Talk:Emilian dialect

Languages High‑importance

	Language portal This article 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Italy

	Italy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Endangered languages (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Endangered languages, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Endangered languagesWikipedia:WikiProject Endangered languagesTemplate:WikiProject Endangered languagesEndangered languages articles

Untitled

It seems to me that there is a certain degree of overlapping between the page "Emilian language" and the page "Emiliano-Romagnolo" language. NOt sure how to fix it, though.

Indeed. Omg † osh 18:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Omg † osh 04:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extinct?

We have a ref that Emilian is extinct, which means that it has no native mother-tongue speakers. People keep claiming there are 2M, but their refs do not support this: they either count all of Emiliano–Romagnolo, or they count the number of ethnic Emilians. I know nothing about this language, but refs need to support what they're used to claim. It can't be that hard. — kwami (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emilian is still alive, this is my source:

...what's yours, dear mr.Kwamikagami??? --Mirandolese (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you don't have any sources. As for mine, read the article. To quote, "it must be pointed out that people in Emilia, Romagna, Lombardy, Piedmont and Liguria are today Italian mother-tongue speakers. Emilian nowadays is a secondary-use language. In Veneto, on the contrary, people still speak Venetian as mother tongue". Now, in light of that we may need to correct the numbers of Romagnol, Lombard, and Piedmontese, but that's another issue. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/2008-040_egl.pdf --Grifter72 (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From TRECCANI Encyclopedia: Emiliano-romagnoli, dialetti

Nel 2006, stando ai rilevamenti dell’ISTAT, il 55% degli intervistati afferma di impiegare nel dominio famiglia «solo o prevalentemente l’italiano», oltre il 28% «sia l’italiano che il dialetto» e il restante si esprime in una delle varietà locali dell’Emilia-Romagna (=17% speak ONLY emilian at home). Si ponga attenzione che si tratta di dati medi, riguardanti anche le grandi città, perché nei centri abitati medio-piccoli l’impiego alternato dei due codici sale quasi al 50%, una percentuale che nelle campagne e nelle zone di collina e montagna risulta ancora superiore.

Have you ever heard of bilingualism? At school I learned French as a second language, but I assure you that I have never ever come to mind to speak it at home, even alternating of Italian. Might a son of an english mother and a french father to be considered as a mother-tongue speaker of both languages or it must necessarily choose one?

I don't care if you want to keep inaccurate information in English Wikipedia (→ Emilian is an EXTINCT Romance language).--Mirandolese (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, but you need sources. The source above does not say that "=17% speak ONLY emilian at home", so it is not a source for that claim. I'll have to read the ref from the box more carefully tomorrow, but at first glance it also, says nothing specifically about Emilian. — kwami (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i am from italy and i see a lot of error in this page, the language is not extinct, old people are still nativ to it, (as for example my grandma) they speak italian to strangers but in friendly case speak more the regional language than italian Sčet de berghem (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in your referenced doc, Emilian is reported as a "living language" with 3 milions speakers: http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/2008-040_egl.pdf --Grifter72 (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are 3M Emilians, all of whom speak Italian as their L1. You still have no sources. — kwami (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not completely true. If at home they speak Emilian, they are for sure L1. Istat linked document reports that 10.5% of people from Emilia Romagna at home speak "dialect".

According to Unesco, Emiliano-Romagnolo is "Definitely endangered" (not extint) and speakers are 2000000, not 3: http://www.unesco.org/culture/languages-atlas/index.php --Grifter72 (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are still alive!

egl: Cuma t' è gnu in mèint de scrìver ch' a sòm mort? Al prubléma magari l' è che la nòstra l' è 'na lengva urèla e mìa scrìta e l' è anca difìcil da scrìver, mo a gh' sòm ecòme! A gh' òm anca di fiò Emiliàn, e dimòndi cuntèint d' èsrèl!!
it: Non siamo affatto morti, ma semplicemente la ns. è una lingua prevalentemente orale, e con tutta l'immigrazione che si è avuta negli ultimi decenni è anche difficile da mantenere; ma abbiamo dei figli che volendo l' impareranno e sono già adesso fieri di essere emiliani!!
en: We are still alive!! --Gloria sah (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't know why Ivan Miani said it has no L1 speakers. Perhaps he meant that all speakers are natively bilingual in Italian, and that there are no monoglots, but we need a ref regardless. — kwami (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Miani http://www.imolaoggi.it/2012/08/26/il-romagnolo-e-una-lingua-parola-di-wikipedia/ wants to separate Romagna from Emilia, he's the director of "E 'Rumagnôl", official organ of the Movement for the Autonomy of the Romagna region (MAR). Now everything is clear. Is he your ref?--Mirandolese (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

