Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Disambiguation pages

No consensus exists to automatically create a disambiguation page, which the recent previous iteration of the conventions implied. These are only necessarily when no primary topic exists. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I reverted back to your version after it was changed to K's preference, he has since moved it back, with the edit comment "knock it off". When will the edit war and the ongoing filibuster to block consensus end??Skookum1 (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The death of conversation

At the very great risk of sounding like a WP:DIVA, I'm going to vent just a bit. I am aware of multiple discussions going on over the past several weeks on the naming conventions for languages and peoples. I have for the most part, however, hesitated to participate in those discussions for a couple of closely related reasons. I don't feel much of use will come of them, and I am frankly afraid of being viewed as an "enemy" by some quite vocal participants. I suspect that other contributors may have feelings similar to my own, but I speak only for myself.

These discussions have been plagued – in my personal opinion – by a very small number of editors who make rational discussion at best uncomfortable and at worst impossible. Although I have little doubt that editors are doing what they feel is right to defend their own deeply held beliefs, actions such as throwing up walls of text, forum shopping across venues, and making borderline or outright ad hominem arguments make it unlikely – again, in my opinion – that any rational decision can be reached. By saying this I don't hope to shut down the discussions, but do want to put on record my very real fear that no lasting consensus can emerge. I personally am taking a step back from the whole palaver. Cnilep (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it would be good to have your opinion, even if you don't want to put in the time to defend it. — kwami (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, and because this issue is spilling over onto all sorts of other talk pages that I do participate on, here is my personal opinion, in a nutshell.

Where there is the potential for ambiguity – in other words, where both a language and something else, such as a nation, an ethnic group, or the like might reasonably be called Foo – pages should be titled Foo language, even if no article currently exists on that other thing, and even if an article treating that other thing has some disambiguating term in its title. I'm aware of arguments made contrary to my own opinion, but I am not persuaded by them. Cnilep (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Move "war" over Halkomelem

Not unrelated to the insistence over mandatory disambiguation is a series of attempts to revert an otherwise-uncontroversial move of Halkomelem language to Halkomelem, where he claims that refs prove that there is a "Halkomelem people", for which there are 63 google refs for "Halkomelem people", mostly older or low-quality and to do with the language, vs 506 for "Halkomelem language". "Halkomelem-speaking peoples" are the various Sto:lo peoples and certain others nearby, the Musqueam, and the various groups on Vancouver Island and in the Gulf Islands. Such insistence on the obscure is not in line with the PRIMARYTOPIC of "Halkomelem", which is in common use as a standalone term in Canadian media and civil life.Skookum1 (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As usual, you appear to have "speed-read" my comments, and so once again misunderstood them. You do understand that when a move is challenged, you are expected to justify it, and that this is why we have a discussion page?

You may be right, and if you are, fine, but a quick check turned up refs of the "Halkomelem people" by for example Donna Gerdts, the principal authority on the Halkomelem language, M. Terry Thompson, who has worked on Salishan languages for half a century, and by Sturtevant (1990). These are hardly "low-quality sources", even if you know more than they do. I would expect you to provide equally good sources that there is no such thing as a Halkomelem people, and that when the term appears, it really means something else. — kwami (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Suffice to point out that there is NO Halkomelem First Nation or any particular group calling themselves "Halkomelem" other than as speakers of that language; you are pretending it is an endonym/ethnonym, when it is NOT. That you would posit such a silly argument in the course of edit warring over a simple title change is demonstration to me that you know very little about First Nations in BC, and are unconcerned about accurate usages. Siwash was and in some parts still is used by people who think it means a tribe or Indians in general, rather than the rank derisive that it is, and began as.

That Donna Gerdts and Terry Thompson and Sturtevant use "Halkomelem people" as shorthand for "Halkomelem-speaking people" does make them as sources for its use as an ethnonym questionable and low-quality. I was referring to "....yada yada in Downriver Halkomelem. People from ...." usages and the like. You were the one demanding sources, yet GoogleBooks shows that "Halkomelem" means the language, by a ratio of 9:1, and you could ask any of the three scholars you name if there is a group that calls itself "Halkomelem" and they would tell you "no, what is meant is people who speak Halkomelem". Halkomelem, like Shishalhalem and other -em names like those on Comox language, and the -im ending on "snichim" for the Skwxwu7mesh language's name, is the name of a language NOT of a people. Not any that are on the map, or registered with INAC or the BCTC or, indeed, with the Assembly of First Nations or Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs.

You have previously voiced your disdain for native self-identification terms in the St'at'imc RM and elsewhere, pronouncing their preferences "parochial". What's parochial is you wanted to use inaccurate scholarly references to fictionalize the existence of an ethnic group that does not exist. Halkomelem-speaking peoples do exist, indeed they do; but there is NO ethnic group called "Halkomelem", with or without "people" attached. That is the name of the language and the language only and is in common use in the Lower Mainland, and in more academia than you seem to be aware of or care about. What you care about is imposing unneeded disambiguation on titles that don't need and shouldn't have any, and here is completely redundant; it was you, after all who observed before moving St'at'imc people to Lillooet people ( a disastrous move which you fought bitterly to prevent reversion of, including your "parochial" AGF and demands for pronunciation, and quibbles about same), that "St'at'imc people" was redundant, which it is, same as "Halkomelem language" is redundant because the name of the language is the name of the language and is regularly seen and used without "language" appended.Skookum1 (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Your slight against me re "speed read" is noted as yet another personal stab, made in the context of previous derisions of my talking about that; it has nothing to do with my opposition to your idea here, which was easy enough to read in your edit comment on your move-war reversion of the title "[not equal to] people"....there is no Halkomelem people, there are only Halkomelem-speaking peoples. Do linguists always play so fast and loose with language?Skookum1 (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Your outrage notwithstanding, an actual ref would be nice. — kwami (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

where's your non-linguistics real-world ref for the existence of a "Halkomelem people"?? The ones your have pointed out, academic or not, are incorrect usages. Outrage? Irritation is more like it, your "case" is unwinnable as not grounded in tangible reality, like the position behind your endless filibustering of this guideline's discussion. Your change in your post above from "Halkomelem-speaking peoples" to "something else" is quite curious in nature; what "something else" do you have in mind if not "Halkomelem-speaking peoples"?Skookum1 (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I see you're FORUMSHOPPING the same illogical argument at Talk:Halkomelem. Verbatim, no less.Skookum1 (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"Primary Topic"

In light of the discussion in the aftermath of a misguided move at Tagalog language, this issue needs to be revisited. The whole reason behind this naming policy is to establish rules that make sense of language/ethnicity articles when they bear the same name and to keep the ambiguity to a minimum. By bringing up the issue of "primary topic", then the simple elegance of a policy that dates to 2002 is destroyed. It leads to endless arguments about whether the language article gets more hits than the ethnicity article. I would like to remove all mentions of "primary topic" here because they are 1) endlessly confusing, 2) spawn endless debates, and 3) were not part of the original policy that has proven stable for so many years. For example, in 2004, "Tagalog" was moved to "Tagalog language" because there was also a "Tagalog people". Simple and elegant. Then last month a tiny group of editors began talking about "primary topic", moved "Tagalog language" back to "Tagalog" without proper notification to interested parties. A new Request for Move has shown that the overwhelming consensus of editors don't buy the "primary topic" argument, but the minority is bolstered by the awkward and irrelevant wording here. --Taivo (talk) 04:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support, assuming that we're talking about languages that take ethnonyms, not things like Sanskrit and Esperanto. I had thought it was clear as-is, but evidently it's not enough to prevent willful misreading. We should still explain why Latin is an exception (our texts mostly date from a time when Latin speakers were no longer Latins, but then most English speakers aren't English either). We probably also need to mention languages with ethnonymic names when the people have been moved to something else, e.g. with most Salishan articles, despite our usual practice of keeping the language and people at the same name when practical. — kwami (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the idea--to keep the actual meaning and intent. The policy, with regards to things like "Latin", "Esperanto", "Salishan", etc. works just fine and I'm not proposing a change to any practical application of the policy. All that needs to be done is removing every sentence where the words "primary topic" occur. It's that unnecessary wording that is causing the problems, not the actual descriptive content or policy intent. If we look here, we can see the earlier wording that is far more descriptive of what the policy is supposed to be doing (despite the odd usage of "suffix"): "Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with 'programming language' in the case of programming languages, or 'language' in the case of natural languages. If the language's name is unique, there is no need for any suffix." --Taivo (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

