The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the English Wikipedia
Manual of Style and
article titles policy, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
There is a great disagreement among editors on whether history articles on language varieties should be titled with the bare name of the variety or with a natural disambiguator like "the ... language". To reduce furthur disagreement, a section called "language histories" should be added with the content rendered like the following:
History articles on language varieties (i.e. languages, dialects, or sociolects) can be titled with the bare name of the variety where it is unambiguous (e.g. History of Latin) or unquestionably the primary topic for the name (e.g. History of Danish, History of English). In other cases, where the language is not the primary topic, a natural disambiguator like "the ... language" is preferred (e.g. History of the Irish language, History of the Spanish language).
There is a great disagreement among editors on whether history articles on language varieties should be titled with the bare name of the variety or with a natural disambiguator like "the ... language". However, there is a consensus that the history articles on language varieties should not be renamed, either directly or with the requested move, without discussion at the respective WikiProject. [1]
References
-- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
When there are two or more languages with the same name, they would typically be titled something like XXX language (YYY), where YYY is either the country/region, or the language family. Country names appear to be more common, but there are a few dozen articles using the language family. Most of those that use family disambiguation have just been boldly moved to XXX (YYY language) [1]. Anyone think this may actually be better? If not, I'm planning to have the moves reverted. – Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think anachronism is a problem. Whether we call the country 'Burma' or 'Myanmar' is a political decision. I prefer 'Burma' myself, but it's splitting hairs to say we can't use 'Myanmar' because that wasn't in use in English at the time. Doesn't matter: it's the same country, with no possibility of confusion. — kwami ( talk) 06:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Why are proto-languages almost exclusively found under "Proto-X language", or even deliberately moved there with reference to this guideline (e. g. Proto-Athabaskan language)? In virtually all cases, they should be the primary topic for the term "Proto-X" quite unambiguously. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 14:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the English Wikipedia
Manual of Style and
article titles policy, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
There is a great disagreement among editors on whether history articles on language varieties should be titled with the bare name of the variety or with a natural disambiguator like "the ... language". To reduce furthur disagreement, a section called "language histories" should be added with the content rendered like the following:
History articles on language varieties (i.e. languages, dialects, or sociolects) can be titled with the bare name of the variety where it is unambiguous (e.g. History of Latin) or unquestionably the primary topic for the name (e.g. History of Danish, History of English). In other cases, where the language is not the primary topic, a natural disambiguator like "the ... language" is preferred (e.g. History of the Irish language, History of the Spanish language).
There is a great disagreement among editors on whether history articles on language varieties should be titled with the bare name of the variety or with a natural disambiguator like "the ... language". However, there is a consensus that the history articles on language varieties should not be renamed, either directly or with the requested move, without discussion at the respective WikiProject. [1]
References
-- Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
When there are two or more languages with the same name, they would typically be titled something like XXX language (YYY), where YYY is either the country/region, or the language family. Country names appear to be more common, but there are a few dozen articles using the language family. Most of those that use family disambiguation have just been boldly moved to XXX (YYY language) [1]. Anyone think this may actually be better? If not, I'm planning to have the moves reverted. – Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't think anachronism is a problem. Whether we call the country 'Burma' or 'Myanmar' is a political decision. I prefer 'Burma' myself, but it's splitting hairs to say we can't use 'Myanmar' because that wasn't in use in English at the time. Doesn't matter: it's the same country, with no possibility of confusion. — kwami ( talk) 06:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Why are proto-languages almost exclusively found under "Proto-X language", or even deliberately moved there with reference to this guideline (e. g. Proto-Athabaskan language)? In virtually all cases, they should be the primary topic for the term "Proto-X" quite unambiguously. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 14:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)