Template talk:Infobox language/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Edit request 27 December 2022

Description of suggested change: Category:ISO language articles citing sources other than Ethnologue only seems to cover "e11–e19". Other editions (up to {{e25}} and the upcoming {{e26}}) should be included as well. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

There are similar issues with:

• Category:Articles with citation needed in ref field (needs to be repopulated manually?)
• Category:Language articles with unknown population not citing Ethnologue 18
• Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue 19 speaker data
• Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue 18 speaker data

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure Category:Languages without ISO 639-3 code works either. It lists Afrikaans and Carib language, both have an ISO code in their infobox. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I have added e25 to the switch statement, which should remove Category:ISO language articles citing sources other than Ethnologue from articles that use it. I have not added e26 yet, since it does not exist so cannot be cited. I'm happy to add it when it exists. Please link to specific articles that display problems with the other categories that you listed.

As for Category:Languages without ISO 639-3 code, it appears in Afrikaans because of the "Hottentot Dutch" infobox and in Carib language because of the "Pidgin Carib" infobox. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: thanks a lot!

You're right for Afrikaans and Carib, so no problem there.

Regarding the other issues:

• Category:Articles with citation needed in ref field contains Belizean Spanish and Chinese Sign Language even though none of them have cn in their ref field.
• Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue 18 speaker data => such a category is only added for E18 and E19. Should we add it for all editions?
• Category:Language articles with unknown population not citing Ethnologue 18 => should it be renamed to "Language articles with unknown population not citing the latest edition of Ethnologue"? It doesn't make sense to arbitrarily choose E18 as the reference.

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The reason it's stalled at e18 is that was when I stopped blacket-updating WP. Up till then, I'd updated the Ethn. data for every WP article that had an infobox with an ISO code. When Ethn. started coming out with annual updates, but no list of languages that had actually been updated in the new edition, I think I did it once more and then called it quits, as it took too much time. So WP was updated to that point and I wanted future editors to know where the updates had stopped. — kwami (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for providing more context. So should we create "Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue XX speaker data" for all editions? Otherwise we can just have "Category:Language articles with old speaker data" and use PetScan to find the intersection with those citing Ethnologue.

What about the other two issues? ("Articles with citation needed in ref field" and "Language articles with unknown population not citing Ethnologue 18")? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it necessary to track articles where the field doesn't have a reference? Infobox content doesn't need citations if it's supported in the rest of the article; sometimes, this field will just provide a range that summarises a number of population estimates that are otherwise discussed and sourced in the article body. In my experience, the only sourcing problems here are when the infobox field has a reference that doesn't support the population figure (this usually happens when drive-by editors pump up the speaker numbers without wasting any time checking or updating references); as far as I can see, this is not possible to track. – Uanfala (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Uanfala. There are two questions:

• Should we add ref in infoboxes after the number of speakers? I agree that infobox content doesn't need citations but because numbers of speakers are very likely to be challenged it's good to have a reference, even if the information is already sourced elsewhere.
• Is it necessary to track articles where the field doesn't have a reference? I checked 10 random articles in Category:Language articles without reference field to see whether this tracking was useful or not:
  • Dehwari language: referenced elsewhere in the article but not up-to-date
  • Liha language: already sourced in the article but infobox not formatted correctly (year not in "date" field)
  • Glasgow dialect: no ref, not in the article. "likely up to" => WP:OR?
  • Garhwali language: different estimate in the article (sourced) and in the infobox (sourced) and incorrect formatting
  • Malavedan language: sourced but not well formatted and outdated
  • Mendawai language: undated and unsourced figure
  • Chesu language: Ethnologue mentioned as the source in the article but not using inline citation
  • Muna language: sourced in the article but outdated
  • Bjarmian languages: using "speakers" instead of "extinct"
  • Magar Kham language: I couldn't verify the estimate as the census mentioned as the source says 27,113 native Kham speakers (p. 172) and not 69k. However, the census also asked for the second language but I couldn't find it. Ethnologue gives 69k for Kham, Western Parbate [kjl] only.
  • Conclusion: based on the above I feel like this category is useful to track articles that need attention, even though in many cases it's not directly due to an empty ref field.

