Template talk:Germanic languages/Archive 1

Archive 1

Anon "Scots" pusher

Yiddish is universally treated as a seperate language, speakers are recorded separely and is no more part of modern German than Dutch; "Scots" is one of the many varieties of English. Putting in Scots opens the door to every dialect and its neighbours, from Swiss German and Gutnish to Hiberno-English and Low Saxon. Please stop disrupting wikipedia to POV push. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The British government now accepts Scots as a regional language and has recognised it as such under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. 84.135.233.4 16:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So? Many dialects are considered "regional languages", official dialects, etc, doesn't mean we have to fill the template with them; moreover, EU pen-pushers aside, the dialect - or more accurately group of dialects united by nothing except geographical location in parts of Scotland - has no official usage at all. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The EU pen-pushers were actually from the Council of Europe. Strange but true here rate payers in NI are being informed about changes in the system, in Scots and other tongues (well, what I assume is Scots;-).

84.135.233.4 17:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The brand identity of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in Northern Ireland as shown on this sign is displayed in English, Irish and Ulster Scots

The photograph seems to indicates official use of Scots and Irish in Northern Ireland. Is Ulster Scots used officially but not Scots in Scotland? Just curious because the respective articles didn't explicitly state so. 81.79.229.119 22:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ulster Scots, ECRML & ISO

The Deacon of Pndapetzim is pushing Ulster Scots as a language now ignoring all agreement below. 84.135.235.92 14:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Reg. acknowledged Germanic languages/dialects. Ulster Scots and Scots are both recognised by the UK following the ECRML. Three varieties of Frisian are there. Either all "dialects" there go, we use the ECRML, or we are just arbitrary and we omit the ones that we want on our whim. You may have a problem with Ulster Scots being there as a Scots enthusiast, but exactly the same argument can be used (and has been) to delete the Scots dialect of Lowland Scotland. We need to be consistent in short. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Scots and Ulster Scots are recognized together as a language by the UK following the ECRML.

"The United Kingdom declares, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 1 of the Charter that it recognises that Scots and Ulster Scots meet the Charter's definition of a regional or minority language for the purposes of Part II of the Charter."[1]

The North/South Co-operation (Implementation Bodies) Northern Ireland Order 1999 legislation would seem to back that up where Ulster Scots is defined as: the variety of the Scots language which has traditionally been used in parts of Northern Ireland and in Donegal in Ireland [2].

Separate mention in the ECRML is due to the separate jurisdictions responsible for implementation of the charter.

Is it really the intention to include dialects of dialects on this template?

Do you know of anyone who argues that Ulster Scots is a language in its own right and is able to base their argument on more than because I say so?

