Talk:List of Wikipedias by language group

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009

Family, macrofamily, group, constructed languages, and linguistics[edit]

A misunderstanding seems to prevail on this page ("List of Wikipedias by language family") and on "List of Wikipedias by language macrofamily". Germanic, for example, is a group, not a family. Indo-European, for example, is a family, not a macrofamily. Nostratic is a hypothesized macrofamily; as of a decade-plus ago, no macrofamilies had been proven among linguists.

Two pages need renaming and then a third should be added and some content moved. I apparently can't or shouldn't rename; could an administrator, please?

I propose this sequence of steps:

1. Rename "List of Wikipedias by language family" to "List of Wikipedias by language group".

2. Rename "List of Wikipedias by language macrofamily" to "List of Wikipedias by language family"; except that if overlapping redirection will get problematic then rename it to "List of Wikipedias by language family (linguistic)".

3. Copyedit for consistency with linguistic standards. For example, groups should not be on the families page that's now the macrofamilies page.

4. Add as a new article "List of Wikipedias by other language" and move suitable content from the other 2 pages. That would include constructed languages (such as Esperanto), language isolates (likely Finnish, Basque, and Hungarian), and so on. (Proto-World was the first language spoken but no contents are known.)

5. Either add a new article "List of Wikipedias by language macrofamily (linguistic)" and present the rubric Nostratic to cover language isolates it explains, such as, I think, Basque, Finnish, and Hungarian or add a new article "List of Wikipedias by other language" and list languages not assigned by consensus among linguists to a group, family, etc.

Nick Levinson 06:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Numbers between brackets[edit]

Do those perhaps represent the number of articles in Wikipedia? I don't see it indicated anywhere. --Pyt 15:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Look to the top of the article:
Headline: Language group name (A – B – C – D%)   
A – total articles in wikipedias over 100 (at last count)   
B – total # languages with wikipedias over 0   
C – total # languages with wikipedias over 1000 mark   
D% – articles in top wikipedia in family as percentage of total in family    
-- Zotcrock 16:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Most of these numbers do nothing but cause confusion. My suggestion is to clean up and keep only 2;
  • A - Total number of articles
  • B% - Articles in language group as percentage of articles in all Wikipedias.
-Iketsi 16:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And I don't know why in the Bantoid section but I think it's an error. It's in the bar graph. In the other bar they said the percentage was -605.3%. What?! That value is impossible!

Actualising the number of articles[edit]

How the number of articles of each WP is actualised? I created a similar table with alle african WP here, so I am interested to know, if there is a way to change the numbers automatically. --Eruedin 17:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Since 2011-06-14, the data is automatically generated by Template:NUMBEROF. --Iketsi 23:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


Papiamentu is not a Germanic-based creole, it is a Romance-based creole. Please correct that. Thanks!

Fixed. I can't believe it's been overlooked for so long. --Iketsi 23:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


All languages (except explicitly constructed) can be taxonomically classified into certain taxonomical branch. Any language resulting from a language fusion still belongs to the family of one of the "parent" languages, but never to both. A classical example is Armenian who so much fused with neighboring languages that only linguists can correctly classify it as Indo-European.

All creoles listed as Romance creoles are in fact Romance languages. If you look at Chavacano you can see it is difficult to distinguish from Spanish except some loan words. If you want to put them in a separate group, then you should put English outside Germanic (because it is Germano-Romance creole) and French outside Italic (because it is a Romano-Gernamic creole).--Anixx1 (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No, no, no. Some languages, including mixed languages and creoles, do not have a single ancestor and therefore cannot be classified into a single taxonomical branch. Most linguists list Creoles apart from Indo-Europan language subfamilies for that reason. "Romano-Germanic creole" and "Germano-Romance creole" are not established theories, and English is fully a Germanic language because despite all of the Romance loanwords, it has a Germanic grammar base and Germanic ancestry. Creoles do not: for instance, the grammars of Chavacano and Spanish are very different. Your personal intuitions should not prevail over consensus among established linguists. --Iketsi (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Good that you accept that English is a Germainic language. If so, you should not have any problem in finding that Chavacano has Romance grammar base, despite some loanwords. "Creole" is not a taxonomical characteristic. It is a polyphyletic group. This table should be based on taxonomical classification rather than other features of the languages (should not it?). Your idea that languages can mix to the point of impossibility of taxonomical classification is wrong. As I already pointed with Armenian, with even very hard mixing the language still retains its taxonomical position. Your groupping of all creoles into one group is confusing because there are Spanish and French based creoles which further from each other than from Spanish and French respectively.--Anixx1 (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
In short: Creoles are the colonial variants of the European languages, do not you dispute this?
Closely related to this issue is the common assumption that Creoles are separate languages from their lexifiers and ex-colonial varieties thereof spoken by descendants of Europeans. Thus, the nonstandard French varieties spoken in Quebec and Louisiana, as well as on the Caribbean islands of St. Barths and St. Thomas, are considered dialects of French rather than Creoles. Likewise New World nonstandard varieties of Spanish and Portuguese are not considered Creoles, despite structural similarities which they display with Creoles of the same lexifiers. Although not admitted in linguistics, the classification seems to have been associated generally with whether the majority in the largely proletarian communities speaking the new, colonial vernaculars is of European or of non- European descent. Otherwise, all colonial varieties of European languages are restructured and contactbased; the current classification of vernaculars into Creoles and non-Creoles remains question begging. The embarrassment stems largely from the absence of a yardstick for measuring structural divergence from the lexifier, especially when it is dubious that it was the same in every contact setting. --Anixx1 (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I would definitely list Romance-based creoles as a different group; their birth, evolution and functioning are absolutely different than standard Romance languages, as every linguist knows.

The exonyms on this page need fixing[edit]

several of the languages shown here dont show there english exonym and instead show only in there native endonym twice.

Tarantino is showing up as tarandíne (tarandíne)
Moldovan is showing up ad молдовеняскэ (молдовеняскэ)

Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

According to template:WP, the first occurence should be in English, the second follow your user preferences. I see that Tarantino doesn't show up in Italian either. We have issues with special language codes and missing locales, which you can help adding. I can't right now investigate the issue in the specific case. --Nemo 09:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to let everyone know that I came up with a solution to the problem, I created another template compatible with the sorting, I created Template:WP2 it allows you to manually enter the proper English exonym on ones that are missing. If anyone else notices ones that are inaccurate you can fix it using this {{WP2|code|Name in English}} Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Counting of articles[edit]

Maybe I counted wrongly, but it seems to me that Finno-Permic -language group's articles aggregate is not same number which comes when you count all numbers of each language version:,803_Articles,_2,647_Active_Users) (Sorry my bad English).--Kirkhakkinen (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. You are right – Livvi-Karelian (olo) was missing from Template:NUMBEROFGROUP/data Iketsi (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Romance creoles should be included under Italic languages.[edit]

Linguistically they are as much Italic languages as English is Germanic and Bulgarian is Slavic.--Reciprocist (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


Let's fixing.--Jacek Janowski nr2 (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jacek Janowski nr2: What needs fixing? - dcljr (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Western Armenian Wikipedia[edit]

Would you please add Western Armenian Wikipedia to the list?

Yes check.svg Done Iketsi (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Dinka Wikipedia (Nilotic), N’Ko Wikipedia (Mande) and Sakizaya Wikipedia[edit]

Dinka (Nilotic) and N’Ko (Mande) and Sakizaya missing (Jkrn111 (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)).

Yes check.svg Done Iketsi (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)