover the concepts, the sound symbolism (e.g. voiced sounds indicating something large, heavy or round and unvoiced sounds something small, light or sharp) and similar general details, along with sufficient examples to make the point, and perhaps list some ideophones that are notable for some reason, but a full list should be moved to Wiktionary. You could make it into an appendix there, and link to that from the WP article, or create individual articles and cross-link them through the same category. — kwami (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fully agree with Kwami's response. LandLing 11:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have a good and decently sourced article about the topic (Japanese sound symbolism), and this should be it for WP. So indeed, Wiktionary is the place. Before building an Appendix in Wiktionary, you should probably consult the Wiktionary community first about the best format to choose: wikt:Wiktionary:Information_desk. –Austronesier (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What I am gathering is that a list like mine would be suitable if it were made into an appendix on Wiktionary. That makes sense. There is already an article about Japanese sound symbolism, and a list would come off as being dictionary-like. I am already preparing the list for inclusion on that site. (I will not comment on my recent copyright affair on that page, though.) The link to the site's information desk will be useful since it is the first time I am creating an appendix, which I will need guidance on how to format. Certainly I would not want even one that has a decent explanation of how the sound symbolism works, but still lists the words in a categorical manner. That is this page's job. As for the draft's title, would it be a good idea if I took it to create a soft redirect to the appendix once the appendix is done? FreeMediaKid$ 21:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consider the difference you want between your intended appendix and the existing category wikt:Category:Japanese onomatopoeias. E.g. the appendix can have red links for words that don't yet have articles.
If you take a look at wikt:Category:Appendices, that should give you some ideas. There should probably be very short definitions, as in many of those appendices, but that's difficult to do with these words. — kwami (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Ethnologue a reliable source?[edit]

The topic regularly comes back, so I started a discussion here, to assess Ethnologue in WP:RSP. Feedback welcome! A455bcd9 (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content dispute at Sino-Uralic languages[edit]

Wider input sought for Talk:Sino-Uralic_languages#Recent_edits_by_Vulpes_tartuensis. Thanks. Austronesier (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improving the "Bulgarian language" article[edit]

Hi,

The Bulgarian language article is currently rated C-class on the quality scale, and "high" on the importance scale. I'd appreciate your opinion and guidance on what it would take for it to graduate to B-class quality. I'm a native Bulgarian speaker with some helpful background in linguistics, and I'd like to contribute to improving the article.

Thanks,

Chernorizets (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hitchiti[edit]

User:Donald Albury is cleaning up the Hitchiti article, which currently covers both the historic tribal town and the Hitchiti language. We were curious if the Hitchiti language is the same as the Mikasuki language or if it's a related dialect. Omniglot appears to say they are the same. Native-Languages.org suggests Hitchiti is an extinct dialect of Mikasuki-Hitchiti. Thank you for any insights! Yuchitown (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]

Ethnologue, under 'dialects', has: "Hitchiti, Mikasuki. Hitchiti dialect is extinct." That's what I've generally seen, though I'd need to dig a bit to see if the claim is well-supported. Could be that the "dialects" are merely defined by who speaks them, and are not actually distinct. That's not an uncommon situation in the US. — kwami (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should the Hitchiti language material simply be added to the Mikasuki language page as is, or should we propose that Mikasuki language be moved to Mikasuki-Hitchiti language? Yuchitown (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)YuchitownReply[reply]

FAR for Nafanan Language[edit]

I have nominated Nafanan language for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 17:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update maintenance categories[edit]

Category:ISO language articles citing sources other than Ethnologue only seems to cover "e11–e19". And Category:Articles with citation needed in ref field needs to be repopulated manually.