84.135.235.92 15:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As you know from your extensive experience on wiki, German anon, you're in violation of 3rr. BTW, half the "languages" on the template are not languages in most peoples eyes. The template says dialects or languages. Shouldn't be a point of contention. And whatever the reason for separate mention of Ulster Scotland and Lowland Scots, it's not up to you or me to speculate. It is as it is., and you have no argument that I can see, other than a hostility to the implication (which isn't there in any case) that Ulster Scots is a separate language. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should go back to this version of the template, which is more compact and doesn't suffer from being non-NPOV, either in the matter of Ulster Scots or in the matter of what constitutes a "major" or a "minor" Germanic language. As discussed in the section below this one, the criterion for inclusion is quite simple: if the language/dialect has its own ISO 639-2 code, it's included. If it doesn't, it isn't. —Angr 16:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understood it, from your post 14:40, 24 November 2006, and the edit to the template, it was the Charter and the languages under national ratifications, which put languages/dialects in the template. I'm just trying to enforce that without prejudice; but I wouldn't know how to verify (outside wiki that is) which languages have ISO codes. As far as I can see, both standards are POV bases for wiki no-POV customs; what advantage does the ISO code have over the Charter on minority languages in terms of noPOV? I can see this philosophy being challenged by editors who care more than I do, so it'd be nice to have some understanding. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The ISO codes can be verified off-wiki here. I don't know how or where to verify what languages are included in the ECML. Also, the ECML is less NPOV than ISO codes because the ECML covers only languages spoken in Europe; by using that as our standard of inclusion, we make it impossible for languages/dialects like Alemán Coloniero and Hutterite German to ever be included on the template. By using ISO 639-2 codes, we can be sure that Germanic languages from all continents are getting a fair shot. —Angr 08:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you put some good arguments and I won't deny that the ECML is subject to political lobbying (just do a comparison of speakers and status between Russian, 7% of EU and the EU's 7th/8th largest language depending on how one fiddles the figures, with no official or minority status, and Irish, 0.1% of EU and possessing full status). It seems like an argument for using both though. The ECML is taken seriously by wikipedians; languages/dialects recognized as a result of it are being placed in national infoboxes on wikipedia as official languages citing ECML in notes: see infoboxes on Germany (note 1); Netherlands (& note 3); Northern Ireland (& note 2); Scotland (& note 3); Austria (& n. 1), as well as Languages_in_the_United_Kingdom#Status. The anon above's objections ... focused on Ulster Scots ... is a product (if his comments can be used as evidence) of being hostile to the idea that Ulster Scots is a separate language from either Scots or English (I presume the former)... and this is something the template never implied, but is rather a product of his misunderstanding of the box. Perhaps if the anon would like to restate his position based on a closer reading of "Reg. acknowledged Germanic languages/dialects", we'll have a better idea of what future objections are likely to be. Further, if we decide to use either ISO2 or ECML and ISO2 together as standard, this should be explicitly stated in either the infobox or as noinclude visible on the template page. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, here a link for declarations from governments about particular languages. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I still think using ISO codes is less Eurocentric than using ECML codes. A noincluded note to that effect is a good idea. —Angr 12:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't consider using both as a possibility? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I notice from the article European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, that Scots and Ulster Scots are not treated separately. At [3] there is a footnote saying, "The United Kingdom declares ... that it recognises that Scots and Ulster Scots meet the Charter's definition of a regional or minority language for the purposes of Part II of the Charter", but that wording does not imply two different languages either. Acknowledging that Dutch Low Saxon and Low German are also the same language, all Germanic languages acknowledged by the ECRML do have ISO 639-2 codes, so using ISO 639-2 codes as a criterion is sufficient. —Angr 13:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That article is taking a very difficult to prove interpretation of that text. "regional or minority language" qualifies "definition" not "Scots and Ulster Scots", hence the "of a". UK govt documents, for whatever reason, consistently refer to the two dialects separately. The grouping together just reflects when the government decided to recognize them; otherwise Welsh, Irish and Scottish Gaelic would be one language. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No one in their right mind would classify Welsh as one language with Irish and Scottish Gaelic; you might as well classify English and Icelandic as one language. But I wasn't saying that their wording shows that they are definitely considered one language, merely that it doesn't suggest they're considered two separate ones. I would also point out that Ulster Scots doesn't even have its own ISO 639-3 code (and practically everything, even "Yinglish", has its own ISO 639-3 code!). —Angr 15:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not saying Irish and Welsh are the same language, just pointing out that they're grouped together so that no one would be tempted to argue that being listed together means they're being made out to be the same. They're simply in the same sentence in the note verbale, as are "Welsh, Scottish-Gaelic and Irish", and that's because recognition came in the same decision. I didn't think this template was about language versus dialect; if that's what it's about, then a number of languages may provoke separate edit wars, as they have in the past. The template as it stands doesn't, and rightly doesn't, distinguish language and dialect in the third section. Then ECRML was put forward by Rex (seconded by yourself I may add) as the standard. If that's the standard, then ISO counts for nothing. If you wish to abandon this standard, that's another matter that should be discussed without reference to your own or my own opinion about the importance of a particular variety. In both cases, the range and choice of dialects/languages selected is relatively arbitrary. If you wish to change the standard to an ISO based one, then it's fine with me, so long as this has support (preventing edit conflict), and so long as I'm sure its not because you don't like the ensuing inclusion of a particular variety. So if some Ulster Scots professor/activist applies for and achieves a code for Ulster Scots in the next year, I hope you yourself will insert it into the template when you discover that. Still think ECRML and ISO is the best option (see posts above), but if scrapping the former as a standard is what's wanted just now, then I'll leave it at that. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)2

