Module talk:languages/data/3/x

Could someone add data for Anglo-Norman, which has the ISO 639-3 code xno, please? I think the required text is:

m = {
	names = {"Anglo-Norman"},
	type = "regular",
	scripts = {"Latn"},
	family = "roa"}

 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Anglo-Norman is treated as part of Old French (see WT:LANGTREAT). --WikiTiki89 11:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ah, my mistake; thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Note that it is still possible to distinguish Anglo-Norman from Old French in etymologies if you want to, however (by using {{etyl|xno|en}}). It is an etymology-only language. - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good to know. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The language Parthian (xpr) should have the attribute ancestors: {"ira-pro"},

Right now, the database claims Proto-Iranian is not an ancestor of Parthian.

128.84.126.40 07:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Added. --Vahag (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

The languages Lycian (xlc) and Luwian (xlu) should have the attribute ancestors = {"ine-ana-pro"},

Right now, the database claims Proto-Anatolian is not an ancestor of Lycian and Luwian.

128.84.127.134 02:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Could someone add "Latn" to the scripts used by Andalusian Arabic (xaa)? --Lvovmauro (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The language Pictish should have the attribute ancestors: {"cel-bry-pro"},

This is the view endorsed by Wikipedia and is the present linguistic consensus. The PHD thesis by linguist Guto Rhys (2015) "Approaching the Pictish language: historiography, early evidence and the question of Pritenic." has summarized that:

• "the lack of evidence for distinctiveness renders the term ‘Pritenic’ as redundant for the present"
• "much of Pictland partook in the ‘Neo-Brittonic revolution’, or at least very significant aspects of it"
• "most of the supposedly distinguishing features cannot be demonstrated to be restricted to Pictland alone"
• "proposals that Pictish was diverging from Brittonic are either demonstrably incorrect, most uncertain or of trivial linguistic impact"

Presently, the database claims descent from Proto-Celtic, displaying Pictish as a branch similar to Gaulish, rather than specifically from Proto-Brythonic. --JoeyofScotia (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Could someone add Devanāgarī script and translit module for Sherpa:

 scripts = {"Tibt", "Deva"},
   translit_module = "translit-redirect",

Kushalpok01 (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Per (self-written) WT:AXSV.

m = {
	"Sudovian",
	35603,
	"bat",
	Latn,
	entry_name = {
		from = {""},
		to   = {"s"}} ,
}

70.175.192.217 05:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply