Talk:List of Wikipedias by language family/Archives/2006

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2006, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Update

Why updating this list? 85.104.157.193 22:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Indo-European

Wouldn't it make sense to group the Indo-European languages together, I mean not by super family, but to have Germanic next to Slavic, and Romance next to Hindi etc

Finno-ugric should be divided

Why Indo-European is divided in subfamilies (Germanic, Slavic, Celtic. etc.) in this list but Finno-Ugric is not? There are subgroups inside Finno-Ugric languages in similar way as there are subgroups inside Indo-European languages. Actually some Finno-Ugric subgroups differs from each other more than Indo-European subgroups differs from each other. Hungarian and udmurt are Ugric languages, Finnish, and Estonian are Finnic (or Balto-Finnic) languages and Lappish belongs to Lappic languages. Russian is a lot more related to English than Udmurt is related to Estonian. So there is no point to group Hungarian, Lappish and Finnish languages together if English, Hindi and Russian are not grouped together. 193.65.112.51 21:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. The classification on this page is based on a kind of traditional grouping of languages rather than scientific classification. Would have an information value how many articles were written in Indo-European languages, apart from showing that this is a big family with many developed nations? The answer is obviously no. It's equally useless and lacks any information value to put Hungarian into a group alone simply because it decoupled from joint ancestors earlier than other nations. Look at any serious lingustic or ethnocultural publication and you will see that Finno-Ugrian languages are handled together because they belong together. I can't grasp what difference it makes for Wikipedia statistics that Czechs understand Slovaks more easily than Hungarians understand the Finnish. Separating southern Slavs from other Slavs would be equally arbitrary.--192.165.213.18 16:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro

what about montenegrin wikipedia?

Percentage by language family among all Wikipedias

What do you think about including an estimation of a language family's percentage among all international Wikipedia articles? 81.232.110.245 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would support such idea --Reo On|+|+ 17:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Simple English

I think that Simple English fits better into Constructed Languages category. 200.248.254.100 22:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Afro-Asiatic" ?

Who thought up the idea of combining "Semitic languages" with Hausa, Afar, and Somali to create "Afro-Asiatic languages"? I think that is a terrible idea, more suited to the "superfamily" page, since these are all considered valid separate families (en:Semitic languages, en:Cushitic languages, etc. in their own right, and pushing the conjectured superfamily on a family page possibly seems like someone's agenda at work... Codex Sinaiticus 03:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, why in the world was "Austronesian languages" split up into splintered "families" sections like "Sunda-Sulawesi" and "Borneo" family? What is going on here? Can we please get a standard classification system back on this page again? Codex Sinaiticus 03:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)