How can we include recent editions of Ethnologue in the former category and update the latter? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another question: {{e18}} doesn't generate links while {{e25}} does: why? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think my first question is related to {{infobox language}}: see Template_talk:Infobox_language#Edit_request_27_December_2022. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

Happy New Year, folks! Isn't List of Indo-European languages an ideal place to greet 2023 with a WP:TNT-firework? Austronesier (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure! Erinius (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely! Anyone wants to light the fuse? – Uanfala (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to mark 'citation needed' in the infobox[edit]

Please comment on Template_talk:Infobox_language#'cn'_on_speaker_ref for how to work this out. Simply taking on 'cn' messes up our tracking category for unreferenced figures. — kwami (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Default image and map sizes in our info boxes[edit]

Does anyone have their default image size set to something other than 220px? Perhaps you could advise on whether we should define images in absolute pixels or with a relative scaling factor. Please comment at Template_talk:Infobox_language#Absolute or relative default image size?. — kwami (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary[edit]

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed
Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62)
Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject[edit]

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. If comments are not entered on the article talk page, they may be swept up in archives here and lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Bengali language movement
  2. Gwoyeu Romatzyh
  3. Mayan languages

Two articles for the same ISO 639 language code (qwm)[edit]

While fixing technical errors, I noticed that there are two language articles claiming the ISO 639 code "qwm": Fergana Kipchak language (the redirect target for Kuman (Russia) language) and Cuman language. I was unable to tell at a glance whether these two articles should be merged or whether there is a better resolution to this problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't have an opinion on these two, but I saw this situation several times, could we list all ISO codes that are claimed by at least two different articles? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
qwm is the ISO 639-2 code for Kuman (Russia) [1]. "Kuman" is just another way of spelling "Cuman", the two are completely synonymous in the Turkic literature (some sources spell it "Kuman" and some "Cuman"). Since the article Cuman language exists, then Kuman (Russia) should be a redirect THERE instead of to Fergana Kipchak language. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as what the Fergana Kipchak language refers to, all the sources are in Russian so it may be a Russian term for "Cuman". I have been unable to find any such language reference in the major English language sources on the Turkic languages. If it is exclusively a Russian term (which I suspect), then it has no place in the English Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have two Wikidata items, so if this is a synonym for another language, the WD items should be merged as well. — kwami (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been able to glean hints that a Russian linguist claims that Cuman, which went extinct in Hungary centuries ago, somehow survived in the Fergana Valley of Uzbekistan until the 19th or 20th centuries. His claims are not echoed in any English language sources. So the Fergana Kipchak language article, while its history of Cuman repeats what is found at Cuman language, other information apparently summarizes the Russian claims. It's hard to check because I don't know Russian and all the sources at Fergana Kipchak language are in that language. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dubious and unsourced dialect and sociolect classifications on List of Indo-European languages[edit]

Basically most of the sections on that page between "List of Indo-European protolanguages" and "Hypothetical Indo-European languages (all extinct)" are barely sourced. At least the Italic and Germanic sections include listings of dialects of the major languages, which are generally unsourced and many classifications of English and Spanish dialects are highly dubious. In brief, what should we do about that page? Erinius (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion about adding links to DoReCo[edit]

Please take a look at this discussion regarding the addition of external links to articles about different languages. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the name of a book in Arabic[edit]

The whole question wasn't supposed to be raised here, and is transferred to where it should be - HD language. Sorry. בנצי (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update language name on Wikipedia[edit]

South Levantine Arabic (ajp) and North Levantine Arabic (apc) have just been merged into Levantine Arabic (apc) in the ISO 639-3 standard (see Request 2022-006, please note that I was the primary proposer). How can we take that change into account across Wikipedia so that for instance {{lang}} adds Category:Articles containing Levantine Arabic-language text instead of Category:Articles containing North Levantine Arabic-language text? I assume there are many other templates and modules that need to be updated. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct form to write a proper noun in English[edit]

 – Nardog (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Information.svg

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Arakanese language#Requested move 27 January 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Text in Mongolian script[edit]

Toli text.jpg

Hello

I have a handwritten text in Mongol script that I would like to translate, but I don't read that language. It is about a Toli and I would like to improve the article from this text.

Any ideas will be welcomed.

Regards,  Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 07:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]