User talk:Exarchus

Welcome![edit]

Hi Exarchus! I noticed your contributions to Spanish Civil War and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Kleuske (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated errors[edit]

Please stop repeating the same error in multiple pages, as you did at Daakaka language, and numerous others, with "the classification system of the the UNESCO". If you are going to copy-paste the same text into multiple pages, please treble-check it, before copying it - thank you _ Arjayay (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already saw it myself and corrected the remaining errors, thank you for correcting me there, I'll be more attentive in the future. Exarchus (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UNESCO red book[edit]

Please refrain from adding that label, it's fairly controversial as it's way out of date and not maintained (see the talk page). Akerbeltz (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's from 2010, but if it's controversial, that should be mentioned on the wikipage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_the_World's_Languages_in_Danger Exarchus (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not convinced it is controversial, not have I seen any such claim made. UNESCO is a perfectly good source, so unless there are other sources cautioning against it, it should be restored. Jeppiz (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now I do understand that for well studied languages like Irish, a source from 2010 might not be that appropriate. But for many other ones, I think it's still very relevant, 'faute de mieux' if you want. Exarchus (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just noticing that the Endangered Languages Project often doesn't have recent sources either. Just an example for Aromanian: a source from 2005, one from 2009, then UNESCO from 2010 and an undated mention of the World Oral Literature Project. Or Kaszubian: 2007, 2009, 2010 and three undated ones. For Griko they have a source from 2015.

Maybe the whole ELP project hasn't been maintained very actively either, although on their blog they say: "we'll be launching a brand-new, updated, expanded website in summer 2023".

Then there's also Ethnologue which uses the EGIDS classification, which might be better than the UNESCO categories, and I'm curious how recent their sources are. But there's the basic problem that most of Ethnologue is behind a paywall, now I can only see whether the language vitality is institutional, stable, endangered or extinct.

And then I want to add that for many languages, the number of speakers mentioned on Wikipedia is often pretty outdated, I'm picking some random examples: Bateri (source from 2000), Torwali (2001), Jad (1997), Gongduk (2006), Gondi (2011), Mlabri (2007), Batak (Philippines) (2000), Piame (1981), Nyamal (2006), Pukapukan (2011), Atikamekw (2016), Lakota (1997–2016), Timbisha (2007).

So calling a source from 2010 'way out of date' may be correct for some languages, but for many others it won't be easy to find something better. Exarchus (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to find the page the debate was on, it wasn't on the Red Book's talk page, as it broadly wasn't the book itself that was questionable but the fact someone had unilaterally turned it into a map label in spite of the fact it's out of date and not maintained, plus there were people who brought up issues with the data itself. And I think there was an issue with the categories used which some language users found offensive, I think Cornish was one of them. It was on the talk page of the label somewhere, but goodness knows which one. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah found it, it was on the infobox talk page [1].

PS It's more out of date than 2010 because the book AFAIK did not conduct any fieldwork itself, but relied on other, sometimes much older, data, so the data is 2010 minus n years. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's not ideal, but the problem is: do you have a better source? Not for a few specific languages, but for the whole gamut. It would probably be better to use the Ethnologue data, but it's not publicly available and if someone with access to it would somehow put all the EGIDS classifications on Wikipedia, would Ethnologue appreciate that? Exarchus (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the fact that a single compendium would be neat but the reality is, that even a single compendium like the red book relies on other sources for such data and every layer you add, you introduce the chances of errors creeping in - I have yet to see a publication which tries to cover more than half a dozen languages where I didn't start pulling my hair over something that was just plain wrong. In my view, there is no way around finding sources on a language to language basis for this kind of data. While more tedious, at least it will be obvious where the data came from and can be, in better data comes up, be fixed. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the UNESCO website for the language atlas is back online (definitely still needs a lot of work), so the project is not dead. And 2022-2032 being supposedly the 'International Decade of Indigenous Languages', it would be a total joke if UNESCO wouldn't at least update their atlas (among other things). Exarchus (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I notice (looking randomly at some Papuan languages) that Auye is classified 'Vulnerable' in the 2010 edition, but is now 'definitely endangered'. So they are actually updating their stuff.

I also notice that they have an extra category: 'vulnerable' is now split into 'potentially vulnerable' and 'endangered/unsafe'. It would have been interesting if they had created an 'Awakening' category like ELP has for languages like Cornish, notice that I hadn't added the Unesco categories to Cornish and Manx as I thought it was weird to call them 'critically endangered'. Exarchus (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give a few European examples: they changed Breton from 'severely endangered' to 'potentially vulnerable', Friulian from 'definitely endangered' to 'potentially vulnerable', Tsakonian from 'critically endangered' to 'severely endangered'. They also disentangled the different West Frisian languages (Terschelling Frisian etc.). They did remove Auvergnat/Limousin/... I suppose because not considered a language. Hopefully they put more data online the coming weeks/months and improve the site (which clearly has some bugs). Exarchus (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a new edition would be nice. Even nicer if they said where the data was coming from, otherwise we may just end up with circular sources. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]