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, many of these tracking categories catch bad edits even if they're not what the cat was intended for. Following up on them helps clean up a lot of cruft that might otherwise pass unnoticed. — kwami (talk) 11:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

unsupported lang-code numbers

Arabic language goes up to lc32 and ld32, which are not supported by this template. — kwami (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

And it's not even including Judeo-Arabic varieties, Hassaniya, Ki-Nubi, and Maltese. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

'cn' on speaker ref

Currently, if there is a speaker number but no ref, this template adds the article to the tracking category 'Language articles without reference field'. However, if someone adds 'cn' to the ref field, the article is removed from tracking. We should probably automate 'cn' to appear if there is no ref provided, so we get both, but I don't know how that would work with 'cn' wanting a date.

Or perhaps we could also get it to generate the tracking cat with a manually entered 'cn' tag after the bot expands it and adds a date. I added an 'edit request' tag to this thread because I don't want to mess with the template without input, and other people are now probably more familiar with how it's structured than I am. — kwami (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to play around in Template:Infobox language/sandbox and see if you can get it working — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

"no date" doesn't work for sign languages

Compare Zigong dialect ((undated figure of...)) to Maroua Sign Language ((no date)). It seems that we treat sign languages differently in the code. Why? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

That may have been intentional. SL population figures are very often undated, so treating them the same as oral languages could be more disruptive than helpful. But this is certainly something we can change. — kwami (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Support Ethnologue 26th

Hi,

How can we add support for the newly released edition of Ethnologue? I've already created the related template: {{e26}}.

Best, a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Should work now. — kwami (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposing new parameters

Are the parameters "linguistic_event", "linguistic_event2", "linguistic_event3", etc. or "language_movement", "language_movement2", "language_movement3", etc. and "language_day", "language_day2", "language_day3", etc. be added, please?

Because we need it atleast in articles on Indian languages. Examples are Meitei language has Meitei classical language movement, Meitei associate official language movement, Meitei linguistic purism movement, Meitei scheduled language movement and then Meitei language day, Meitei poem day, Meitei language festival, etc.

Another example is Bengali language, here please see Bengali Language Movement (Barak Valley), Bengali Language Movement (Manbhum), Bengali language movement, Bengali language movements in India, etc.

Telugu Language Day, Kokborok Day, Marathi Language Day, etc. are in India. For other parts of the world, please see Romanian Language Day, Icelandic Language Day, Māori Language Day, etc.

It is Bengali language movement (Language Movement Day) that inspired the creation of the International Mother Language Day across the world. --Haoreima (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

For a language like French or English, there is potentially a huge number of movements, associations, organizations and events. I worry that this could become unmanageable. At least, they should probably be collapsible into a single list, the way we handle the official country list. But are most of these even notable? For example, at Bengali language, only one of the movements is mentioned in the text. If the others are not notable enough to include in the text, they would just be clutter in the infobox. — kwami (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami It might be due to missing the information, I think so. They're notable due to the fact that they have independent articles instead of merging them into one. Though I ain't sure specifically about the Bengali case, for others, at least they're notable. I agree with your opinion of keeping them at least in one single collapsible list, like that of the official language status. --Haoreima (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems rather peripheral to me. The parameters that exist consist of characteristics inherent to languages—who speaks them, where they're spoken, their line of descent, how they're written—and conventional designations like the various ISO codes. A language movement isn't a characteristic of the language. To me, it seems more like something that merits a section in the article but not as part of the language's profile as given in the infobox. Largoplazo (talk) 09:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, getting all your suggestions in my mind, I am requesting at least only one parameter titled "linguistic_event" where only extremely notable item or items will be added. It may not be just for language movements but might be other important event also, which is highly relevant and close to the development/existence/survival/promotion/protection of the very language. Pinging @Kwamikagami:! --Haoreima (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. These aren't properties of the language, and I can think of several language infoboxes that would become overwhelmed with entries. Kanguole 12:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

