This template was considered for deletion on 2020 May 30. The result of the discussion was "Keep seperate". |
Languages Template‑class | |||||||
|
This list contains elements like "Rioplatense Spanish", "Quebec French", etc. These things don't belong here. They're not languages. Only alternate names for languages should be included. Joeldl 14:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose this:
Aragonese • Aromanian • Arpitan or Franco-Provençal • Astur-Leonese • Catalan-Valencian-Balear • Corsican ( Gallurese, Sassarese) • Dalmatian • Emiliano-Romagnolo • French (other langues d'oïl [ Picard, Walloon, Lorrain, Norman and Jèrriais, Champenois, Burgundian, Franc-Comtois, Gallo, Poitevin-Saintongeais ], French creole) • Friulian • Galician and Fala • Istriot • Istro-Romanian • Italian ( Central Italian and Romanesco, Tuscan) • Judeo-Italian • Ladin • Ladino • Ligurian ( Genoese, Monégasque) • Lombard ( Insubric [ Milanese, Brianzoeu and Canzés, Ticinese ], Orobic) • Megleno-Romanian • Mozarabic • Neapolitan • Occitan • Piedmontese • Portuguese • Romanian-Moldovan-Vlach • Romansh • Sardinian • Sicilian • Spanish (Castilian) • Shuadit • Venetian ( Talian)
I don't understand why some dialects are listed as languages in the alphabetical order, while Western Lombard dialects, notwithstanding they were listed just as dialects in parentheses, have been totally cancelled. I refer to the Oïl, Occitan and Spanish dialects such as: Arpitan, Astur-Leonese, Auvergnat, Aupenc, Burgundian, Champenois, Franc-Comtois, Gallo, Gascon (and Aranese subdialect), Languedocien, Limousin, Lorrain, Norman, Poitevin-Saintongeais, Picard, Provençal, Walloon. - 84.223.79.127 15:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If nobody oppose, i´ll add Extremaduran language into the asturleonese group. Greetings! Better geta 16:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I oppose an arrangement into so-called "main" languages and "others". The place for discussing numbers of speakers is in the relevant articles. The template is for navigation and arrangement alphabetically within linguistic group should be sufficient. Man vyi ( talk) 09:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Gallo Italian languages should appear amongst the main Western European languages. Firstly because they are numerically relevant (they have more speakers than Catalan), then because they form a coherent group on its own. -- 89.97.35.70 ( talk) 23:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Gallurese: an evident similarity, indeed, exists between Corsican (especially southern dialects) and Gallurese, and as evident as the distance from the bordering Sardo logudorese [...] in the recent regional law (No. 26, 1997) voted by the Sardinian Parliament, the Gallurese (with the Sassarese) is not considered as a Sardinian language.. it:Lingua gallurese Nel periodo compreso tra il 1347-48 e il 1400 la Gallura si spopola a seguito di un'epidemia e di incursioni piratesche e ha inizio l'insediamento di massa di numerose famiglie provenienti dal sud della Corsica (allora dominio genovese) che importano nella Gallura interna i propri dialetti orali (ormai fortemente influenzati dall'influsso pisano e genovese in Corsica) assimilando contestualmente diversi vocaboli e toponimi dalle parlate logudoresi, (circa il 18-20% del lessico attuale), nonché alcuni termini catalani. Questa immigrazione è stata tra l'altro sostenuta dal governo aragonese al fine di ripopolare le deserte terre galluresi.
Sassarese: is a Southern Romance language and a diasystem of the Sardinian and Corsican [...] it is based on a mixture of different languages. In the recente regional law Sassarese is distinct from gallurese and sardinian, it's born before gallurese from a different population, with ages of autonomous evolution. -- Felisopus ( talk) 13:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Sardinian (26), Sassarese (19) and Corsican/Gallurese (18)... -- Felisopus ( talk) 10:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 12:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Instead, i would like to know why you involved with a classification different from the content of all articles.
-- Felisopus ( talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
They form a subgroup on their own, the Gallo-Romance languages, as opposed to Ibero-Romance, so another subgroup has to be introduced.