I thought my suggested compromise | Scots & Ulster Scots | was a rather good one. It reflected the wording in the UK's declaration with regard to the ECRML and indicated that both are essentially 'the same'. Up until now it did seem the concensus was to include languages with ISO 639-2 codes but if the Deacon of Pndapetzim want's to have his way I'm quite happy to let him. Nogger 16:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You were doing well until that piece of disingenuousness at the end. I'm merely standing up for the standard "agreed" below and put into the template. Any attempt argue that the "agreement" was ISO is made a nonsense of by looking 1) at the template: [[European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages|Reg. acknowledged]] [[Germanic languages|Germanic languages/dialects]] and 2) the dates of the post. You know, it's posts like that that make me dislike wikipedia. I mean, is it fair that I have to take 5 mins of my life to respond to nonsense like that, esp. when all I'm doing is trying to be reasonable? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I designed this version (based only on ISO codes, not EMRCL recoginition) in September to be the closest to NPOV something like this can be, because it uses external criteria (ISO's decision, not ours). Then in November, Rex Germanus redesigned it on the basis of arbitrarily defined "major" and "minor" languages, plus the smaller ones recognized by the EMRCL. I didn't like that, but I didn't have the energy to argue about it, so I left it. But I do think that listing the EMRCL languages is a mistake for several reasons: it's politicized, it's Eurocentric, and even some of the "major" languages (Danish, German, Swedish, Yiddish) are recognized by the EMRCL as minority languages, meaning our listing of them is incomplete (and the alternative would be redundant, listing some languages twice, once as "major" or "minor" languages, and once more as EMRCL-recognized languages). If we use ISO as our only criterion, we don't have to do our own exigesis of the EMRCL to try to decide what it does and does not consider to be separate languages. Alternatively, we could list all Germanic languages with an ISO 639-3 code (there are 53 of them, excluding Ulster Scots but including "Yinglish"). —Angr 17:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say its pretty obvious not to include ECRML varieties that were already in the two sections above; that's not exactly a overcomplicated rule of thumb. Other than that, I think I've said what needs to be said about ECRML above. 53 languages, including Yinglish, may be a bit over the top. Let's be honest, what people want out of this template is an easy way to access the most important Germanic languages; i.e. those in the top two sections. However wikipedia runs on revert-power and user enthusiasm, tempered slightly and occasionally by argumentation. Wikipedia, being wikipedia then, will have to also include minor varieties with a strong wikipedian activist presence, so ISO-2 probably covers that with at least some basis of outside validity. I doubt many would want Achterhoeks, Easter and Western Yiddish (where would Yiddish be?). If you're enthusiastic about ISO-3, then perhaps a secondary template devoted to varieties outside of the current upper 2 boxes would be in order. Otherwise, ISO-2 is clearly preferable to ISO-3. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOVing the list

