Template talk:Infobox language

Correction of misleading "family-color" groups

According to a search of the archives this has been brought up more than once over the years. Given that “Altaic” is widely rejected as a valid grouping, there should be separate colors at least for Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic languages. Koreanic and Japonic could get their own colors or use the "isolate" color. عُثمان (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This has alreaqdy been done at the French Wikipedia. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 May 2024

Please replace [[Category:Languages with Linglist code]] with [[Category:Language articles with Linglist code]] per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Languages with Linglist code. (Note this is an edit request for {{Infobox language/linguistlist}}, not {{infobox language}}.) Thanks! HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 June 2024

Can someone please replace http:// with https:// on line 3, per this RfC, because the 'Endangered Languages Project (ELP)' website now supports 'https'? (Note this is an edit request for {{#invoke:Endangered Languages Project}}, not {{infobox language}}.) PK2 (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Sohom (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 June 2024

Can someone please replace

| data42 = {{#if:{{{lingua|}}}|<code>{{{lingua}}}</code>{{{lingua_ref|}}}}}

with:

| data42 = {{Infobox language/lingualist|1={{{lingua|}}}|2={{{linguaname|}}}}}

and add two parameters {{{lingua2-10}}} and {{{linguaname(1)-10}}}, the template that I just created this afternoon, {{Infobox language/lingualist}} for the parameter regarding the Linguasphere Observatory codes, because it contains a link to the website http://www.hortensj-garden.org/index.php?tnc=1&tr=lsr&nid= and therefore aids verifiability of those codes, add nine more instances of that parameter because some languages and their dialects and linguistic variants have more than one code, both like on the French Wikipedia's version of this template, fr:Modèle:Infobox Langue, remove the parameter {{{lingua_ref}}}, because it's currently used in only one article, 'Shetland dialect', and add another parameter {{{lingua_other_codes}}}, for certain information like how many Linguasphere codes some languages and their dialects and linguistic variants have, and those code's ranges? I made those edits to the sandbox version of this template this afternoon on revisions 1231750403 and 1231754712. PK2 (talk; contributions) 06:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 July 2024

Uralic language color change from lime to #a8fe74 HEX color change suggestion. Talk on this subject under here. Ewithu (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 July 2024

The abbreviations "(B)" and "(T)" that result from using iso2b and iso2t should be explained to readers in some way. The best option, ISTM, is to link the letters to the relevant article text where the difference between the two types of codes is discussed. This can be done by making the following changes in the template code:

•  (B) →  ([[ISO 639-2/B|B]])
•  (T) →  ([[ISO 639-2/T|T]])

These take advantage of existing redirects to that article section, ISO 639-2/B and ISO 639-2/T. Alternatively, the link target ISO 639-2#B and T codes could be used for both, but using the redirects is probably preferable in case the section heading is changed in the future. dcljr (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Linguistic Classification for Contact Languages

Given that contact languages such as creoles, pidgins, and mixed languages are not universally classified as members of language families (i.e., it is unclear whether they descend from individual protolanguages in the usual manner), should the "Language Family" parameter instead be labeled "Linguistic Classification" to accommodate ambiguous or exceptional cases? Conocephalus (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Endangered languages

I wish to request an edit for this template to include the classication of a given language's danger of extiction, given by UNESCO, as described on this article. There are already some articles that hack it in using the |map= paramater (see Adyghe language), but I believe that it should be included for completeness and as a useful metric to gauge a language's healthiness, compare the vulnerability classification on {{Speciesbox}}. Juwan (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

pinging @Kwamikagami who contributes to the template and might be interested. Juwan (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

IIRC, there's some uneven consensus that we do not include that classification in the infobox. I do not think it adds much concrete information; moreover, something really rubs me the wrong way about presenting sociological data like language vitality identically to biodiversity metrics (though I'm not against the UNESCO schema in itself). It is also not a widely adopted schema IIRC. Remsense ‥ 论 12:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense sociological data is something that I look for often and, in my opinion, would better these articles. would you mind explaining a bit more what is your issues and ideas about these types of classifications? the biodiversity metric are only an example of what to think about but it doesn't need to be exactly that! Juwan (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

In general, infoboxes are designed to communicate key facts at a glance (cf. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE); details that are significantly nuanced or require additional context to understand should be omitted. This classification is not quantitative, and is based on specific criteria that are not universally accepted, which is not adequately clear when listed alongside more quantitative or otherwise objective data about a language like number of speakers or uncontroversial phylogenetic relationships. Given this schema is not universally accepted, it requires additional context and thus should be omitted from the infobox in favor of being discussed in prose. Remsense ‥ 论 22:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that language vitality is not easily captured by a one-dimensional scale, whether it is the UNESCO scale or the more detailed EGIDS. It fails to include vital aspects such as internal and external language attitudes, degree of bilingualism, presence in mass media, etc. I have observed communities speaking languages that formally appear as 6b on the EGIDS scale, but are more likely to persist than languages classified as 5 and 6a.