egl: Capì, forsi, Mr. Kwami, ch' t' ér caschè ind un qui pro quo: Al nòster Ivan Miani l' éra dré a descòrer 'd un nòm farlòc, quell d' "Eml, ciuè Emiliàn-Rumagnôl", perchè al gh' l' îva cavèda, in dal 2009 ed fèr divider el dò parlèdi in dū brànchi, l' Emiliàn (egl) stachè dal Rumagnôl (rgn). E dòunca al vrèv anca che l'UNESCO, p'r èser tròp précis, al scanślìs la sìgla "eml" perchè a cal punt chè la dvintarèv lé, mìa precìśa. Al mé Miranduléś al gh' à trop ed gròsta a 'ndèr a cater i lùm anca in dl' ôra. A vag a tôr el putèini a scōla pò a vègn a scrìvert'l anca in dl' inglés. Làsem cùrer là... --Gloria sah (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turnèdi a cà tuti e trī sani e sèlvi (cal tràfic chè al srèv tut da bruśèr - fóra ed la mé auto, s' intend -)

it: Come è messo adesso l'articolo di là nella sua pagina non è male: non siamo mica qui a processare le intenzioni! C'eravamo solo (mi sento di mettere il plurale collettivo perchè credo che il Mirandolese e il Grift72 la pensino come me) allarmati della frase poco veritiera extinct language, che oltre che allarmarci, ci faceva, sorry, anche reagire (sigh) arrabbiati perchè punti sul vivo! Un conto è, come vorrebbe fare il Miani, di richiedere all' UNESCO la cancellazione della lingua "eml" e un conto è essere lui riuscito a dichiarare separate la egl dalla rgn! Spero che a questo punto l' equivoco sia risolto e che anzi Tu ci venga in futuro a trovare nella ns. eml.wilipedia (persiste il paradosso? non farci troppo caso...) --Gloria sah (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

en: I'm not so fluent in English, so you 'll forgive me if you 'll find any writing mistakes. The page of the Article now is right enough, because the incorrect sentence was "extinct language". Perhaps some qui pro quo can be occurred in understanding some sentences of Mr. Miani; and please apologize 's if we were a little bit angry: 2.000.000 people or 3, is not so relevant, at this time, and the statistics are indicative. If you want, come at our eml.wikipedia and you will read what we (few people, in effect) are writing. Best regards, --Gloria sah (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

egl: Léś bèin tut quèl ch' a i òm lighè chè in sìma, pò t' capirè ch' a gh' sòm incòra, e quant!

it: Se leggi attentamente i riferimenti che i miei colleghi Vi hanno linkato qui sopra, capirai che parliamo ancora l'emiliano, e detta come la vedo io, lo parliamo soprattutto quando siamo fuori dal burocratese, quando siamo coi famigliari, o appunto un po' fuori dalle grosse città.. Alcune nuove generazioni lo stanno accogliendo, anche se non sta proprio in buona salute, ma io spero che si mantenga vivo, sinceramente; per adesso lo è ancora, eccome!

en: If you will read attentively all that links my friends put above there, you will find that now we are still Emilian. Best regards, --Gloria sah (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which links? — kwami (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those links that Grift72 and Mirandolese wrote above, --Gloria sah (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be specific. The ones I looked at did not support their claims. — kwami (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questa signora emiliana: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW9WtqQ6r0Y risponde ad una domanda che le viene posta in italiano ma durante la conversazione ogni tanto parla in emiliano (è più forte di lei), soprattutto quando è preda della commozione e sta per piangere. Signor Kwamikagami, almeno un parlante emiliano nativo ce lo vuole mettere? Che cosa vuole ancora di più??? A t 'l ò bèla dit prima, 't à fiacâ, e dir ch'al s ciàma anc Kàgami ma chi lò invéci 'l è òṅ ch'al n caga ninsòn! --Mirandolese (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A nn' gh' è mìa un sórd piò gròs d' ùn ch' al ne vôl sintîr! Che bèla nunèina te gh' îv mìs, Miranduléś! Turnòm-j-a a cà adèsi? --Gloria sah (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation for dead people: Cla śgnóra chè dl'Emìglia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW9WtqQ6r0Y la rispónd a na dmanda ch'la gh'è stada fata in itagliàṅ ma durànt la cunversasiòṅ na quàlc vòlta la dascór in emigliàṅ ('l è più fòrt ad lē), specialmènt quànd la gh'à al magòṅ e l'è lè lè par piànśar. Śgnór Kwamikagami, almànc òṅ ch'al dascór in emigliàṅ da quànd 'l è nâ, gh al vō't métar? Cuśa vlî'v da piò incóra? Sè l'è méj turnàr a cà, chè l'è listés che ciucàr na spòrta róta, a n gh'è vèrs! --Mirandolese (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question of whether Emilian is alive-reference