This is entirely a digression, but I'm thinking that if there's something of an organizational nature that might be suitable for the infobox, it could be "regulatory_org", which, for French, would display Académie Française and Office québécois de la langue française and, for Spanish, would display Royal Spanish Academy and Academia Mexicana de la Lengua. Largoplazo (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Isn't this the existing |agency= and |development_body=? Kanguole 12:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I guess so! Largoplazo (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing UNESCO endangerment/extinction status

I've just gone through a bunch of articles that had the UNESCO Language Status template (see "file usage" section here) to ensure they were in line with what's actually in the UNESCO Atlas. In quite a few cases, they were not, so I wanted to say the following:

(1) If editors decide to add the UNESCO Template to articles, I think it's crucial to work from the UNESCO Atlas itself and include a reference. In particular, I don't think it's wise to mass-add the template to articles which happen to be in "Category:Extinct Languages".

(2) In several cases, I found that the UNESCO Atlas conflicts with seemingly well-cited claims in the text of the wiki article. In case any editors here have the requisite knowledge to resolve these conflicts, I've left notes on talk pages (for instance here and here) and there are surely other article that could use this kind of attention. Botterweg14 (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That edition of the Atlas was published 12 years ago, and the data in it is going to be older than that. One of the two languages you mentioned went extinct after it was published and the other not long before, with the exact situation unattested for the latter and word taking years to filter out.

Extinction is an abrupt change that will quickly make the Atlas dated, but even less abrupt changes can be a problem, e.g., an announcement that most children are no longer acquiring a language that had been relatively robust a decade before (e.g. Hadza). I don't think it's unreasonable to change the status per more recent RS's. Otherwise we'd be held hostage to the publication schedule of the Atlas. Though that shouldn't be a problem if they continually update their online edition -- if they are out of date, we can always send in a correction along with our sources so that we're in sync. I'm not familiar with them and have no idea how on the ball they are with keeping up to date. — kwami (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! Botterweg14 (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolute or relative default image size?

Our image policy states that we should normally use relative image sizes rather than a specific number of pixels, and this includes info boxes. This is because some users have custom defaults set. For example, some people with high-res screens set their default at 300px, rather than the 220px you see if not logged in. Currently, the default image size is 200px and the default map size is 220px. These are 90% and 100% of 'thumb' size for someone who hasn't customized their display. However, for someone who's set their image default at 300px, these are 67% and 73% of 'thumb' size. should we change this template from size = 200px and 220px to (upright =) 0.9 and 1? — kwami (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course we should, or we should do something like that. There are other editors who will battle over this obviously beneficial change, though. For a contentious but thoughtful discussion that fizzled out due to lack of technical expertise, see this discussion from July 2022. It looks like the next step might be to post a request for help at Module talk:InfoboxImage. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Would you like to start that? I'm just figuring out our image policy myself after using px sizes for a decade. — kwami (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I have posted a request for help at that Module talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: We have a solution, though perhaps maps can only be custom-set in px? — kwami (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I replaced these size params with the new (relative) scale params in all the articles that used them and then removed the size params from the template code. We still have a set size param for the pushpin maps; should those also be recoded? I've only come across a couple articles that use them and am not familiar with them. Also boxsize, and I don't know if we can coordinate that with map size, but there was apparently only one article that used that option and I reset it. (I didn't bother to create the tracking cat Category:Language infoboxes with set boxsize, but you can see there are no entries there -- assuming it's working.) — kwami (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Those changes look good to me. Nice work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a proposed change in the the sandbox which implements two features for the image and the maps:

• It defaults to user-adaptive image size with |imagescale=0.9 and |mapscale=1.45, but allows editors to override that with fixed size if the user-adaptive size breaks the layout. This cab be done with parameters |imagesize= and |mapsize=.
• It implements a maximum limit on all of the sizing parameters, per WP:IMAGESIZE: imagesize <= 300px, mapsize <= 325px, imagescale <= 1.35, mapscale <= 1.5

This is analogous to the changes we made at Template:Infobox historic site, which has gained consensus over there. What do editors think? — hike395 (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It should be simple enough to adjust the numbers 0.9 and 1.45 in the future if people feel a need to. But when you say "allows editors to override", do you mean setting e.g. "imagescale=1.25"? That's how we should handle it IMO.