Occitan besides is a Gallo-Romance language. -- 89.97.35.70 ( talk) 17:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This template seems to introduce its very own take on the Romance languages and does so without providing a single source. Are we to understand that Italian is closer related to French than to Corsican? Any linguist would find the claim utterly absurd, but this template doesn't shy away from it. And how come Aragonese ended up in a category of its own? What happened to the well-known distinction between Eastern and Western Romance languages? While the Italo-Western theory is a well established theory, it is by no means the only one. This template varies between some factually correct information, some unsourced preferences for one theory over another WP:OR and some obvious errors. JdeJ ( talk) 09:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
, [3]. JdeJ ( talk) 00:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll be happy to include references from some proper academic books on this subject, none of which classifies Corsican as closer to Sardinian than to Italian, but here are just a few sources right away to show that the definition used in this template is at very least contested. In reality, it's an invention of Ethnologue and not based on any linguistic facts. University of Groningen [4] Encarta [5] Eurolang [ [6]] JdeJ ( talk) 12:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Why some languages are il bold? Bye -- 87.18.189.80 ( talk) 22:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Could someone edit the Gallo-Italian box please? It should show that there are actually two families of Gallo-Italian languages (as you can read in the respective Wikipedia articles): Gallo-Italic (not to be confused with the whole Gallo-Italian) and Venetian. Those families are often considered a language on its own right, such as Catalan or Occitan, with different dialects within them. So the template should be something like that:
-- Fertuno ( talk) 11:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Catalan language is lacking important dialects in this template. It tried to start adding them, but it destroyed the format of the table. Can somebody help? Thanks. -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 12:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
this article is purely idiotic. the subdivisions of Portuguese and Spanish were done by someone who is illiterate. Not relevant dialects are listed, just because these are different countries or continents. And comparing that with the more complex situation of Italian or even French, it is mind-buggling. Will anyone clean this? -- Pedro ( talk)
I think is quite absurd that Sardinian is related to eastern romance languages in this template! you should modify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.240.235 ( talk) 01:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
In Italian linguistic sources no important scholar considers Venetian to be a Gallo-Italic language. It's considered just North Italian, and belonging to a sister group of Gallo-Italic.-- Carnby ( talk) 19:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you think this template should be merged with the {{ Italic languages}} template, since all the Romance languages descend from Vulgar Latin, an Italic language, or should they remain separate? -- PK2 ( talk) 07:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Just so y'all are aware, I took the time to overhaul the Langues d'oïl section here, I forgot to mention it in the edit summary, so I had to put it here. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System ( talk) 17:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Arctic Circle System: First, good work in trying to improve coverage here. However, I have some concerns of template bloat. A Navbox is not necessarily for every single article related to a topic (that's categories); it should be focused on just the most relevant ones. It does not have to be "complete". To that extent, I'm not sure about adding very specific dialects that have short, stubby articles. I think links to articles like Spanish dialects and varieties and Romanian dialects is good, but we don't need the full list here. This template is on Romance languages and is already very long; adding every single dialect will just dull the focus from the most relevant links, which is the top-level languages. Also, non-existent articles are even worse than short stubby ones; as discussed over Discord, red links aren't really appropriate in the long-term on navboxes. Do you think there's any likelihood of a Frankish language (Oïl) article being made in the near future, say the next three months or so? Does the French wiki have an article on it? Is there sufficient RS coverage of it as a grouping worthy of a separate article? If there's no plans to make such an article, then it shouldn't be linked. Even if the article might have long-term possibility, can always let the article come first, and add it to the navbox afterward.