I'm watching this debate with a certain degree of surprise. Certainly Emilian is not in the best of shapes, but the idea that it is dead is pretty far-fetched. One of the best known Italian bands record regularly in an Emilian dialect and it is heard almost everywhere in the rural parts of the region. I feel a little like we are being asked to provide references that prove water is wet. In any case, whatever the number of speakers (which is a much more complex question than you think), we can safely say that Emilian is not dead. Here is a link to some research on a village near Bologna conducted in 1994, page 78 shows 58% of people reporting that one of their mother tongues was dialect.

http://online.ibc.regione.emilia-romagna.it/I/libri/pdf/dialetti_intesi_vol2.pdf

Can we remove the neutral tag?

Boynamedsue (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

egl: Mo î-t ingles, Boynamedsue? Cumplimèint p'r al bèl lìber t' ê lighè chè in sìma!.. Quesi quesi a ìn pòrt 'na còpia anca a cà mìa..

it: Sei inglese, Boynamedsue? Che bel libro che hai linkato qui sopra!.. Ne porterò una copia (se nessuno brontolerà) anche nella ns. eml.wikipedia.

en: Are you an English wiki-user? Very good that book you linked here above!.. If possible, I 'll bring its copy home. --Gloria sah (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a linguistic ref, though perhaps not a very good one, that Emilian is no longer used as a first language. Most of the refs that have been brought here only deal with Emiliano–Romagnolo as a whole, and so do not address the question. After all, it could be that only Romagnol is still spoken as L1. However, the Ethnologue ref claims that both Emilian and Romagnol are extinct as an L1 (as are Lombard, Piedmontese, and Ligurian), so there's certainly a conflict. I don't know who this Ivan Miani is that got the ISO code for Emiliano-Romagnolo split into Emilian and Romagnol, but from his proposal it would appear that he's from Ravenna and is not a native English speaker. That is, it may be that he's claiming that the dialect of his own city is extinct as L1, which would make him as much an authority as the people here who claim their local dialect is still spoken as L1. We can't rely on personal claims for just this reason. Recent books like the one just listed would certainly seem to be more reliable than someone writing in to Ethnologue, and so we should go with their figures and remove the tag. I think we should probably note the numbers for both native bilingual and native monolingual speakers – this is perhaps the source of the confusion with Miani.

BTW, it's very easy to prove that water is wet. There are literally thousands of scientific articles on the wetness of water. If a language is spoken as a native language, it should be easy to demonstrate that with linguistic sources unless it's hopelessly obscure. — kwami (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

kwami, the problem is that Ivan Miani is not a reliable source. He is not a linguist (he is a journalist and a web designer) and he is working for a political movement for the independence of Romagna:

So he invented that Romagnol and Emilian are different languages, not dialects of the same language, and he pushed his claim to ISO: http://books.google.it/books?id=mzSJ0PRZoJUC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=%22ivan+miani%22+romagnolo&source=bl&ots=svMAP9b1Ue&sig=te8-V9BuM7qqWKSyb-gPShJ0Imo&hl=it&sa=X&ei=QpReUsHwGYbRtAamvIGIDg&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22ivan%20miani%22%20romagnolo&f=false Now they are trying to obtain the same from Unicef.

For the L1 question, the Istat document here is clear: http://www3.istat.it/salastampa/comunicati/non_calendario/20070420_00/testointegrale.pdf

At home, in 2006, 10,5% of people from Emilia-Romagna speak only dialect (Emilian or Romagnol depending by zone), and 28,3% speak both Italian and dialect. So at least, in 2006, in Emilia there were 39% of L1 speakers of Emilian dialect. --Grifter72 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Sah, certainly am English, glad you liked the book. Kwami, the academic reference I've brought you deals with Bolognese, which is an Emilian dialect rather than Romagnol. We can therefore state with some certainty that Emilian is not extinct. Even ethnologue states.

http://www.ethnologue.com/language/egl

"Emilian is less and less publicly used. Used in public bars among people who know each other, to tell daily events and jokes. Used also among people who do not know each other to win somebody over."