We would get into arguments as to how unique "unique" is, but that is clearly better than the willful nonsense we have at Tagalog. — kwami (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support, including kwami's above notes. Fixes the wording to the intent of the policy. --JorisvS (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's no reason language articles should be treated differently than any other as regards to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the article titles policy. If the language is the primary topic of "xxx", and "xxx" is its common name, it should be at xxx.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS can always override WP:AT as it does in arbitration decisions such as WP:MOSMAC and WP:IMOS. The latter arbitration is especially illustrative because the country named "Ireland" is not actually named "Republic of Ireland". WP:NCLANG was designed as just such a consensus-based naming policy. In it's earliest form it stated clearly and succinctly: "Languages which share their names with some other thing should be suffixed with 'programming language' in the case of programming languages, or 'language' in the case of natural languages. If the language's name is unique, there is no need for any suffix." There was no mention of "primary topic" to confuse the issue. Indeed, if you look at the current text and perform Textual Analysis 101, it's clear that the references to "primary topic" are much, much later. Indeed, it appears that someone added them within the last year or so and inexpertly grafted them into the pre-existing text. They add nothing to the clearest meaning of this policy and, indeed, carried a "controversial" tag for a while after they were inserted. You were the editor who removed the tags. This issue is not the original intent of this policy and needs to be fixed to reflect the original consensus. At no point do I see that you actually built a consensus for adding "primary topic". --Taivo (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the policies in question, and I don't appreciate your accusatory tone. A WP:LOCALCONSENSUS among one group of editors can't override project-wide consensus. Perhaps it's time for an WP:RFC.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course it can override. That's what Arbitration usually does and I've given you two examples where a local consensus overrides project-wide consensus. It happens all the time. And there is no consensus to add "primary topic" on this page. If I have missed a sentence somewhere, please point to it. --Taivo (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS never overrides project-wide consensus, and editors from one WikiProject cannot decided that accepted policies and guidelines don't apply under their project's scope. This is part of the WP:CONSENSUS policy. Per your other question, the consensus was established here, and I've now started an RFC below to clarify things.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Great, so back to turning 5,000 language articles into potential "Tagalogs". French language and French people will need to battle for supremacy (unless it's only primitives like the Tagalog we need to worry about, and civilized peoples can retain the status quo), and move all language articles without corresponding ethnographic articles to the root name -- until of course someone gets around to writing the latter, in which case we'll need to move them all back again -- and then we can move on to arguing about 3,000 family articles, like moving Indo-European languages to Indo-European. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I tend to doubt that applying the usual policy and practice on primary topics will affect as many articles as all that. But in cases where it's appropriate, yes, the project-wide consensus trumps the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of a few editors.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong about a so-called wide consensus always trumping a local consensus. Arbritrations are prime examples of a local consensus trumping a so-called wide consensus. As I have mentioned before, and you have no argument to refute, both WP:MOSMAC and WP:IMOS violate the "primary topic" notion, your so-called "project-wide consensus". --Taivo (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not wrong. That's the policy and the consensus. The exceptions you mention came after a much more thorough consensus - arbitration cases - than has ever been the case here. Here we have a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of a few editors that's keeping articles out of step with the rest of the project. It's a walled garden.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong, because whether the result of a long discussion or not (which is basically what an arbitration is, in essence), they are still cases where a local consensus overrides the community-wide consensus. In no case does "primary topic" state that fictitious names are allowed, yet that is what the country of "Ireland" is called at Republic of Ireland. That is a simple violation of every single community-wide naming convention there is--naming an article with a fictitious name. The primary topic for "Macedonia" is demonstrably the modern country, but the political forcefulness and intransigence of the body of editors of Greek nationality prevented that direct association and you can now find the country at Republic of Macedonia. That is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV rules. Arbitration does violate "community-wide" consensus on how to name articles in these cases (and they are by no means the only cases, just the ones I know about personally). --Taivo (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

