This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is looking quite good. With a little more attention, the addition of some explanatory context, cites/refs and years for the figures and maybe a location map, this could worked into a Featured List. I guess the FA nom for the main article should be cleared first, tho... anyways- nice work.-- cjllw | TALK 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, these all use period (.) as the thousands separator; while this is the case in many European countries, comma is the usual one in most countries where English is an official language. So for en: I think comma would be better.
I also wonder where these figures are sourced - they look like they have been taken from Ethnologue, but those tend to be somewhat inflated. At least they are comparable across many linguistic groups, I suppose.
72.224.120.80 02:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Nora England, the silly Ethnologue-based multiplication of dialects has now been cleaned up in ISO-693. See her request to ISO and, for instance, a page for one of the deleted language codes. We need to clean up this page now. It is not too easy - you have to add to all the speaker numbers and subtract from all the right rowspans. I did Chol. Here's the new list (copied and edited from ethnologue, numbers NOT valid):
Mayan (69)
Homunq ( talk) 05:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Why are some subgroups written in bold and others not? I can't see any explanation of this in the article. Haakon K ( talk) 05:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is looking quite good. With a little more attention, the addition of some explanatory context, cites/refs and years for the figures and maybe a location map, this could worked into a Featured List. I guess the FA nom for the main article should be cleared first, tho... anyways- nice work.-- cjllw | TALK 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, these all use period (.) as the thousands separator; while this is the case in many European countries, comma is the usual one in most countries where English is an official language. So for en: I think comma would be better.
I also wonder where these figures are sourced - they look like they have been taken from Ethnologue, but those tend to be somewhat inflated. At least they are comparable across many linguistic groups, I suppose.
72.224.120.80 02:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Nora England, the silly Ethnologue-based multiplication of dialects has now been cleaned up in ISO-693. See her request to ISO and, for instance, a page for one of the deleted language codes. We need to clean up this page now. It is not too easy - you have to add to all the speaker numbers and subtract from all the right rowspans. I did Chol. Here's the new list (copied and edited from ethnologue, numbers NOT valid):
Mayan (69)
Homunq ( talk) 05:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Why are some subgroups written in bold and others not? I can't see any explanation of this in the article. Haakon K ( talk) 05:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)