Template talk:Infobox language

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)

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)