I think perhaps we should also take out the coding for box size, since we never use it. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Editors can either set |imagescale=1.25 (if 0.9 doesn't look good), or can set |imagesize=275px if editors have a very good reason (per WP:IMAGESIZE).

We can remove |boxsize= --- that sort of flexibility is unusual in an infobox and is unlikely to be used well. — hike395 (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 July 2023

Extend ancestors up to ancestor15 for articles that require it (i.e. Murcian Spanish) and to bring it in line with the fam parameters. Arctic Circle System (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 August 2023

I propose that the following parameters be added to, and the following edits be made to this template, please:

1. {{{target}}} for information regarding the reconstruction of proto-languages.
2. {{{English_pronunciation}}} for the pronunciation for certain language names in English.
3. {{{native_pronunciation}}} alongside {{{pronunciation}}}, and 'Pronunciation' be replaced with 'Native pronunciation' in its label, to prevent confusion as to whether that label is about the pronunciation of a certain language's name in that language, or in English.
4. {{{child(1)-12}}} for information about reconstructed descendant proto-languages, of a subgroup of the family.
5. If at least {{{ancestor2}}} is used, and that's set to a proto-language, display 'Reconstructed form(s)', otherwise, display 'Early form(s)' instead. I tried to test this parameter to the best of my abilities, but I couldn't.
6. Replace http:// with https:// for the {{{ELP(name)(1)-6}}} parameters, per this RfC, because the 'Endangered Languages Project (ELP)' website now supports 'https'.

PK2 (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

regarding 1 and 4, see {{Infobox proto-language}} and {{Infobox language family}}. Kanguole 13:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's the link that contains all the edits I made to this template's sandbox. I personally believe that the edits regarding questions 1, 4 and 5 are controversial, while the edits regarding questions 2, 3 and 6 are uncontroversial. PK2 (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Deactivated. Not to be reactivated until consensus is achieved for these edits (except of course for #6, which has [already been made]. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 24 August 2023

{{Glottolog}}: http://glottolog.org/ → https://glottolog.org/

NM 18:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Fixed at {{Glottolink}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

What to do with Linguist List?

Since some months ago, visit any links provided by such parameters only result same webpage called "The LINGUIST List no longer maintains the Multitree service." Is this meaning that our Linguist List parameters can be deprecated? This also affects {{Infobox language family}}. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that, last I heard, this is the official repository for ISO codes for languages extinct before ca. 1950. If the repository has moved elsewhere, we should update the templates to handle that automatically. — kwami (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami I'd personally suggest to just remove Linguist List parameters from both infoboxes, as far as I reviewed Multitree pages via archive.org archives, many of there so-called datas are from propaganda websites we already defined as DEPS (e.g. CGTN, the SUN, Sputnik, etc.), I don't see if there are benefits we continue to give such advertisements to propaganda subscribers for language articles. Such details on ethnic-related speaker distribution are already given via Glottolog, where Glog has more user-friendly formattions than Multitree (which in the last months this lived, it goes the same way of Fandom to provide lots of Slava Ukraini-related advertisements and, by even clicking the white part of webpage, you're entering a popup webpage to let you donate.) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 21 December 2023

Description of suggested change: Change the link from Eskimo–Aleut languages to Eskaleut languages due to page move

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox language}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 22 December 2023

Description of suggested change: Description of suggested change: When Parameter 'familycolor' is set to "Eskimo-Aleut" or "Eskaleut" change the default link that appears in the infobox from Eskimo–Aleut languages to Eskaleut languages due to page move.

Atavoidturk (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done I think I have fixed it, but without a link to an affected page, it is difficult to know whether it is fixed in all cases. If the problem still exists, please reactivate this request with a link to an affected page. See Sirenik language, where I believe that this update has taken effect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

New url format - old 2007 template links no longer work

The URL format for languages has changed since 2007 (what was "ethnologue/18/language/swi/" for example is now "ethnologue/language/swi/"

This affects all template uses that still have a date of 2007 (at least). The template should be updated to the new format, regardless of the date parameter specified, and/or template instances should be checked and updated automatically. (Or do we have 9600 editors willing to check one page each?) Jimw338 (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep, came here to say this too. All references are broken until this is fixed. Is there anyone with sufficient privileges that we can notify about this? – Kosinvita (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Please link to an example article. Are the problems happening only with templates like {{Ethnologue24}}, or with all Ethnologue links? Is there a purpose for the /18 or /24 links, or have the links to those different versions been eliminated by the web site? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I came here from the Afrikaans article, in the Infobox's "Native speakers" section, directly after "7.2 million (2016)" it links to the outdated link that works once the number is removed.

From what I can tell, it's when I go through the list of examples' references, they all seem to link to an error. I believe this is because Ethnologue has updated their site, eliminating the different versions, as you said. I believe (but am not certain) that this change came due to their Starter plan they have now.

Then again, I'm not subscribed to it, so maybe instead of displaying a "you need a plan to access this" page it just shows the error and looks broken (as it does mention "Looks like the page you are looking for does not exist or you don’t have permission to view it."). If that's so, then it doesn't really need changing — as it's labelled as behind a paywall to begin with. Backing up this theory is that the Archives and Books page still links to the numbered directories. That could mean that the links are indeed valid, and that the pages just don't show when viewing as a Starter. If someone with access to the Ethnologue could check the "outdated link" I said above, then that'd be great.

– Kosinvita (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Wait, yes, the Archive page has this text:

Note: The archives are only available with an Essentials or Standard subscription. If you are not logged in, and/or don’t have a subscription, these links will not work.

So I think that does confirm that the links aren't necessarily broken, they just don't work without first being subscribed.

At the same time, getting rid of the numbers (and thus accessing the latest/26th edition), does display a sparse web page, with the bare minimum information provided from the Starter subscription tier, so it is easy to see how one can come to the conclusion that the old URLs have been changed, considering the old ones seem like they give a 404.

– Kosinvita (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I have a subscription and I can still access https://www.ethnologue.com/18/language/swi but if I log out the same URL gives a 404...

I'll email them again (I did it last year). I'm afraid it won't change much so we could instead rely on the WebArchive. It can probably be done automatically by a bot, for instance to add this archived URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20161008144106/http://www.ethnologue.com/18/language/swi/ a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Their answer: Thanks for reaching out with this question. As Gary mentioned last May, our webmaster went on unexpected leave, and then ended up resigning his position shortly thereafter. We have been working on bringing a new webmaster up to speed these last few months and are slowly working through a backlog of significant updates and improvements to the new website. I am happy to confirm for you that our backlog includes plans to both implement redirects as well as improve error messages such as what you have pointed out. Unfortunately with a very small team and limited resources, we have had to make difficult choices on what improvements to prioritize, and we have not yet reached those two particular issues. But we are committed to continue working on these updates as quickly as we humanly can. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Are the generated Ethnologue references adequate?

This template generates references to Ethnologue like this. The references appear in the infobox to substantiate the number of speakers claims for the infobox. But a specific number of speakers isn't offered at the link -- just a very broad range (10K to 1M, in this example). Is this an acceptable reference? It doesn't seem to be to me, since the specific numbers of speakers that appear in infoboxes aren't verifiable with these links. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The 'exact' number is available once you log in on Ethnologue. So it is adequate. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll edit a template to indicate that a subscription is required. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ooop! They already use {{closed access}}, which results in a light-grey on black icon that I wasn't able to see. I guess that's the best we can do. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 January 2024

Change "speakers" to "Speakers" to match capitalization of other parameters. Arctic Circle System (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

To editor Arctic Circle System: the label defaults to "Native speakers" and can be changed to "Speakers" by use of the |speakers_label= parameter, as in |speakers_label=Speakers. As an example, see the infobox in the Arabic article. If you know of an infobox that has a "speakers" label with a small "s", the leading "s" can be uppercased with the |speakers_label=Speakers parameter and argument. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

This might be an opportune time to change the parameter. A speaker and a native speaker are not the same. The parameter 'speaker' is often misused to give the impression there are more L1 speakers of a language than there actually are. A 'speaker' can mean someone with just a few words. Parameters for native L1 speakers and L2 speakers would be useful to avoid misleading confusion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems it would be difficult to mislead, because even with the "Speakers" and "Speakers2" labels, reliable sources are expected to accompany the figures shown in the infobox. If such sources are not present in the infobox either directly with the {{sigfig}} template or by using the |ref= parameter, then the figures can be removed until such sources can be provided. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Minority parameter

