This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Where shall I start? This is an article on a specialized linguistic subject written by someone who obviously has no understanding of the subject about which they're writing. They've apparently added some real data from online sources to their completely wrong basic concept. The Proto-Philippine language should be the reconstructed ancestor of all the Philippine languages. It would be much older than any attested language such as Old Tagalog, and its descendants would include most of the languages of the Philippines and edges of Malaysia and Indonesia. For all of these languages to have developed from such a language, it would have to predate any form of writing known to have existed in the Philippines- but the original versions indicate that the creator didn't really understand the difference between Proto-Philippine and early Old Tagalog (I'm not sure if I should wikilink that, since it was added by the same account). Some of this was corrected by an IP to reflect real Proto-Philippine, but only enough to put a sort of veneer over the vast majority of misinformation.
Starting with the infobox:
To sum it all up: this looks like a hodgepodge of stuff that doesn't belong together assembled by someone who has no idea what they're doing, and without referencing it's impossible to sift the real stuff from the garbage. We can't get confirmation from the original editor because they've been indef-blocked for sockpuppeteering. (My mistake- blocked for two weeks, not indefinite
Chuck Entz (
talk) 02:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)) It looks to me like we need to either delete the whole thing or gut it and start from scratch.
Chuck Entz (
talk) 06:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Where shall I start? This is an article on a specialized linguistic subject written by someone who obviously has no understanding of the subject about which they're writing. They've apparently added some real data from online sources to their completely wrong basic concept. The Proto-Philippine language should be the reconstructed ancestor of all the Philippine languages. It would be much older than any attested language such as Old Tagalog, and its descendants would include most of the languages of the Philippines and edges of Malaysia and Indonesia. For all of these languages to have developed from such a language, it would have to predate any form of writing known to have existed in the Philippines- but the original versions indicate that the creator didn't really understand the difference between Proto-Philippine and early Old Tagalog (I'm not sure if I should wikilink that, since it was added by the same account). Some of this was corrected by an IP to reflect real Proto-Philippine, but only enough to put a sort of veneer over the vast majority of misinformation.
Starting with the infobox:
To sum it all up: this looks like a hodgepodge of stuff that doesn't belong together assembled by someone who has no idea what they're doing, and without referencing it's impossible to sift the real stuff from the garbage. We can't get confirmation from the original editor because they've been indef-blocked for sockpuppeteering. (My mistake- blocked for two weeks, not indefinite
Chuck Entz (
talk) 02:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)) It looks to me like we need to either delete the whole thing or gut it and start from scratch.
Chuck Entz (
talk) 06:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)