Also, as of now, most articles that fell victim to the senseless, disruptive mass-edit stunt of abusing the map-parameter blantantly violate WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, since they don't have a matching prose section about vitality status. Adding a dedicated parameter won't solve the issue, but rather might invite more additions to the infobox mechanically copied from UNESCO Atlas. –Austronesier (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I support the idea of adding a language's endangerment status to the infobox. It's also something that I as a language researcher look for.

I don't think it's correct to say that these scales aren't quantitative; it's just that the metric doesn't capture all the relevant parameters. I also don't think it's true to say that the scales aren't universally accepted. They're not universally accepted in the literal sense, and all linguists acknowledge their shortcomings, but they're still a legitimate effort to provide an objective standardized metric aimed at assessing endangerment, and these scales are widely adopted and referenced among linguists. Endangerment scales are used for determining priority in grant funding, for example.

It seems to me like endangerment rating is a perfect fit for the purpose of the infobox. But I also acknowledge there's a lot of details in language infoboxes already, and there are tradeoffs to just how much info you can stuff in there before it defeats the purpose of an "at a glance" look. Plus, since there are multiple endangerment scales, there's the question of which to include. Including all 3 of the major ones seems a bit much. Glottolog's Agglomerated Endangerment Scale might be a good choice though, because it's an aggregation of all of the other scales. Dwhieb (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 29 September 2024

I propose creating new colors for many language families of the Americas at Template:Infobox language/family-color due to the comparatively high load of languages using the "American" color to other colors.

Some language families which could use their own colors are the proposed Penutian and hypothetical Hokan families, other large families in North America, and major families in South America like Macro-Jê and Tupian.

🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Once you have consensus on a specific new color scheme, feel free to re-activate this request by changing the template back to |answered=no --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have some consensus at WT:LANG on the addition of these specific family colors:

•   Salishan languages
•   Penutian languages
•   Hokan languages
•   Oto-Manguean languages
•   Mayan languages
•   Arawakan languages
•   Quechuan languages
•   Tupian languages
•   Macro-Jê languages
•   Cariban languages
•   Pano-Tacanan languages
  🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Remove Linguasphere?

The Linguasphere classification isn't the same caliber of classification scheme as the other codes listed in this template. ISO codes, Glottolog codes, AIATSIS, etc. are all well-established databases backed by research that are used by both researchers and international standards organizations globally.

Linguasphere, on the other hand, is mostly one person's passion project, and he passed away in 2020. The project website (https://linguasphere.info/) is defunct with many links broken, and the register itself hasn't been updated since 2010. The talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linguasphere_Observatory) for the Linguasphere Observatory article provides some more context/history. It's also worth noting that there's a proposal on the talk page to simply delete the Linguasphere article entirely. If the Linguasphere article itself is in question, it doesn't seem like the Linguasphere classification is of sufficiently high quality to be presented as a serious classification scheme on every language page on Wikipedia.

My biggest concern, however, is that Linguasphere doesn't seem to be a scientifically serious classification. It's hard to find a consistent and clear statement of what exactly Linguasphere is supposed to be in the first place, but what statements I can find are just vague references to "the continuous system of human languages" and "situating each language and dialect within the totality of the world's living and recorded languages". The groupings and classifications seem to be largely subjective, based on an overly-romanticized ideas of language and culture, made without awareness of existing scientific classification schemes like Glottolog or Ethnologue, or the technical notions of linguistic areas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprachbund).

Here is an excerpt from a 2006 UNESCO report on language statistics (https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/evaluating-language-statistics-the-ethnologue-and-beyond-en_0.pdf) about the Linguasphere:

"The Linguasphere Registry, like the Ethnologue, is presented both as a set of print volumes and delivered electronically over the Internet. Unlike the Ethnologue, the whole of the information in the Linguasphere Registry is not viewable for free on the Internet. The website for the electronic version is split over three domains: www.linguasphere.org, www.linguasphere.net, and www.linguasphere.com. Each site has somewhat different information, e.g. the dot-com site has an order form for print and electronic access, while the dot-org and dot-net sites provide more background information and lack an ordering mechanism. The dot-org site provides samples from the Register for free download, which are Adobe PDF format documents. No equivalent to a database front-end is yet available for this data. The Linguasphere Register is currently maintained as a project of the Linguasphere Observatory, and international organization incorporated in Wales, France and India. It is unclear from the websites whether there has been significant activity in the organization since late 2004, but a number of projects including those involving the construction of language maps, are reported to be ongoing as of the last update."