I want to ask on whether it's correct to use this parameter on individual articles of Languages of Indonesia (such as Javanese language). The issue arises from the parameter generating the header "Recognised minority language in", which doesn't align with Indonesia's context. In Indonesia, there are no specific laws regulating "minority languages." In fact, the Javanese language could be considered a majority language as it's spoken by the Javanese ethnic group, and they comprises around 40% of the total population. However, Indonesia does recognize local languages, as explicitly stated in Article 32 of the constitution, which declares, "The state recognizes and preserves local languages as national cultural treasures." Ckfasdf (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The help says: minority: list of countries in which it is a recognized/protected minority language. This is intended for legal protection and similar de jure recognition, not simply being listed on a census and other de facto recognition.

So if In Indonesia, there are no specific laws regulating "minority languages." then I guess this field should not be used. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: In case of Javanese language, AFAIK at least there are 3 regional regulations that govern this language: 1) Yogyakarta Special Region Regulation Number 2 of 2021, which states Javanese as official language of Yogyakarta Special Region (already mentioned in the article and added in infobox on |nation= parameter, 2) Central Java Regulation Number 9 of 2012, which state protection and development of Javanese language in Central Java, 3) Governor of East Java Regulation Number 19 of 2014, which promotes education of regional languages (Javanese and Madurese). Those regulations does recognize Javanese language, but none of those regulations mention Javanese language as "minority language". Similar case can be found on other Languages of Indonesia. Ckfasdf (talk)

I'd consider official recognition and protection as a regional language as a de jure minority language recognition. But I may be wrong. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, the |minority= parameter generates "Recognised minority language in". We don't have any issue with the "Recognised" part. However, the same cannot be said for the "minority" part, especially in the case of the Javanese language, as they actually constitute the majority. This may mislead the average reader into thinking Javanese people are a minority and create confusion for those who know Javanese people as the majority. Furthermore, the reader might erroneously assume that there is a regulation explicitly stating Javanese as a recognised minority language.

In case of official recognition status, it was already covered in |nation= parameter, which it's documentation clearly states list of countries in which it is an official language. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

When I read Javanese language as someone who knows nothing about the topic, I understand that Javanese is recognized as a minority language in Indonesia in the provinces of Banten, Central Java, and East Java. Whether Javanese speakers constitute the majority or not in Java does not matter I guess? I'm sure this is a common situation to have languages that are minority at the national level but recognized only at the local level where they are actually spoken by the majority of that local population. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What you said exemplifies my concern. There is potential for misunderstanding caused by labeling Javanese as a minority language when it's actually spoken by a significant portion of the population.

If we look up the definition of a minority language, it is described as a language spoken by a minority of the population of a territory. However, Javanese is spoken by around 40% of the national population, so it does not fit this definition. Therefore, using the header "Recognised minority language in" may lead to misunderstandings, especially for readers who are unfamiliar with the topic. I suggest either avoiding the use of this parameter altogether or creating a new one that generates "Recognised language in" without the term "minority" to accurately represent the linguistic landscape. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the word 'recognised' should be removed because it is that which is causing the problem. It creates a situation in which a language can be used here due to the arbitrary decision of a given authority based on no fixed criterion. An extinct language like Cornish, for example, can given undue weight due to a European classification, as can Maori be given undue weight, well beyond its actual number of genuine speakers due to historical facts and current legislation trying to promote the language. I think is what a minority language should be decided on the number of L1 or fluent L2 speakers (ie those who actually use the language in daily life). These other languages who have an importance based on a country's history or culture, such as Maori, Catalan and Greek in Italy, the four native languages in Taiwan, for example, should be given another parameter and called something else. There is no doubt the current set-up doesn't work properly and is open to unintentional abuse and misrepresentation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. "Recognized" is the one and only word that is objective here. Otherwise, any language in the world is a minority language in any jurisdiction in the world. The issue is the word "minority". That's why the EU treaty to protect languages is called European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages: because some regional languages are not minority languages at all (and some minority languages are not confined to particular regions). So I'd suggest to rename the field "Other recognized languages". @Ckfasdf suggested Recognised language in but this is not clear enough as Official languages are also "Recognized" and we don't want to duplicate that information. Hence my proposal. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The above example of Javanese is just such a case of many that show how the parameter doesn't work. My example is another - Cornish is extinct but it gets noted as a minority language in the UK. (The European charter applies because of its supposed cultural importance in a region/Cornwall, not because it is a minority language, because it isn't, it's extinct. It is noted as critically endangered in the charter simply because one of about five descriptions have to be added and none fit with Cornish so the closest option is used, ie 'critically endangered') I think we need to start again and ask ourselves what do we want to show by this 'minority language' parameter, and the language parameter too. I think the answer is 1/ the language spoken by the majority within a state AND that used in the country's parliament, which is usually the same. 2/ Any other language spoken in the country above a certain minimum, such as 10%, thus avoiding the countless very minor languages. This would not involve reference to any legislation or official recognition - it will rely entirely on what the reality is in a country. Next, there should be another parameter to deal with languages that have a special connection with a country's culture or history. That would include many minority or even extinct languages but would, once again, not be related to any official recognition, even though off icial recognition might exist. How that will be done is open to debate because there will be limited RSSs available. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The example of Javanese shows that the parameter works extremely well but should just be renamed and the word "minority" removed.

Issues with your proposal: 1/ Arbitrary definition that is not used by any RS ("the language spoken by the majority within a state AND that used in the country's parliament"). 2/ Arbitrary % (why 10%?) and definition of the area (country? first subdivision? city? any locality?) 3/ Lack of RS. 4/ Open to edit wars.

The current definition is used by RS and is easy to back. It has never really posed a problem (besides the displayed name of the field, but not its underlying definition). If it ain't broke, don't fix it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The example of Javanese exactly shows that this parameter didnt work. If the word "minority" is removed from the parameter "recognized language in," its meaning changes to indicate languages that have de jure recognition, without consideration of whether the language is a minority or not, and excluding those with official status, as there is already a dedicated parameter for official status. Additionally, the name of the parameter may need to be changed from |minority= to something else (|recoginition= perhaps?), as it does not accurately reflect its content. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

At any case, based on the above discussion, it seems that we all agree that |minority= parameter is not fit to be used in individual articles of Languages of Indonesia (such as Javanese language). I believe discussion to modify |minority= parameter should be done on separate section. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This discussion should happen in the correct place from where it will, hopefully, lead to a change. I suggest the parameter 'language=' is also included because they overlap. The need for a change has been there for many years and I think it really is time now to do something meaningful. There are numerous discussions like this about various languages in different places, and they never really achieve anything. Does anyone want to start this? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

new parameter for de jure recognition of certain language

Refer to discussion on previous section. I'd like to propose to add the following parameter into the template:

{{{recognition}}}, which create the header of "Recognised language in", this parameter intended to list language that has de jure recognition on certain countries/territories. This parameter shares similarities with the |minority= and |nation= parameters, which specifically list languages recognized as minority languages and those with official status respectively. However, it serves a different function, albeit somewhat akin to the aforementioned parameters. The addition of this new parameter will also address the issue mentioned in the previous section. Ckfasdf (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I assume this is a discussion on what to propose as a change? I think the word 'minority' should be removed entirely because it is open to interpretation. Recognised is far less ambiguous, but de jure is not the same as it is more restrictive. Recognition can come from a treaty, a constitution, a local by-law, which are not necessarily de jure.

The causes of the wider problem come down to 1/ ambiguous words 2/ availability of good sources. 'Official' should be better defined because it can apply to de jure and de facto. I think the simplest is to define it as de jure official. That means countries like the UK and NZ cannot call English an official language, which is both silly and will cause ongoing issues. But, if we have a parameter for 'primary language' the problem is solved because nobody should get irked by have their language as a county's primary language, especially when the alternative is not 'official' but 'official de jure'.

So IMO the new parameters should be in order

Primary language (principle?)