And the second reason you are wrong is that no matter how many editors are involved in an arbitration case, it is still tiny compared to Wikipedia. Notice the list of participating editors at WP:ARBMAC2 (yes, I was one of them). There were 29 editors listed as involved, but only 18 actually made statements and participated in the discussion (which is about the number of editors who have stated opinions on the relevance of "primary topic" at Talk:Tagalog language). How many thousands of Wikipedia editors are there? Even the larger number of participants involved in formulating WP:IMOS doesn't reach statistical "existence" in the face of Wikipedia's body of editors. So these are definitely cases of an infinitesimally small percentage of the community reaching a consensus that violates "primary topic". So if you are taking an arbitration case as a "minimal number" of editors to be involved in a discussion before it can form a proper local consensus, then the consensus at Talk:Tagalog language has reached the level of participating editors at WP:ARBMAC2. That consensus is exactly relevant to this discussion because the overwhelming consensus there was that "primary topic" does not apply to the application of WP:NCLANG in article titles. --Taivo (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Interaction between WP:NCLANG and WP:NCET

• Comment. I actually use Wikipedia as a quick reference, which is how I discovered a recent onslaught of two dabs. The current text of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages) says, "Articles on languages can be titled with the bare name of the language where this is unambiguous (e.g. Bokmal) or where the language is unquestionably the primary topic for the name (e.g. Latin). In other cases, an article title with the natural disambiguator "... language" is preferred (e.g. English language)," which is fine; however, the subsequent text: "Where a name is shared between a language and the corresponding ethnic or national group, as is the case with most such names in English, experience shows that a search for which of these has "primary" status is most often futile" is factually incorrect. Using the clear criteria established under [a primary topic], yields the primary topic, which is often the ethnic group over the language that the ethnic group speaks or historically spoke. No changes have been made to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes), so unilateral moves to these articles are wildly inappropriate. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Uyvsdi

That wording has been here for years, and is consistent with NCET. Read their examples: plural (Koreans · Germans · Swedes · Arab Canadians), "X people" (French people · Wauja people), singular (British Chinese · Iyer -- these have no language), parenthetical (Macedonians (ethnic group)). When you make moves based on "primary topic" you are in violation of both NCLANG and NCET, as the whole point is that there is no primary topic. If anything, you're getting it backwards: Western Apache is defined by language, not ethnicity. You should perhaps reread TWODABS too -- NCLANG and NCET are not a problem there either. — kwami (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

At least in some cases, the reason the ethnicity is at the bare root is that it used to be the language article, but we moved that to "X language" per NCLANG. An article on the people was then created at the redirect in disregard of NCET. An example of this is Tataviam.

BTW, what I'm doing now is cross-linking our ethnicity articles from our language articles. That's why I'm editing both. — kwami (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Undiscussed, unilateral moves of stable ethnic group articles are not helpful and definitely fall outside the scope of this naming convention, which was changed earlier this month. The plural is an interesting point to bring up, because the same term is typically a singular and plural for many Native American groups (Navajo, Arapaho, Lakota, etc.). The ethnic group articles *have* links to the language articles. I've read wp:twodabs over and over. They are to be avoided. Yes, there is generally a primary topic. For instance, your recent creation and recreation of the twodabs disambiguation page at Tataviam. The last speaker of that language died in 1916. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Uyvsdi

The wording you're referring to has been the guideline for years.