Inevitably, a list like this is subject to interpretation and charges of non-NPOV. I have decided to be bold and edit the template to include all and only the living Germanic languages that have an ISO 639-2 code, as I think this allows us to have an objective standard for inclusion. The ISO 639 macrolanguages Frisian, Norwegian, and Yiddish are listed only once, even though their dialects also have ISO 639-2 codes. The other Germanic languages with ISO 639-2 codes are: Afrikaans, Alemannic, Danish, Dutch, English, Faroese, German, Icelandic, Limburgish, Low German, Luxembourgish, Scots, and Swedish. Bislama and Tok Pisin have ISO 639-2 codes, but I'm excluding them because pidgins and creoles lexified by Germanic languages are generally not considered Germanic languages themselves by linguists. Angr 18:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a solid criteria. However, I think it doesn't make much sense not to include Austro-Bavarian while Alemannic, Frisian, Limburgish, Low German and Scots are included. All of them are major groups of non-standard varieties that differ a lot from the respective standard varieties. But okay, it's a solid criteria, and maybe ISO 639-2 will become more coherent with time. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 06:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of that. But at least this way it wasn't our decision to exclude Austro-Bavarian; we're just following an external source's decision. No original research and all that. Angr 07:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a bad idea because it means including Scots. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) won't like it! Please develop another criterion that won't include Scots.

84.135.211.143 08:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we let Calgacus decide whether he likes it or not, rather than putting words in his mouth? Anyway, the other obvious solution is to list only languages with their own ISO 639-1 code: Afrikaans, Danish, Dutch, German, English, Faroese, Western Frisian, Icelandic, Limburgish, Luxembourgish, Norwegian (although Bokmål and Nynorsk also have separate ISO 639-1 codes), Swedish, and Yiddish. What's weird about that is listing only Western Frisian rather than Frisian as a group. Angr 10:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a much better solution because it doesn't include Scots. Including Scots, to quote Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ), "implies that Lowland Scots is the "national language" of Scots, like Ukrainian with Ukraine, Danish with Denmark, etc. Whereas in fact it does not hold, and never has held, that status; "Scots" in fact is the usual way to distinguish it from English English.". Perhabs the reason that only West Frisian it mentioned is because it is the only standardised variety, incidentally not mutually intelligible with the other 'Frisians', that is of course of no interest here. The important thing is not to include Scots.

84.135.216.135 08:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

New Template.

OLD

NEW (proposed, currently implemented)

This template is getting a bit messy and ugly. I suggest we pick some rules to avoid unfair connotations. I suggest the following:

• A major language is a language with more than 1 million speakers.
• A minor language is a language with less than 1 million speakers.
• A reg. language is positioned on the ECfML and has no national status.

Rex 13:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with the old template? This one has way too much info and above all way too many links (do we really need to link to the article about the military rank Major and the disambiguation page Minor???) —Angr 14:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

People kept adding dialects ... I don't mind having this template but seriously why was Allemanic on this list next to languages as German and English? Rex 14:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the earlier discussion. I thought (and no one objected) that the most NPOV thing was to list only languages with their own ISO 639-2 code. Alemmanic has one, as do Limburgish, Scots, and Luxembourgish. Other dialects don't have one so they were left off. —Angr 14:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

hmm, well I think a ECfRM rating gives a language "more status". I don't think a semi-dialect like Limburgish should be placed alongside world languages such as English.Rex 14:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to label the languages as such then, with a link to European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages rather than the general article Region. Especially if the article European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages actually listed which languages are and are not included in its scope. At the moment, I don't know how to verify which languages are and which are not included in it. —Angr 14:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll change it and look it up.Rex 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This template is insulting !! Major and minor? Yeah, we all agree, English German Dutch they are very widely spoken , but does that make them better then the lesser spoken ones like Icelandic? I mean honestly, minor kind of is a degrating term and diminutive. --Ice201 01:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorted by relatedness, Sonja's proposal

I proposed to use this format:

