Criteria for dialects?

The draft states: "A dialect or register may also be considered inherently notable if it is treated as a distinct language for sociolinguistic reasons. Dialects of a language with low mutual intelligibility may be considered languages in their own right."

Should the policy name criteria for such consideration? Presumably it would be RS and GNG, but is there anything more specific? and even if not, should it be made explicit? Cnilep (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

An important example of the notability of a dialect is the whole issue of Croatian versus Serbian. Glottolog includes both under "Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian", but if you've spent more than a minute on the Balkan pages you know that lumping Croatian and Serbian together has been "problematic" for a large number of editors to say the least. I think that the current wording covers that contingency adequately. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Unattested or Poorly Attested Languages

There are quite a few languages in Glottolog that are attested well enough to place in a language family, but have been attested with barely more than a word list. While these are technically "notable" because they are languages, the published information would make little more than a stub in Wikipedia. Perhaps notability could include some measure of published reliable sources before the notability threshold is activated. Otherwise there might be hundreds of language pages that are little more than "name, rank, and service number." TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

There won't be. There are indeed hundreds of unattested languages, which probably do not merit individual articles, but most, probably all, poorly attested languages will have been covered in some secondary source. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I would strongly suggest that Magiana language for example does not have sufficient coverage in a secondary source to write a decent article and would not pass WP:GNG. All the data we have is two mentions of its name in a primary source and a wordlist with a Glottolog page that mentions the existence of these two primary sources. The change in the rules proposed here seems specifically designed to catch this edge case and those like it. I personally would oppose adopting this policy as it supports the existence of perma-stubs that would be better discussed as part of other topics.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Magiana doesn't have SIGCOV and would not deserve an article under the policy. The current policy is designed to cover languages that are significantly covered by a secondaty source if not included in one of the major language databases. Any subject which meetd GNG should be allowed to have an article, and this includes stubs, even perma-stubs if applicable. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The proposal as of now suggests that a Glottolog entry is enough, and Magiana does have that.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

See my comments below. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:53, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue:, Magiana also has a secondary source, if quite minimal. You have repeatedly claimed it does not even after it's been pointed out. As for it not passing GNG, that's the whole point. — kwami (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Which source are you referring to here? Boynamedsue (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Glottolog. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Palau and Saiz (1989). — kwami (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I thought that was an edited version of a primary source. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It reproduces the primary sources, even with some photocopies, but embedded in quite a bit of authored text, not just footnotes and editorial comments. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Do they comment on the language? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

If the editors comment on the language it is definitely secondary coverage, if they don't it is clearly primary.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, evidently they didn't have anything to say about Magiana specifically.

If someone quotes data in a larger context, I thought that made it a 2ary source, but checking with WP.OR it looks like it doesn't. Sorry about that. — kwami (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I have a feeling the Majena language has some connection with Magiana. There is at least one secondary source cited there. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b: I reckon you are right. There is no way that Maxiena (an alternate name given for Majena) can be anything other than Magiana. Given the three forms attested, I would hazard a guess at its name being somewhere between [mahjɐna] and [mahjʉna] with an unrounded central or maybe even front vowel that some Spanish-speakers heard as "a" and some as "e". The mention of "mujena" in the same source (traced back to Castillo, 1900) is probably the same group. Unfortunately, we need a scholar to sort this mess out for us.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

The article makes mention of a "divergent dialect of Moxo", which seems to be "Magiana" the Arawakan language. Should we cover these in the same article? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we have reason to have two articles, but should be cautious. The main info should IMO be for the attested language, and the additional info/sources introduced by something like "what may be the same language." — kwami (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:07, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Very likely the name is the same, though names can be applied to multiple peoples, so that doesn't tell us if the language is the same. The attestation also differs, but someone could simply have said that that it was unattested because they weren't aware of the word list. Same with claiming it's an isolate with no evidence except that it was different from something else. Doubt there's anything we can say about it. — kwami (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Consensus

The page says This guideline reflects established consensus about the notability of languages and language families, which is required for them to have an article on Wikipedia. What consensus? where? Also, SNGs are not required - they are a shortcut towards a presumption of notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

It's a draft. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it says that in the banner. The question remains: what consensus? If the draft says there is a consensus, this has perhaps been discussed, and the discussions linked? And my suggestion is the draft use the presumption language of other SNGs if you hope for the draft to be accepted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

There has been no discussion to my knowledge. I have attempted to follow the same formatting here. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Proposed notability guidelines is the current open discussion to try to establish a consensus, in addition to the collaborative work on this article. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but the draft shouldn't say there is a consensus when there isn't. Most notability guidelines start off with something like:

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a [subject, e.g. language] is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia.

Any call to consensus in the guideline would need to represent a consensus at a policy forum, presumably by RfC. Otherwise the clear existing consensus is that any page should meet WP:N. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I would have to say, there's no way to adopt this without an RfC.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a decades-old working consensus that all languages are notable. This is an attempt to put that in words for people who want to delete language articles because they don´t find them notable. — kwami (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean, no, not all languages are notable. All languages that are written about are probably notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Such as? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Hard to say, as if they are not written about, I don't know them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Can they even be considered "languages" though? If there isn't any evidence to suggest their existence, there is nothing to write about for an article. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

To say, as WP, that something is a language, it needs to be established by a RS as a language. That means an evaluation that the evidence is enough to establish it as a language.

The consensus has been that all languages are notable. Ethno-/exo-/endo-nyms are not, and that's all that many purported unattested languages are.

The names that Glottolog lists as "unclassifiable" are not demonstrated languages and therefore are not notable, unless they qualify under GNG. Anything that we can classify and show to be distinct is a demonstrable language, even if we only have a short word list. If the few words we have are not enough for that, then they belong in the ethnographic or family articles, not in a language stub, unless again it qualifies under GNG. Of course, we can always lump a language into the ethnographic article if we decide there isn't enough to say about it to be worth an article, but that's not a notability issue. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

If this ever goes to RFC, I would have to oppose. The underlying concept behind both GNG and the SNGs is that there is a presumption of good source material. We have to have enough source material to write more than a perma-stub. So, we need to be able to say more than “this language exists/existed”. Yes, MOST languages will have enough source material, so MOST languages should have an article… but not all do. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Languages that have no source material and no scholarly discussion are inherently excluded from having articles by this proposal. Poorly attested languages with sufficient coverage should deserve articles. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:03, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but then it isn't correct that all languages are notable. I think what you want to say is perhaps more nuanced. A language is not notable because it exists. It is notable because scholars have studied it. Now the scholarly study of the language is arguably going to be a primary source. When arguing at AfD, one could attack such studies as being primary and thus excluded under WP:GNG. I think the consensus you refer to (and I am taking your word for it that it exists) is more along the lines of the existence of source material and academic and scholarly discussion of a language, as a language, is sufficient evidence to create a presumption of notability. These are useful shortcuts that may obviate the GNG discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

To count as a 'language', we have to be able to demonstrate that it was a language. That's why the very first word in the criteria is 'confirmed': A confirmed stable natural human language [is] presumed notable. — kwami (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the first part. However, the studies listed for a language is inherently secondary. Linguistic papers do not consist solely of raw data and audio files. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that is why a guideline might be useful. Because we disagree there on the specifics. It is not just the raw data and audio files that are the primary sources. If a researcher collects such material and publishes a paper about the language, such papers are usually primary sources. This is because they report original research, such as new fieldwork, experiments, corpus studies, or analyses based on firsthand data.

They are secondary sources when they review, summarise, synthesise, or critique other scholars’ work, such as literature reviews, textbook chapters, or survey articles. In practice, the classification depends on the question you ask of the source, as there is nuance here. But original research articles are a primary source. Article explaining or analysing previous scholarship are secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks for clarifying. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

The surveys we list in the proposed guideline are secondary sources. A primary source may describe the speech of a particular community as a "language". Ethnologue/ISO and Glottolog review those sources to determine whether the described variety is actually a distinct language. This is why we first suggest them as confirmation. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Glottolog

I oppose the suggestion that the existence of an article in this source is sufficient on its own to provide notability for an article on an extinct language. Where they are merely reporting the existence of historic reports of a language, rather than summarising modern scholarship, I would require there to be more coverage. This is due to the fact that Glottolog articles often don't give enough information to write anything other than a stub. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I have slightly amended the "criteria" section as follows: A language covered solely by Glottolog without imparting additional secondary sources may also be held to fail this notability criterion. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Great, I totally approve. But it is a little contradictory to imply that it confers notability in the first sentence and then that it might not, no?Boynamedsue (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll modify the wording a bit. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Glottolog evaluates the lit, and if there isn't enough evidence to demonstrate that it's a distinct language, they don't list it as one, but instead as an 'unclassifiable' or 'unattested' language. If G evaluates the primary sources and identifies it as a distinct language, why shouldn't that count? We don't hold Ethnologue to that standard, as they often provide no refs at all, and G is generally more reliable. — kwami (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed Glottolog is more reliable and holds the existence of languages to a more rigorous standard. Magiana is a special case imo, as no secondary sources exist to report the language except for one researcher and Glottolog. This is in exception to languages like Envuelto, which is covered in Zamponi (2026). 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:09, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

We do have articles on several "languages" for which even fewer words are recorded.

If a language is in Ethn. and has an ISO code, but only one minimal 2ary source is Glottolog, does that mean it shouldn't have an article, since Ethn. won't provide any sources? — kwami (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2026 (UTC)