Template talk:Germanic languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Anon "Scots" pusher

Yiddish is universally treated as a seperate language, speakers are recorded separely and is no more part of modern German than Dutch; "Scots" is one of the many varieties of English. Putting in Scots opens the door to every dialect and its neighbours, from Swiss German and Gutnish to Hiberno-English and Low Saxon. Please stop disrupting wikipedia to POV push. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The British government now accepts Scots as a regional language and has recognised it as such under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. 84.135.233.4 16:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So? Many dialects are considered "regional languages", official dialects, etc, doesn't mean we have to fill the template with them; moreover, EU pen-pushers aside, the dialect - or more accurately group of dialects united by nothing except geographical location in parts of Scotland - has no official usage at all. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The EU pen-pushers were actually from the Council of Europe. Strange but true here rate payers in NI are being informed about changes in the system, in Scots and other tongues (well, what I assume is Scots;-).

84.135.233.4 17:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The brand identity of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in Northern Ireland as shown on this sign is displayed in English, Irish and Ulster Scots

The photograph seems to indicates official use of Scots and Irish in Northern Ireland. Is Ulster Scots used officially but not Scots in Scotland? Just curious because the respective articles didn't explicitly state so. 81.79.229.119 22:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOVing the list

Inevitably, a list like this is subject to interpretation and charges of non-NPOV. I have decided to be bold and edit the template to include all and only the living Germanic languages that have an ISO 639-2 code, as I think this allows us to have an objective standard for inclusion. The ISO 639 macrolanguages Frisian, Norwegian, and Yiddish are listed only once, even though their dialects also have ISO 639-2 codes. The other Germanic languages with ISO 639-2 codes are: Afrikaans, Alemannic, Danish, Dutch, English, Faroese, German, Icelandic, Limburgish, Low German, Luxembourgish, Scots, and Swedish. Bislama and Tok Pisin have ISO 639-2 codes, but I'm excluding them because pidgins and creoles lexified by Germanic languages are generally not considered Germanic languages themselves by linguists. Angr 18:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a solid criteria. However, I think it doesn't make much sense not to include Austro-Bavarian while Alemannic, Frisian, Limburgish, Low German and Scots are included. All of them are major groups of non-standard varieties that differ a lot from the respective standard varieties. But okay, it's a solid criteria, and maybe ISO 639-2 will become more coherent with time. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 06:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of that. But at least this way it wasn't our decision to exclude Austro-Bavarian; we're just following an external source's decision. No original research and all that. Angr 07:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a bad idea because it means including Scots. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) won't like it! Please develop another criterion that won't include Scots.

84.135.211.143 08:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we let Calgacus decide whether he likes it or not, rather than putting words in his mouth? Anyway, the other obvious solution is to list only languages with their own ISO 639-1 code: Afrikaans, Danish, Dutch, German, English, Faroese, Western Frisian, Icelandic, Limburgish, Luxembourgish, Norwegian (although Bokmål and Nynorsk also have separate ISO 639-1 codes), Swedish, and Yiddish. What's weird about that is listing only Western Frisian rather than Frisian as a group. Angr 10:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a much better solution because it doesn't include Scots. Including Scots, to quote Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ), "implies that Lowland Scots is the "national language" of Scots, like Ukrainian with Ukraine, Danish with Denmark, etc. Whereas in fact it does not hold, and never has held, that status; "Scots" in fact is the usual way to distinguish it from English English.". Perhabs the reason that only West Frisian it mentioned is because it is the only standardised variety, incidentally not mutually intelligible with the other 'Frisians', that is of course of no interest here. The important thing is not to include Scots.

84.135.216.135 08:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Template.

OLD

NEW (proposed, currently implemented)

This template is getting a bit messy and ugly. I suggest we pick some rules to avoid unfair connotations. I suggest the following:

• A major language is a language with more than 1 million speakers.
• A minor language is a language with less than 1 million speakers.
• A reg. language is positioned on the ECfML and has no national status.

Rex 13:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with the old template? This one has way too much info and above all way too many links (do we really need to link to the article about the military rank Major and the disambiguation page Minor???) —Angr 14:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

People kept adding dialects ... I don't mind having this template but seriously why was Allemanic on this list next to languages as German and English? Rex 14:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the earlier discussion. I thought (and no one objected) that the most NPOV thing was to list only languages with their own ISO 639-2 code. Alemmanic has one, as do Limburgish, Scots, and Luxembourgish. Other dialects don't have one so they were left off. —Angr 14:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

hmm, well I think a ECfRM rating gives a language "more status". I don't think a semi-dialect like Limburgish should be placed alongside world languages such as English.Rex 14:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to label the languages as such then, with a link to European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages rather than the general article Region. Especially if the article European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages actually listed which languages are and are not included in its scope. At the moment, I don't know how to verify which languages are and which are not included in it. —Angr 14:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll change it and look it up.Rex 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorted by relatedness, Sonja's proposal

I proposed to use this format:

Does anybody else see the value of sorting by branch or subbranch rather than by "majorness" or "minorness"?--Sonjaaa 17:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Continental and Insular scandinavian are not proper classifications, besides I think it would get a bit complicated for a simple nav. box, they can see the trees on the germanic languages page. The minor, major, reg division gives people an idea of a languages status.Rex 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)