Template talk:Uralic languages

Võro

Placed back to the template South Estonian (Võro), which was removed recently.--Võrok (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placed back South Estonian (Võro), which was removed recently by user:Martintg.--Võrok (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrian (Izhorian, isuri) is an independent language both linguistically and politically and can not listed in brackets under the Finnish language. Placed out of brackets.--Võrok (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on Ingrian. However, your constant edit warring with the aim of pushing your personal theory that there are separate Seto, South Estonian or Võro languages is disruptive. Please avoid such actions in the future. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Miacek, in the English Wikipedia there are existing the articles "Võro language" and "South Estonian language" though you want to rename them. As far as such articles exist, the templates should reflect the existing articles, not possible renames. Definitely I don't push anything and these languages aren't my personal theory - there are many people, also academic etc. who consider them languages. Regarding Seto, I never thought, that it must linguistically considered a language totally independent from Võro or South Estonian. Of course Seto is linguistically a part of Võro and South Estonian. Regardind edit warring - I don't do it, I just try to defend somehow the articles from very rough changes and moves. I'm trying to defend stability and smooth development of the articles against big sudden changes.--Võrok (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“big sudden changes″ are allowed and may even be necessary when dealing with POV pushers, who disapprove of consensus both in the academic world and here in wiki. Regards, --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There will be only South Estonian seen in the template (not word language nor dialect is used). Võro is in brackets which means that it belongs to the South Estonian (language/dialect group). See also article South Estonian and its talk page.--Võrok (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:OR. The published literature does not support this subdivision, see this for example. Please show us a published reliable source that indicates this sub-division before reverting. Martintg (talk) 00:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is different literature, some do support: Uralic languages (Salminen 2003).--Võrok (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this would be acceptable to Wikipedia due to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. Anyone can self-publish. It needs to be published in print by a third party, preferably in a refereed journal or book. Martintg (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tapani Salminen is a long-estabilish'd scholar of Uralistics. You can find the same position eg. here [1], which is indeed an excerpt from a refereed book. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 14:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it doesn't. In Salminen's language classification -- instead of "Võro language", there's "Võro-Seto". If you're going to rely on his classification, you can't wantonly split that up into "Võro". ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salminen: "Võro-Seto (or simply Võro) (in Estonian võru keel): Northern Europe: Estonia and northwestern Russia. Spoken in the southeastern corner of Estonia and in Pechory County in the west of Pskov Province in the Russian Federation by approximately 50,000 speakers of all ages, but younger people are shifting to the majority language. Definitely endangered." (in [2]).--Võrok (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naming the mother tongue of people a crap with cutting it out. That is not a fair aspiration to neutrality any more. There must be some personal hate or fear against this language behind acting like that.--Võrok (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new provocative deletion again by User:Miacek: Why Võru and not...--Võrok (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Võro is a language by many sources and institutions (see above and talk pages of the articles Võro language and South Estonian language), though on this template it's in the brackets after Estonian like a variety of Estonian as a kind of compromise. Let it be, don't delete or revert it any more.--Võrok (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole scope and organisation of the Võro-related concepts is still under heavy discussion on Wikipedia, and more than "a little" controversial. Putting the link in the template now, before there's even a semblance of consensus in this discussion, would be premature. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody put the link. It existed and was restored to the last edit done by GerardM after deleting by a user.--Võrok (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you've forgotten it, but you added it in 2006 [3]. Such unilateral changes can be compared with changes by User:Bonaparte. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course I remember that I wrote the article about Võro language years ago and added the corresponding link to the template. I don't think it can be compared with the edits you referred. There are provided in the discussion here and on the talk pages of the articles Võro language and South Estonian language enough evidence to have on this template links at least to the following languages or varieties of Estonia:
Estonian, South Estonian (Võro).
However, as a compromise there could be accepted at least the last edit done by GerardM representing Võro in the brackets after Estonian (as some languages/varieties are in the brackets after Finnish):
Estonian (Võro). Please do not delete it from the template any more.--Võrok (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, “as a compromise”, would you like to have Kirderannikumurre included that I created some days ago, or Iisaku dialect, that I'm about to create? --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to speak here about Kirderannikumurre. (Standard) Estonian, South Estonian and Võro are the only varieties of Estonia that have been described as individual languages in sources. For the same reason, maybe also Savonian dialects should not be included here, in principle. (However, I do not call to delete them.)--Võrok (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellanea is not a language group

Muromian, Mari, Moksha etc are Fenno-Volgaic languages (now listed under "Miscellanea"). --Numulunj pilgae 03:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numulunj pilgae (talk • contribs)

I imagine "Miscellanea" not being a genetic group should be obvious to everyone. Listing them as "Finno-Volgaic" would be somewhat misleading however, as that group should also include Finnic and Samic, and its validity is somewhat dubious.
Not explicitly grouping Erzya and Moksha as Mordvinic might be an issue though… --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 09:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can Livonian be classified as extinct?

Seeing as it's having its revival in Estonian and Finnish universities by teaching the language there could it really be extinct?

McLennonSon (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]