Official (de jure) state language (not national language which can have different meanings)

Recognised other language

This will add one additional parameter and reword the other two. It avoids ambiguous terms (although primary and state could be ambigious and might need some alteration but I can't think what except possibly use 'principle' instead. It also allows for all these other languages recognised at a local level or in some other way, that currently get put into 'minority language'. To use the uk as an example, we would get

Primary language - English

Recognised other languages - Welsh, Gaelic, Cornish etc (Welsh is not UK-wide de jure official)

In NZ we'd get

Primary language - English

Official (de jure) - Maori, NZ sign language

IMO this arrangement is far more workable than the current one. The issue of availability of RSSs because less of an issue as a result of fewer arguments. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It would be great to have for all countries:

1. Primary/Main (de facto)
2. Official (de jure)
3. Other recognized languages (de jure): but does this one need to be at the national level? Or do we include local languages?

For Spain for instance:

1. Primary: Spanish
2. Official: Spanish (the only one official at the national level)
3. Other recognized languages: none? because they're not recognized at the national level?

Similarly, if one city in Argentina makes Patagonian Welsh its official language, then Welsh should NOT be mentioned on the Argentina article as "Other recognized language". But if the Argentine Parliament decides to give a special status to Welsh, then it should. Correct? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the exact situation of Spain or Argentina, but I assume Catalan and Basue have some sort of recognition at a regional level at least. I thought there was a reference to Welsh in Chubut province being recognised in a certain context (whether that recognition came from the state parliament or provincial govt is not relevant if it only applies to Chubut). So in my proposal we would get foe those two countries

Primary language Spanish

Official state-wide (de jure)  ??

Regional Many, incl Welsh

Primary Spanish

Official de jure statewide Spanish

Recognised Catalan, Basque etc

As it stands btw Welsh is noted as a language in Chubut in that article which is silly, there are no L1 speakers there except any that might have arrived from Wales in the last few years. What about all the Italian, Chinese, Arabic, English etc L1 speakers there? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Err... my proposal is only for this infobox, and this infobox only meant to be used in languages article. IMO, discussion on which language should be put on Country article is a bit out of scope. In case of Spanish language, |nation= will only list countries where Spanish is an de jure official language (Colombia, Spain, Peru, Venezuela, Guatemala, Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba, Domincan Republic, Honduras, Paraguay, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Equitorial Guinea, Puerto Rico), and |recognition= will list countries where Spanish has de jure recognition other than as official language, such as Philipines. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right. But I've always found "|nation=" confusing. Should it be renamed "official="? Also, I don't see the point of adding a new parameter. Should we change and rename "Minority" instead? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

In general, I'm okay with changing |nation= to |official=. But I don't know implication of renaming parameter. Also, I'm a bit hesitant to propose renaming |minority= as it might be in use elsewhere (dunno where though). Ckfasdf (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If I'm addressing the wrong talk page, sorry, my mistake. However, about national v official, the point I raised still applies. Neither is suitable because their meanings are both ambiguous so constant confusion will arise. National can mean relating to a sovereign state and to an ethnic group. Official can be according to a written rule or to common usage. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

IMO, for a language to be considered as having official status, there must be specific legislation, an act, or a rule that explicitly states that the language holds official status within a certain country or territory. For example, although English is widely spoken in the US, it's not recognized as the official language because there's no legislation explicitly stating so. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

English is recognised as the only official language of the UK and as the main official language in NZ, to give just two examples of many. Neither has anything in writing to make them official. They are treated that way on their wiki pages. All English dictionaries will give the two meanings of official. There is no WP consensus on how to treat the word, it is left up to editors on each article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no official recognition de jure for English as the official language of the UK and NZ. However, English does serve as the de facto official language due to its widespread use. However, this discussion might be somewhat beyond the current scope. We could consider opening a separate discussion on this topic. Keep in mind that this section is intended solely to seek consensus on adding a new parameter to address languages that have de jure recognition as anything other than the official language. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 February 2024: e27

I've just created {{e27}} (for this) but it looks like something needs to be done here as well. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are requesting, or how it relates to this template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I'm talking about the "ref" parameter. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)