Now, this isn't to say that improving coverage of dialects isn't a good thing, it is good... but... already huge navboxes aren't really the right place. I'd think that cleaning up and/or creating the dialect articles would be a better spot. It also might be reasonable to create more specific navboxes, and only use them on the dialect articles themselves. For example, I could see a template like {{ Gallo-Romance languages and dialects}} that did have every single dialect, and was placed on various langues d'oil articles. The same perhaps with Romanian dialects - a small template is fine! But that's just me. SnowFire ( talk)
Hi! Should not these three varieties of French (in alphabetical order) find their place in this template? Aostan French, Belgian French and Swiss French. Simoncik84 ( talk) 11:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
This template was considered for deletion on 2020 May 30. The result of the discussion was "Keep seperate". |
Languages Template‑class | |||||||
|
This list contains elements like "Rioplatense Spanish", "Quebec French", etc. These things don't belong here. They're not languages. Only alternate names for languages should be included. Joeldl 14:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I propose this:
Aragonese • Aromanian • Arpitan or Franco-Provençal • Astur-Leonese • Catalan-Valencian-Balear • Corsican ( Gallurese, Sassarese) • Dalmatian • Emiliano-Romagnolo • French (other langues d'oïl [ Picard, Walloon, Lorrain, Norman and Jèrriais, Champenois, Burgundian, Franc-Comtois, Gallo, Poitevin-Saintongeais ], French creole) • Friulian • Galician and Fala • Istriot • Istro-Romanian • Italian ( Central Italian and Romanesco, Tuscan) • Judeo-Italian • Ladin • Ladino • Ligurian ( Genoese, Monégasque) • Lombard ( Insubric [ Milanese, Brianzoeu and Canzés, Ticinese ], Orobic) • Megleno-Romanian • Mozarabic • Neapolitan • Occitan • Piedmontese • Portuguese • Romanian-Moldovan-Vlach • Romansh • Sardinian • Sicilian • Spanish (Castilian) • Shuadit • Venetian ( Talian)
I don't understand why some dialects are listed as languages in the alphabetical order, while Western Lombard dialects, notwithstanding they were listed just as dialects in parentheses, have been totally cancelled. I refer to the Oïl, Occitan and Spanish dialects such as: Arpitan, Astur-Leonese, Auvergnat, Aupenc, Burgundian, Champenois, Franc-Comtois, Gallo, Gascon (and Aranese subdialect), Languedocien, Limousin, Lorrain, Norman, Poitevin-Saintongeais, Picard, Provençal, Walloon. - 84.223.79.127 15:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If nobody oppose, i´ll add Extremaduran language into the asturleonese group. Greetings! Better geta 16:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I oppose an arrangement into so-called "main" languages and "others". The place for discussing numbers of speakers is in the relevant articles. The template is for navigation and arrangement alphabetically within linguistic group should be sufficient. Man vyi ( talk) 09:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Gallo Italian languages should appear amongst the main Western European languages. Firstly because they are numerically relevant (they have more speakers than Catalan), then because they form a coherent group on its own. -- 89.97.35.70 ( talk) 23:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Gallurese: an evident similarity, indeed, exists between Corsican (especially southern dialects) and Gallurese, and as evident as the distance from the bordering Sardo logudorese [...] in the recent regional law (No. 26, 1997) voted by the Sardinian Parliament, the Gallurese (with the Sassarese) is not considered as a Sardinian language.. it:Lingua gallurese Nel periodo compreso tra il 1347-48 e il 1400 la Gallura si spopola a seguito di un'epidemia e di incursioni piratesche e ha inizio l'insediamento di massa di numerose famiglie provenienti dal sud della Corsica (allora dominio genovese) che importano nella Gallura interna i propri dialetti orali (ormai fortemente influenzati dall'influsso pisano e genovese in Corsica) assimilando contestualmente diversi vocaboli e toponimi dalle parlate logudoresi, (circa il 18-20% del lessico attuale), nonché alcuni termini catalani. Questa immigrazione è stata tra l'altro sostenuta dal governo aragonese al fine di ripopolare le deserte terre galluresi.
Sassarese: is a Southern Romance language and a diasystem of the Sardinian and Corsican [...] it is based on a mixture of different languages. In the recente regional law Sassarese is distinct from gallurese and sardinian, it's born before gallurese from a different population, with ages of autonomous evolution. -- Felisopus ( talk) 13:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Sardinian (26), Sassarese (19) and Corsican/Gallurese (18)... -- Felisopus ( talk) 10:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 12:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Instead, i would like to know why you involved with a classification different from the content of all articles.
-- Felisopus ( talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
They form a subgroup on their own, the Gallo-Romance languages, as opposed to Ibero-Romance, so another subgroup has to be introduced.