Yes, most ethnographic articles have links to the language article in their info box. But few language info boxes have links to the ethnic group, and most of the ones that do do because I added the link.

TWODABS starts out with if an ambiguous term has no primary topic, then that term needs to lead to a disambiguation page. The convention supported by both NCLANG and NCET is that ethnolinguistic names are ambiguous and have no primary topic. This has been confirmed in many move requests citing TWODABS.

For names that have no distinct plural form, like "French" and anything ending in -ese, we have the other options, of which "X people" is the most common.

BTW, I would have no problem doing things the way you want, with the ethnicity occupying the root name of ethnolinguistic groups. But since that conflicts with both NCLANG and NCET, I think we should come to consensus about it. What we currently have is a push to use a different convention for aboriginal nations in the anglophone-majority states Canada, US and Australia, but we have no centralized consensus that these peoples should be treated differently than the rest of the world. — kwami (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Convention: Articles on languages can be titled with the bare name of the language where this is unambiguous (e.g. Bokmal) or where the language is unquestionably the primary topic for the name (e.g. Latin). In other cases, an article title with the natural disambiguator "... language" is preferred (e.g. English language). Where a name is shared between a language and the corresponding ethnic or national group, as is the case with most such names in English, experience shows that a search for which of these has "primary" status is most often futile. Therefore, barring exceptional circumstances, a pair of disambiguated article titles of the format "X language"/"X people" is generally recommended.

