This template is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Germanic studies articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Germanic studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studiesTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studiesAncient Germanic studies articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a
WikiProject related to all activities of the
NorthGermanic peoples, both in
Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the
Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
I have greatly expanded the template to sort the languages according to subbranch. The criteria for inclusion in the box are (1) an
ISO 639-3 code, (2) a living language, and (3) a Wikipedia article specifically about the language. +
Angr 13:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)reply
#1 should be included as it contradicts sources such as
[1].
Sarcelles (
talk) 20:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
That map shows as distinct a lot of varieties that are generally acknowledged to be dialects of the same language rather than distinct languages (e.g. Zuidhollands and Utrechts). The allocation of ISO 639-3 codes is not entirely unproblematic, but following it gives us an objective, Wikipedia-external guideline to follow. That helps us avoid original research and maintain a neutral POV. +
Angr 20:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)reply
This is not an objective guideline. It has a code for both Low German and Westphalian, although Westphalian belongs to Low German.
Sarcelles (
talk) 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
For that matter, so do Achterhooks, Dreents, East Frisian Low Saxon, Gronings, Sallaans, Stellingwarfs, Tweants, and Veluws, but they all get their own code. As I said, it's not unproblematic, but by following a Wikipedia-external standard, we avoid OR. It's not our job as Wikipedians to decide what is and what isn't a separate language. +
Angr 11:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
There are scholarly books, which can be used as sources.
Sarcelles (
talk) 12:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Do they all agree with each other as to which varieties are separate languages and which are dialects of the same language? It seems very likely that this is a source of academic discussion, and thus more suited to discussion within the text of the articles rather than in a navbox template. +
Angr 13:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I had such debates in several Wikipedias. The present template is a breach of syllogism.
Sarcelles (
talk) 15:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)reply
This template has varieties belonging to another variety within the template on the same echelon.
Sarcelles (
talk) 16:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I have to agree with Angr: it is better to follow ISO. They obviously do make mistakes, like most other sources do, but an ISO code implies a sort of official character, and I think we may hope they do a lot of work to avoid as much as mistakes as possible. I have now removed Brabantian (which has not an ISO code nor is a language). Note that East Frisian Low Saxon is unclassified by Ethnologue within the Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages, and that Riograndenser Hunsrückisch within the Germanic languages. To me, it seems not to be wrong of us to categorise them ourselves, as is done already in the template, so I changed nothing regarding this issue. Greetings,
Belgian man (
talk) 21:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The codes seem to be a case of anyone could say that.
Maybe so, but they're an established, neutral, Wikipedia-independent system. Any other attempt to decide what is and is not a language for purposes of this template will either be
OR or will be based on some other equally arbitrary and controversial external source. +
Angr 12:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)reply
But it does put the wider Ripuarian, East Franconia, Rhine Franconian, and Northern Low Saxon groups on the same echelon as the narrower Lower Alemannic, Central Alemannic, Swabian, Higher Alemannic, and Highest Alemannic; or the narrower North Bavarian, Central Bavarian, and South Bavarian. Following that map would actually add too many dialects of larger languages to the template, not to mention that it doesn't even consider the remaining Germanic languages. +
Angr 18:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Indeed; that map seems to be a dialect map rather than a language map.
Belgian man (
talk) 09:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The template is not to include every dialect, so the
Dutch Low Saxon varieties should be replaced with those at
As I read in ruwiki, Yiddish belongs to Central german dialects group inside High german lang-s; it doesn't compose distinct lang-s group. --
Ерден Карсыбеков (
talk) 18:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Language groups/distribution
This template gives the idea that Low Franconian and Low Saxon are two separate groups. The language of the Hanseatic League was Low German and this included the Low Franconian and Low Saxon varieties. Historically, there were no two separate languages, but there was a so-called
dialect continuum.
Making a difference between High German and the Low German (including Dutch) is already questionable in both ways, but separating the Low German in two different categories is simply incorrect. Isn't it stange that Frisian, Danish and Norwegian don't have so many dialects like German and Dutch? They really do, but they aren't shown here in this template...
Frisian
English
Dutch
German
dei
day
dag
Tag
rein
rain
regen
Regen
wei
way
weg
Weg
neil
nail
nagel
Nagel
tsiis
cheese
kaas
Käse
tsjerke
church
kerk
Kirche
tegearre
together
samen
zusammen
sibbe
sibling
verwante
Verwandte
kaai
key
sleutel
Schlüssel
ha west
have been
ben geweest
bin gewesen
twa skiep
two sheep
twee schapen
zwei Schafe
hawwe
have
hebben
haben
ús
us
ons
uns
hynder
horse
paard
Pferd
brea
bread
brood
Brot
hier
hair
haar
Haar
ear
ear
oor
Ohr
doar
door
deur
Tür
grien
green
groen
Grün
swiet
sweet
zoet
süβ
troch
through
door
durch
In this table you will find English and Frisian on the one side, and German and Dutch on the other side. The so-called Low Saxon or Low German variety should be somewhere between the Dutch and German language. I propose you merge Low Franconian and Low Saxon, otherwise you need at least three new linguistic groups for Frisian as well. Kind regards --
Kening Aldgilles (
talk) 00:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't understand what the table is supposed to be showing, or for that matter what English and Frisian have to do with the issue at all.
Angr (
talk) 15:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Why is
Gothic language in East Germanic languages is omitted and does not appear in this list in the template? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.100.127.97 (
talk) 09:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Several issues with this template
Many dialects are not listed as dialects. For example, Bergensk is listed separately from Norwegian.
Limburgish listed under Dutch rather than Meuse-Rhenish.
No mention of several languages with ISO codes: Cimbrian and Mòcheno (should be under Southern Bavarian), Hunsrik (should be under Moselle Franconian), Coloniero German, Kölsch, Walliser, and maybe more.
If someone more knowledgeable about the classfication of Germanic languages could take a look at this template, that would be great.
Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (
talk) 13:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply