Wiktionary:Language treatment requests/Archives/2025-29

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Language treatment requests (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

"Pyu" seems to be the predominant name for this language for over a century now, if the sourcing on Pyu language (Sino-Tibetan) is of any indication. If there are no unresolved objections, I'll carry out the renames myself. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Do we know anything about the language currently called Pyu? It seems currently the only template in use for the language is there erroniously, and should instead be under the Sino-Tibetan language.

Renaming Tircul inevitably also means renaming Pyu. I personally prefer not having duplicate names, but of course if a certain name is dominant in literature, there's little we can do. Thadh (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

We can rename the other Pyu in New Guinea as "Pyu (New Guinea)". This is not unprecedented — we also have "Atong (India)" and "Atong (Cameroon)", with the Indian language also being Sino-Tibetan to boot. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Support. Years ago when I wrote large parts of WT:LANG, which uses this language not being called Pyu as an example, I was merely (descriptively) documenting then-current practice; in the years since, I've come to think we should change practice, and change not only the bullet point about Pyu, but also perhaps the following bullet point about Riang and Reang: It seems to me that if people know there is a language that is usually called Pyu, or one called Riang, and they see that we have a header and categories for a language called (simply) Pyu or Riang, and they enter terms under that header, with whatever code they find us using under that header . . . someone more knowledgeable may or may not notice that, in some cases, people may be entering the other Pyu or the other Riang that we (confusingly) don't call Pyu or Riang. (In those particular cases, which script is used should make it more obvious that something is amiss, but in the general case, it seems liable to be confusing.) Or readers may see our "Pyu" and "Riang" terms, and think those are the terms in the Pyu or Riang they're thinking of. I've come to think it'd be better to call languages by their most common name and then disambiguate whenever multiple languages have the same name, as you propose. So I support this. - -sche (discuss) 14:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hftf (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Rename  Done, thanks for the feedback. The New Guinea language will be moved shortly. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Language treatment requests (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

"Ao languages" is too hopelessly ambiguous between the Ao language itself (njo) and Central Naga (sit-aao). Also, Bruhn (who reconstructed this family's proto-language) labels the proto-language of sit-aao as "Proto-Central Naga" and uses "Proto-Ao" only to mean the immediate ancestor of the two main Ao (njo) dialects (Chungli and Mongsen). Thus, to clean up the confusion, I would like to rename sit-aao to "Central Naga". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

At the same time, I also would like to add a proto-language "Proto-Central Naga" under sit-aao-pro. It is reconstructed here. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done since nobody objected. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Language treatment requests (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

There are many Sino-Tibetan languages with "Naga" in their name, but Nocte (njb) is one where appending "Naga" is generally not done in most of the literature I have run into. Thus, I would like to remove the "Naga" from Nocte's language module data. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done since nobody contested this. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Language treatment requests (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

I would like for the Category:Horpa language (ISO code ero) to be converted from a language into a language family, since the "dialects" of Horpa are very poorly mutually intelligible and are studied and cited as separate languages by scholars.

It should be split into (non-exhaustively):

• Geshiza ero-gsz
• Stau/Rtau ero-tau
• Nyagrong Minyag ero-nya
• Northern Horpa/sTodsde jih (this ISO code already exists)

Tangut txg also belongs here, according to studies by Beaudouin. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Support. Hftf (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Support. – wpi (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Mellohi!: only half done. You can't just change the modules without changing the entries that use the language code. The Translingual ero entry had to be reconfigured so the template wasn't trying to link to Category:Horpa language, and there was a translation at water/translations. Before you edited the modules, you should have checked Category:Terms with Horpa translations to find out which entries would need to be fixed, then gone back and fixed them after the changes were made. You also should have been monitoring CAT:E as soon as you made the changes (and for a few days after, since the system usually doesn't propagate a change through all the layers of transclusions right away, unless you force it to with a null edit). As it is, I ended up commenting out the translation because I don't even know what language it is now- so I have no clue how to fix it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz Apologies for misusing {{done}} to mark an in-progress task, a many-hours-long car ride with poor internet connectivity disrupted the cleanup I was doing right when I was about to deal with these stragglers. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Language treatment requests (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

This has been discussed before (one year ago), but for adding it as a new L2. As a full L2, it would basically be a duplicate of Old Tupi, as most of the vocabulary is the same. The idea is giving Old Tupi the same treatament as Latin, which has ety-only codes for it's chronolects and uses labels to indicate them under the Latin L2. A label and a category for LGA already exist, so we would be adding a code to that.

This would be useful for borrowings specific to this chronolect—initially just for the Descendants section, like kamixá and kana, I haven't found any borrowings from LGA yet—and for the etymology of Nheengatu inherited terms. Not sure how this works for Latin, but, ideally, LGA would be under Old Tupi and set as the ancestor of Nheengatu, and Nheengatu should be able to inherit terms from both with {{inh}}.

I propose tpw-lga as the new code.

Pingin' @RodRabelo7 if he likes this idea more. Trooper57 (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Also pinging @Benwing2 who gave the idea of a ety-only instead of a L2 initially. I'll have a five-day feriadão to annoy y'all with that Trooper57 (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Trooper57, in regards to borrowings, perhaps arapuca (from LGA gûyrapuka) and colomim (from LGP kulumĩ, as per the VLGIA)? Regardless, I agree with the proposal for the same reasons that the mechanism already exists in Latin. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Support!!!! Polomo47 (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support, and sorry for the late response. If no more comments in a day or so, I'll create the code. Benwing2 (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. (I agree that adding this as an etymology language seems reasonable, and it avoids the issues that would have to be considered if adding it as a full language.) - -sche (discuss) 22:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@-sche Thanks, but Module:etymology languages/data is throwing an error, dunno if it's related to your edit. Trooper57 (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Trooper57 yeah there was a bug in @-sche's addition; fixed. Benwing2 (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize it was mandatory for the lects to specify Wikidata items. (Oh, or—I now realize—spell out "nil", rather than just omitting it.) Thanks for finding and adding the item. - -sche (discuss) 03:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

-sche, no "Língua Geral Paulista"? It has its influence on (Brazilian) Portuguese, although it's hard to precisely point due to the lack of documentation in the language. I imagine one example is emboaba, from LGP mboaba, and colomim, as I mentioned, from LGP kulumĩ, which seems to have only been attested in the VLGIA, just recently digitized. See more here. Trooper57, what do you think? RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7: I didn't mention LGP because we gotta deal with the main issue of spelling, but I guess it's fine. Trooper57 (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Language treatment requests (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

It appears the Pre-Samnite language does not use the Greek script on Wiktionary. This is a significant error, as a sizable number of Pre-Samnite terms are written in the Greek alphabet. For instance, this inscription. Many of the Pre-Samnite terms listed by De Vaan (p. 772) are also written in the Greek script. Graearms (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hm? It looks like we don't have any entries in the language at all yet, but it has polytonic Greek listed as one of its scripts, on the Wiktionary category page you linked to, and mentions of the language in places like Reconstruction:Proto-Italic/termn̥ are in Greek script. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

When I made this post the Pre-Samnite language did not use the Greek script. It was fixed in this edit. Graearms (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@-sche, Graearms Sorry, yes - I added it, then forgot to reply to this thread. All sorted. Theknightwho (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)