For context, my perspective is that of a professional research linguist with a Ph.D. in the field. I think my views are fairly representative of the academic linguistics community in regards to this topic. I don't think anybody in the field takes this register seriously. Dwhieb (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I support removing Linguasphere from the template. DRMcCreedy (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Remove. The point of the Ethn link is that the ISO code is a common means of identification, and SIL provides basic demographic and sociolinguistic data and a map that we often use. The point of the Glotto link is that it provides a decent classification and a close-to-complete bibiography for smaller languages that we also often use. I don't know what the point of the Linguasphere link is. At least, I've never found a use for it, and if there's no clear utility I think it shouldn't take up space in the infobox. — kwami (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 November 2024

Can someone please remove the invisible comment marks around the category 'Language articles with Linguasphere code' on {{Infobox language/lingualist}}, because I've just created that category a few minutes ago now? PK2 (talk; contributions) 09:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

Expand to fam20 (see Sercquiais). Arctic Circle System (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I must admit I am skeptical of the need for this level of diachronic granularity in an infobox. Wouldn't it be better to abridge it there and include a full tree in the article body if desired? Remsense ‥ 论 04:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense: Maybe, though as for how to implement such a thing, especially without it just being absurdly arbitrary, I wouldn't know. Arctic Circle System (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I also don't think 20 (or even the current 15) is really necessary.

It's true that most languages can and do get that granular (here's English, for example), but in practice in the literature most scholars simply list the major branches. I would write this for English, for example:

English < Germanic < Indo-European

But if I were discussing the Germanic language family in particular, I'd get a bit more detailed:

English < West Germanic < Germanic < Indo-European

I agree with @Remsense that the choice of branches to include is arbitrary. And that's actually okay—you should adjust the list based on context.

In the context of Wikipedia, I think the notability principle is the most sensible criterion to go by. If a branch of a family isn't notable enough to warrant its own page, then it probably doesn't make sense to include it in the diachronic tree. Dwhieb (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: Are more than 15 really needed on that page? I see 15 in use now, and I don't see a discussion on the talk page or a more-detailed list within the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: That's because the 16th entry isn't shown because the fam16 parameter doesn't exist yet. Arctic Circle System (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 November 2024

Could the limit of the lcN= and ldN= and labelN= parameters please be increased from 30 to 40? The current limit is causing problems at Nahuan languages, where Durango Nahuatl cannot be appropriately split into Eastern Durango Nahuatl and Western Durango Nahuatl, despite the code for Durango having been split back in 2011. This is because all 30 parameters are already in use. Thanks. Theknightwho (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I've granted you template editor rights so you can do it yourself instead. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't Nahuan languages use {{Infobox language family}} and |childN= instead, and leave the ISO codes to the individual language pages (which already have them)? Kanguole 18:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Kanguole Quite possibly, but it turns out Malay language goes up to 37, so the increase was still needed anyway.

@Pppery Thanks for that - I've implemented the change (and have added the same limit for dialects, too, since at least one page was exceeding the old limit). This should probably be Lua-fied at some point, as no doubt another arbitrary increase will eventually be needed. Theknightwho (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for new parameter to include audio/video recording depicting a language

I want to propose a new optional parameter called recording that could allow audio/video recordings. We now have such recordings on Commons of native speakers speaking their languages. These add encyclopedic value to an article depicting variants, accents, intonations, syntaxes and even gender-based variations which are important linguistic attributes. I'm personally working on a project to bring language media from CC-licensed documentaries. Some examples are Kusunda and Baleswari. However, there is no convention on inserting a recording in a proper format. So, a range of nonstandard approaches exist. The infobox parameter I'm proposing should be limited to audio and video only since a separate image parameter exists for images depicting the language. It's worth noting that images are of no use to depict languages with no writing systems (oral languages). This parameter can be called "recorded_media" allowing available audio/video on Commons and include within the infobox a supporting parameter called "recorded_media_depicts" (or "recorded_media_description") letting the uploader include what the media depicts. For brevity, those two should be enough. Psubhashish (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It's easy to add videos, recordings or images to an article (see for instance: Levantine Arabic). I don't see the point of adding this to the infobox. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

By that logic, there should be no parameter for image or native name. It's not about the "possibility" but keeping some of the very crucial information packaged in the infobox, encouraging editors to add recordings. --Psubhashish (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes for "very crucial information" (number of speakers, language family, location, etc.) but a random recording chosen subjectively and arbitrarily is not "very crucial information". For instance, which accent/register/dialect will you choose to represent the language? What will they talk about? If we had something like article first of the declaration of human rights in all languages, then why not add this below for people to "experience" the language. But still, I don't think the infobox is made for that. Has any other Wikipedia edition done that? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)