This was just added this month. Yes, there *is* more often than not a primary topic. If you want to change policies about ethnic groups, take it to that policy page and bring it up on that Wikiproject. If you want to move an article, discuss it on the talk page of that article to gain consensus. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Yet another round of "change the policy without anyone affected by it having a chance to weigh in, then bully people into going along with it." Leave these articles along, they've been stable and moves may insert systemic bias issues into situations where a general rule doesn't fit. We have IAR for a reason. Montanabw^(talk) 04:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason we clarified and reworded WP:NCLANG was to prevent a rash of article moves from a stable "X language" to "X" where the ethnicity and language share the same name. The clarification and rewording of policy was to maintain stability and the crowd at WP:LANG likes the reaffirmation of what we have been doing all along. I think that applying the situation at NCLANG by analogy to WP:NCET, however, without building a consensus among the concerned parties, is a mistake. Unilaterally changing the "people" articles without consent or consensus is no better than what we were fighting at Tagalog language and the users who were pushing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as a one-size-fits-all approach to article naming. --Taivo (talk) 08:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the NCLANG guideline include references to PRIMARYTOPIC?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to support inclusion using Fut.Perf.'s wording. AlbinoFerret 00:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the WP:NCLANG guideline include references to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Cúchullain ^t/c 20:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. For some background: language addressing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC was added to the guideline during lengthy discussion in 2014 here. Various editors felt that the way the guideline had been to prescribe a naming standard out of step with typical Wikipedia policy and practice on determining primary topics, as well as WP:COMMONNAME. The wording has been there since, but it was tagged with dispute tags long after the discussion had gone stale and been archived. My opinion remains the same as it did at the time: the guideline needs to be in step with the consensus of the wider community, which is better represented by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Until 2014 this guideline worked very well to maintain the titles of language articles when the name was shared with an ethnicity. Since someone added this language without consensus in 2014, there have been several instances where the confusing wording of the current text, which was inelegantly added without real care for the meaning of the original text, has led to disputes over long-standing article titles. For example, Tagalog language, which had been a stable title for eleven years was moved by a four-person "consensus" over objection to Tagalog without any notification at WP:LANG. It has since been shown that an overwhelming majority of editors on that page oppose that move that violates the clear, long-standing, pre-"primary topic" text of this policy. It has wasted a great deal of time and bandwidth simply because the totally unnecessary and confusing text about "primary topic" was added last year without a clear consensus. Cuchullain claims that a consensus was reached last year, but I see no such consensus, indeed comments toward the end explicitly state that the editor sees no consensus on the issue. Cuchullain also claims that local consensus cannot override generalized topics. But this happens all the time, especially in arbitration. WP:MOSMAC and WP:IMOS are clear examples where articles are not entitled according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but according to local consensuses that were reached as a result of the arbitration process. WP:IMOS is especially noteworthy because the compromise name for the country, Republic of Ireland, isn't even its legal name and is definitely not the result of an application of "primary topic". WP:MOSMAC's name for the country of Macedonia, "Republic of Macedonia", is also not the result of an application of primary topic, or else the article would be called simply "Macedonia" and not Republic of Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, at least until the WP:PTOPIC guideline itself is significantly improved. The problem here isn't really the consideration of the idea of Primary Topic with regards to NCLANG--the problem is that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as currently written is completely subjective and open to myriad interpretations which, in turn, leads to endless debate on every article where it's brought up and results in article-by-article ad-hoc consensuses which often contradict each other and perpetuate dueling WP:RM wars. That's no way to run an encyclopedia. Furthermore, ridiculous endless debates such as the current one at Talk:Tagalog both contribute to the public's negative view of Wikipedia and take up editors' valuable time which could otherwise be spent adding/improving actual content. For the sake of both the editors and readers, naming guidelines should be simple, elegant, clear-cut and, above all, consistent. WP:PTOPIC is none of these.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 22:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. A surefire way to turn every language article into another "Tagalog". Unless we define the "primary topic" to be the ethnicity, or whatever else the language is named after, with the normal exceptions for Sanskrit etc. — kwami (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Use the version Taivo restored. There never was any consensus for the change he reverted, just an awful lot of discussion, and it only unnecessarily creates wiggle room to have articles at locations that are hard to predict. --JorisvS (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The principle of WP:PTOPIC is a fundamental part of our project-wide naming policy, with which this specific guideline needs to remain compatible in order to be valid, and having an explicit reference to it in the guideline serves as a useful explanation of how it does so. Removing it outright looks too much like an attempt by a (necessarily) small local group of editors on this obscure, out-of-the-way guideline page to carve out a "WP:LOCALCONSENSUS" against general policy, which would be a bad thing (even if the current proposers aren't actually trying to do that.) I'd support some form of rewording though. Something like: Articles on languages can be titled with the bare name of the language where this is unambiguous (e.g. Bokmal) or where the language is unquestionably the primary topic for the name (e.g. Latin). In other cases, an article title with the natural disambiguator "... language" is preferred (e.g. English language). Where a name is shared between a language and the corresponding ethnic or national group, as is the case with most such names in English, experience shows that a search for which of these has "primary" status is most often futile. Therefore, barring exceptional circumstances, a pair of disambiguated article titles of the format "X language"/"X people" is generally recommended. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I could definitely support Future's wording, but not the current wording in the article. --Taivo (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Same here. --JorisvS (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami, User:WilliamThweatt, what do you think of Future Perfect's wording? --Taivo (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a clear improvement to me. There is a bit of repetition that could be cleaned up, looking at the page as a whole, but that's minor. — kwami (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Summoned by bot, Future Perfect's text seems very clear to me. Am I correct in presuming that the distinction Russian/Russians etc. would be incorporated into this guideline, or is it intended to supercede it? Pincrete (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accents in language titles

Hi folks. I started a discussion on WikiProject languages asking if there was specific guidance on using accents/diacritics in language titles. Feel free to weigh in there (or here if that's more convenient, doesn't look like either talk page is all that active). Thanks. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan and the "language" vs. "dialect" question

Informal feedback is welcome for the following preliminary proposal: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Language vs. dialect in South Asia: can we choose a single authority to apply across the board?. – Uanfala (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)