Talk:Dargwa language
Latest comment: 28 days ago by Asilvering in topic Requested move 22 September 2024
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | On 22 September 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Literary Dargwa language. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Dargin language template
editIf you are a native speaker of Dargin then you can help translate this template into your own language:
colour in the table
edit@Fdom5997 please read MOS:COLOR, specifically;
- Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information
I don't understand your argument that bold and italics are harder to interpret than colours - would you rather that footnotes were used? IPA links are also undoubtedly beneficial for the article, and if the information about dialects can be communicated with a method that's not colour-dependent (which it can be), then they should naturally be used. Please respond here giving an exact argument for why the table should be kept in its current state without IPA links and with colours. Stan traynor (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- (additionally, if you wish to see an example of an article that uses bolding for the same purposes as colour, check out Toda language) Stan traynor (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok for the sake of your argument, I really don't see how it is easier for blind users to access links with bold or italic letters. I'm not saying that it's "harder", but I am saying that it is a bit awkward while reading. However, if it were to be changed again, just maybe I would feel better if footnotes were used instead, but I also think that if you give it a mix between light and dark colors, that may work better for the users/viewers who are colorblind. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- If a reader is blind it's a moot point as they will be unable to access either colour or bolding/italics. I will be putting it back to before, but also using footnotes. Stan traynor (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I say just stick with footnotes. Bold and italics aren’t that aesthetically pleasing. Fdom5997 (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- If a reader is blind it's a moot point as they will be unable to access either colour or bolding/italics. I will be putting it back to before, but also using footnotes. Stan traynor (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 22 September 2024
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Suggest trying again once the articles have been further developed. asilvering (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Dargwa language → Literary Dargwa language (or some variant thereof) – The article talks about the literary variety of Dargin, which is a language family, not a standalone language. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 03:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Languages has been notified of this discussion. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kepler-1229b I say just call it “Dargwa language” and let it be. It still differentiates it from the Dargin language subfamily. Throwing the word “Literary” in, is a bit silly. Fdom5997 (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- It does, but just barely. Accentuating the difference helps to state that Dargwa is actually a language family. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Support Some sources[1][2] use the name "Dargwa languages" to refer to all of the Dargin languages. The one-letter difference between "Dargwa languages" and "Dargwa language" makes it useful to throw the word "literary" into the title of this article. I wouldn't know how to judge how common the term "Literary Dargwa" is, but it does exist.[1] The name "Dargwa language" seems controversial and does not seem to refer exclusively to the literary dialect. PrinceTortoise (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[3]
- I beg to differ, because that's just silly. Just call it "Dargwa language" and leave it. So what if they refer to the group as the same name of the lanugage? There are a lot of languages that have the same name as their group or family name. Seeing a language article titled "Literary [language]" is pretty ridiculous. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- No. The reason for the renaming of this page is that many sources state a unified Dargwa language, which is implied by the title of the article, and is rather inaccurate. Renaming it reinforces the idea that Dargwa is a language family. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- The language family is the Dargin* languages. You did the right thing by creating a separate page for the Dargin languages. So by that nature, I only agree that we should keep the Dargwa language page, as the Dargwa language is basically the "unified" version of the Dargin lanugages. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "unified"? There are other Dargin languages with their own different orthographies and literature. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I meant exactly what you referred to as "unified", which is a standardized or literary form of the language. In this case, Dargwa is (or should be) that of the Dargin languages. Fdom5997 (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "unified"? There are other Dargin languages with their own different orthographies and literature. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- The language family is the Dargin* languages. You did the right thing by creating a separate page for the Dargin languages. So by that nature, I only agree that we should keep the Dargwa language page, as the Dargwa language is basically the "unified" version of the Dargin lanugages. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- No. The reason for the renaming of this page is that many sources state a unified Dargwa language, which is implied by the title of the article, and is rather inaccurate. Renaming it reinforces the idea that Dargwa is a language family. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 04:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- I beg to differ, because that's just silly. Just call it "Dargwa language" and leave it. So what if they refer to the group as the same name of the lanugage? There are a lot of languages that have the same name as their group or family name. Seeing a language article titled "Literary [language]" is pretty ridiculous. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - there is nothing in the article referencing "literary" or similar, and no indication that the language is not a unified language. So, the page should remain at its current title unless reworked. Such rework would, as always, have to be backed by consensus. Bensci54 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am currently reworking Wikipedia coverage of the Dargin languages, creating new articles for the individual languages. Aslo, the article does have references to it be ing about the literary variety based on Aqusha and Urakhi. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.