Does anybody else see the value of sorting by branch or subbranch rather than by "majorness" or "minorness"?--Sonjaaa 17:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Continental and Insular scandinavian are not proper classifications, besides I think it would get a bit complicated for a simple nav. box, they can see the trees on the germanic languages page. The minor, major, reg division gives people an idea of a languages status.Rex 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I favour this classification. --S.Örvarr.S 01:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I favour this classification too! --Ice201 01:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say I too prefer this classification to the major/minor classification. It is not at all clear what "major" and "minor" are supposed to entail here. Language status? Well just what does such a status entail? Its worth? And for those who assume that it entails the number of speakers, it is still not clear where the line is drawn nor why it is drawn there rather than somewhere else. Maybe no arrangement is perfect but I think it is clear that the major/minor distinction is not neutral in its tone, regardless of whether it is or isn't meant to be that way and regardless of whether the reader is technically able to click on some link and educate himself further. What is proposed here at least has some grounding in the customary scholarly division; although it might be even more appropriate to divide the North Germanic languages into Northwest and Northeast Germanic languages, in which case Norwegian will be grouped along with Icelandic and Faroese. In case that suggestion is not accepted I support Sonjaaa's suggestion. --D. Webb 02:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

About Icelandic and Faroese, they are Western Scandinavian, Norsk Svenska and Dansk are Eastern Scandinavian, it is clearly noticiable if you are a speaker of any of these languages. Although, I think insular is a sexy word ;) I like it. --Ice201 03:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In general I would favor this classification too, except that Eastern Scandinavian/Western Scandinavian should be used instead of Insular/Continental (a distinction I only know for Celtic languages). The rub is that Norwegian can't be cleanly classified this way; Bokmål is largely Eastern, while Nynorsk is Western. —Angr 06:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you sir. --S.Örvarr.S 07:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be re aranged, but the formating was better in the old one. Easier to read. And in the new one, I think there are to many categories. Please keep it readable and easy. I'd suggest just having the two categories. --Steinninn 194.144.110.1 13:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with Steinninn, but I prefer the first one, with no categories. Just list the Germanic languages, dialects, and so on in alphabetical order from Alemennisch (Excuse spelling) to Zeelands. No categories, I mean, the category is already listed on the language page itself, why does it need to be in a category box? N.B. the Europe category box, it isnt seperated by Eastern Europe, Western Europe, European Union, Central Europe, Continental Europe, Insular (i love this word!!) Europe so on, its just A-Z European countries. The same should be with Germanic languages, Romance languages, and so on. At least that is what I plan on doing in the Icelandic wikipedia.. dont know what you guys feel about that on the english wiki? Just get rid of the MAJOR MINOR!! úff, im going to cry :/ --Ice201 15:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

major and minor?

Minor germanic languages? what does that suppose to mean? major and minor? are you saying other germanic languages better then some? wow, english wikipedia is really bias!!!! --Ice201 00:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although it may not be meant that way it does sounds biased. --D. Webb 03:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Read above, the major-minor categorization is based on being over or under a million speakers, a completely objective way to do things and in no way subjective. Gdo01 04:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it anyway. --S.Örvarr.S 07:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is that it's not immediately clear to the reader that that is the criterion. And secondly, that even that seems arbitrary: why a million rather than 500,000? Why not 2,000,000? Or 3,657,975? Or 250,000? There's no scholarly division of languages into major or minor languages. It's preferable to not introduce it here. --D. Webb 23:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

New proposal

Support

1. I favour this form. --S.Örvarr.S 07:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
2. I do also favour this form. --58.107.83.98 08:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
3. I prefer this, but would like to see Norwegian in both Eastern and Western Scandinavian or just in the Western Scandinavian group. --D. Webb 23:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's possible to not subdivide the North-Germanic languages. All modern germanic languages are either West-Germanic or North-Germanic and that may be quite enough division for this kind of template. --D. Webb 16:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

---

The old version for comparison

Support

1. I prefer A-Z , without categories, N.B. the original and my comment above. --Ice201 16:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
2. --Steinninn 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
3. I like this one. --S.Örvarr.S 02:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
4. I prefer this one. —Angr 04:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
5. This version has my support if the proposal directly above does not gain sufficient support. --D. Webb 16:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

---

A similar version including all living Germanic languages with an ISO 639-3 code

Modified using {{Navbox generic}}:

Support

1. and uppgrade the template using {{Navbox generic}} Nsaa 12:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)