Occitan besides is a Gallo-Romance language. -- 89.97.35.70 ( talk) 17:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This template seems to introduce its very own take on the Romance languages and does so without providing a single source. Are we to understand that Italian is closer related to French than to Corsican? Any linguist would find the claim utterly absurd, but this template doesn't shy away from it. And how come Aragonese ended up in a category of its own? What happened to the well-known distinction between Eastern and Western Romance languages? While the Italo-Western theory is a well established theory, it is by no means the only one. This template varies between some factually correct information, some unsourced preferences for one theory over another WP:OR and some obvious errors. JdeJ ( talk) 09:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
, [3]. JdeJ ( talk) 00:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll be happy to include references from some proper academic books on this subject, none of which classifies Corsican as closer to Sardinian than to Italian, but here are just a few sources right away to show that the definition used in this template is at very least contested. In reality, it's an invention of Ethnologue and not based on any linguistic facts. University of Groningen [4] Encarta [5] Eurolang [ [6]] JdeJ ( talk) 12:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Why some languages are il bold? Bye -- 87.18.189.80 ( talk) 22:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Could someone edit the Gallo-Italian box please? It should show that there are actually two families of Gallo-Italian languages (as you can read in the respective Wikipedia articles): Gallo-Italic (not to be confused with the whole Gallo-Italian) and Venetian. Those families are often considered a language on its own right, such as Catalan or Occitan, with different dialects within them. So the template should be something like that:
-- Fertuno ( talk) 11:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Catalan language is lacking important dialects in this template. It tried to start adding them, but it destroyed the format of the table. Can somebody help? Thanks. -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 12:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
this article is purely idiotic. the subdivisions of Portuguese and Spanish were done by someone who is illiterate. Not relevant dialects are listed, just because these are different countries or continents. And comparing that with the more complex situation of Italian or even French, it is mind-buggling. Will anyone clean this? -- Pedro ( talk)
I think is quite absurd that Sardinian is related to eastern romance languages in this template! you should modify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.240.235 ( talk) 01:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
In Italian linguistic sources no important scholar considers Venetian to be a Gallo-Italic language. It's considered just North Italian, and belonging to a sister group of Gallo-Italic.-- Carnby ( talk) 19:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you think this template should be merged with the {{ Italic languages}} template, since all the Romance languages descend from Vulgar Latin, an Italic language, or should they remain separate? -- PK2 ( talk) 07:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Just so y'all are aware, I took the time to overhaul the Langues d'oïl section here, I forgot to mention it in the edit summary, so I had to put it here. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System ( talk) 17:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Arctic Circle System: First, good work in trying to improve coverage here. However, I have some concerns of template bloat. A Navbox is not necessarily for every single article related to a topic (that's categories); it should be focused on just the most relevant ones. It does not have to be "complete". To that extent, I'm not sure about adding very specific dialects that have short, stubby articles. I think links to articles like Spanish dialects and varieties and Romanian dialects is good, but we don't need the full list here. This template is on Romance languages and is already very long; adding every single dialect will just dull the focus from the most relevant links, which is the top-level languages. Also, non-existent articles are even worse than short stubby ones; as discussed over Discord, red links aren't really appropriate in the long-term on navboxes. Do you think there's any likelihood of a Frankish language (Oïl) article being made in the near future, say the next three months or so? Does the French wiki have an article on it? Is there sufficient RS coverage of it as a grouping worthy of a separate article? If there's no plans to make such an article, then it shouldn't be linked. Even if the article might have long-term possibility, can always let the article come first, and add it to the navbox afterward.
Now, this isn't to say that improving coverage of dialects isn't a good thing, it is good... but... already huge navboxes aren't really the right place. I'd think that cleaning up and/or creating the dialect articles would be a better spot. It also might be reasonable to create more specific navboxes, and only use them on the dialect articles themselves. For example, I could see a template like {{ Gallo-Romance languages and dialects}} that did have every single dialect, and was placed on various langues d'oil articles. The same perhaps with Romanian dialects - a small template is fine! But that's just me. SnowFire ( talk)
Hi! Should not these three varieties of French (in alphabetical order) find their place in this template? Aostan French, Belgian French and Swiss French. Simoncik84 ( talk) 11:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)