Template talk:Germanic languages

New version (July 2009)

I have greatly expanded the template to sort the languages according to subbranch. The criteria for inclusion in the box are (1) an ISO 639-3 code, (2) a living language, and (3) a Wikipedia article specifically about the language. +Angr 13:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

#1 should be included as it contradicts sources such as [1]. Sarcelles (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That map shows as distinct a lot of varieties that are generally acknowledged to be dialects of the same language rather than distinct languages (e.g. Zuidhollands and Utrechts). The allocation of ISO 639-3 codes is not entirely unproblematic, but following it gives us an objective, Wikipedia-external guideline to follow. That helps us avoid original research and maintain a neutral POV. +Angr 20:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not an objective guideline. It has a code for both Low German and Westphalian, although Westphalian belongs to Low German. Sarcelles (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, so do Achterhooks, Dreents, East Frisian Low Saxon, Gronings, Sallaans, Stellingwarfs, Tweants, and Veluws, but they all get their own code. As I said, it's not unproblematic, but by following a Wikipedia-external standard, we avoid OR. It's not our job as Wikipedians to decide what is and what isn't a separate language. +Angr 11:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There are scholarly books, which can be used as sources. Sarcelles (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Do they all agree with each other as to which varieties are separate languages and which are dialects of the same language? It seems very likely that this is a source of academic discussion, and thus more suited to discussion within the text of the articles rather than in a navbox template. +Angr 13:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I had such debates in several Wikipedias. The present template is a breach of syllogism. Sarcelles (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? +Angr 15:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This template has varieties belonging to another variety within the template on the same echelon. Sarcelles (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Angr: it is better to follow ISO. They obviously do make mistakes, like most other sources do, but an ISO code implies a sort of official character, and I think we may hope they do a lot of work to avoid as much as mistakes as possible. I have now removed Brabantian (which has not an ISO code nor is a language). Note that East Frisian Low Saxon is unclassified by Ethnologue within the Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages, and that Riograndenser Hunsrückisch within the Germanic languages. To me, it seems not to be wrong of us to categorise them ourselves, as is done already in the template, so I changed nothing regarding this issue. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The codes seem to be a case of anyone could say that.

Greetings, Sarcelles (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but they're an established, neutral, Wikipedia-independent system. Any other attempt to decide what is and is not a language for purposes of this template will either be OR or will be based on some other equally arbitrary and controversial external source. +Angr 12:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

http://web.uni-marburg.de/sprache-in-hessen/flash/dt.swf is not as bad. Sarcelles (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes no distinction between language and dialect and only covers German (High and Low). +Angr 13:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that clear contradictions to this are removed. Sarcelles (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Namely? +Angr 14:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cologne is covered by Ripuarian (which is wider), the Main-Franconian area is part of the East Franconian area, the Palatinate German area is part of the Rhine Franconian area and East Frisia belongs to the Northern Low Saxon area at

http://web.uni-marburg.de/sprache-in-hessen/flash/dt.swf. Furthermore, Austro-Bavarian is not on the same echelon as Swabian there. Sarcelles (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

But it does put the wider Ripuarian, East Franconia, Rhine Franconian, and Northern Low Saxon groups on the same echelon as the narrower Lower Alemannic, Central Alemannic, Swabian, Higher Alemannic, and Highest Alemannic; or the narrower North Bavarian, Central Bavarian, and South Bavarian. Following that map would actually add too many dialects of larger languages to the template, not to mention that it doesn't even consider the remaining Germanic languages. +Angr 18:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; that map seems to be a dialect map rather than a language map. Belgian man (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The template is not to include every dialect, so the Dutch Low Saxon varieties should be replaced with those at

http://taal.phileon.nl/kaart/daan.php or removed. Sarcelles (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC) http://taal.phileon.nl/kaart/daan.php

Not if we want to follow ISO. Belgian man (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a case, where an exception would make sense. Sarcelles (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Scandinavian languages are quite detailed in the template now. Hence I suggest to use the -scholarly founded- dialects in http://web.archive.org/web/20050405233410/http://www.uni-marburg.de/sprache-in-hessen/sprachlandschaften_dt.html. If there are no objections, I will change to the dialects of the mentioned map. Sarcelles (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• As I read in ruwiki, Yiddish belongs to Central german dialects group inside High german lang-s; it doesn't compose distinct lang-s group. --Ерден Карсыбеков (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Language groups/distribution

This template gives the idea that Low Franconian and Low Saxon are two separate groups. The language of the Hanseatic League was Low German and this included the Low Franconian and Low Saxon varieties. Historically, there were no two separate languages, but there was a so-called dialect continuum.

Making a difference between High German and the Low German (including Dutch) is already questionable in both ways, but separating the Low German in two different categories is simply incorrect. Isn't it stange that Frisian, Danish and Norwegian don't have so many dialects like German and Dutch? They really do, but they aren't shown here in this template...

Frisian	English	Dutch	German
dei	day	dag	Tag
rein	rain	regen	Regen
wei	way	weg	Weg
neil	nail	nagel	Nagel
tsiis	cheese	kaas	Käse
tsjerke	church	kerk	Kirche
tegearre	together	samen	zusammen
sibbe	sibling	verwante	Verwandte
kaai	key	sleutel	Schlüssel
ha west	have been	ben geweest	bin gewesen
twa skiep	two sheep	twee schapen	zwei Schafe
hawwe	have	hebben	haben
ús	us	ons	uns
hynder	horse	paard	Pferd
brea	bread	brood	Brot
hier	hair	haar	Haar
ear	ear	oor	Ohr
doar	door	deur	Tür
grien	green	groen	Grün
swiet	sweet	zoet	süβ
troch	through	door	durch

In this table you will find English and Frisian on the one side, and German and Dutch on the other side. The so-called Low Saxon or Low German variety should be somewhere between the Dutch and German language. I propose you merge Low Franconian and Low Saxon, otherwise you need at least three new linguistic groups for Frisian as well. Kind regards --Kening Aldgilles (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what the table is supposed to be showing, or for that matter what English and Frisian have to do with the issue at all. Angr (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

East Germanic

Why is Gothic language in East Germanic languages is omitted and does not appear in this list in the template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.127.97 (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Several issues with this template

• Many dialects are not listed as dialects. For example, Bergensk is listed separately from Norwegian.
• Limburgish listed under Dutch rather than Meuse-Rhenish.
• No mention of several languages with ISO codes: Cimbrian and Mòcheno (should be under Southern Bavarian), Hunsrik (should be under Moselle Franconian), Coloniero German, Kölsch, Walliser, and maybe more.

If someone more knowledgeable about the classfication of Germanic languages could take a look at this template, that would be great. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)