Which clearly states the language is alive, despit the contradictory category of "dormant"

Emilian simply isn't dead, I recognise the good faith on a topic where English references are difficult to find, but like I said, the link you have is not particularly scholarly, and is evidently contradicted by the fact there are countless examples of the dialect's recent use. I think the neutral tag should be removed, as the reference you have is contradicted by various much more scholarly references.

Boynamedsue (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The neutral tag can be removed simply because - permettimi allora di usare l'italiano altrimenti non riuscirò mai ad esprimerTi il grado di precisione che ho in mente - noi non credo che abbiamo mai preteso di dimostrare un'effervescenza che obiettivamente non c'è.. ma volevamo solo difendere il nostro amore di 40-50-90enni per la nostra lingua tradizionale, che in poche parole ossidate, è vero, ma efficacissime, riesce ad esprimere dei sentimenti, delle foghe, delle rabbie anche, che in italiano ci sarebbe molto più difficile raffigurare: esempi:

egl: incō a sun brèm (rassegnazione), it: oggi non sto bene (quale motivo ci sarà?);

egl: al gh' à la pràtica (constatazione), it: ha l'amante (scandalo? sorpresa?)

egl: un quèl farlòc (non fidiamoci), it: qualcosa difettoso (perchè? come?)

Come poi lo si descrive nei vari scholarly references non è che poi ci tanga così tanto, in effetti.. Noi ci teniamo semplicemente a tenerlo vivo nel nostro modesto parlarlo senza insistenza con chi vediamo italianissimo, e parlarcelo tra noi più tradizionalisti perchè ci troviamo tantissime figure da noi conosciute e per noi efficacissime.. bye, --Gloria sah (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the tag. Moved the cited pop to Emiliano-Romagnolo language where it belongs. — kwami (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the absence of a gerund or present participle

it: per essere precisi, esiste il gerundio soprattutto: dgènd. Per il participio presente, in effetti si usa una perifrasi: ch' al dîś. Si dovrebbe correggere la scritta che manca il gerundio, poichè invece nell'Emiliano c'è (no more time for translating) --Gloria sah (talk) 12:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infatti, essendo il ns. dialetto di ascendenze gallo-italiche, per il present continuous usiamo una locuzione molto simile a quella degli odierni francesi: être en train de dire è molto simile al ns. dialettale ès'r a dré 'd dìr, molto speculare.. --Gloria sah (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ethnologue

Ethnologue is not a trusted source. Here Ethnologue says that Emilian is spoken in Romagna (Ravenna, Rimini, Forlì, Cesena, Imola, and Faenza) and this is enough to show how they do not know what they are talking to.--Mirandolese (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC) This is a trusted source: http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/dialetti-emiliano-romagnoli_%28Enciclopedia-dell%27Italiano%29/ --Mirandolese (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commacchio Dialect is not part of Ferrarian

Even if Comacchio is under the Ferrara's administrative division, it has an independent dialect from Ferrara's: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetto_comacchiese

Language or dialect?

ISO and UNESCO now consider the Emilian (egl) a separate language from Romagnol (rgn). I think this page should be renamed Emilian language. --Glz19 (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been the case for some time. Unfortunately, those with more energy and commitment than me have refused to accept this! mg SH 16:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

discussion is open, again TheFlagandAnthemGuy (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Language or dialect? Part 2

For unknown reasons you, English Wikipedians, do not want to understand that Emilian is a separate language from Romagnol, although they're very similar and mutually intelligible. At least let me correct the page title to "Emilian dialects", as it doesn't exist just one single dialect, or even a standardized variant of the language. Same with Romagnol language. English Wikipedia should be the most important, influential and accurate of all Wikis, nevertheless you still don't allow us to correct, not simply change it, but CORRECT the page name.
It has been two years since the last comment about this issue, and you still deny the language status of Emilian and Romagnol too, why? --Liviojavi (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia goes off of general linguistic consensus which is based almost entirely on mutual intelligibility standards. So, since Emilian and Romagnol dialects are mutually intelligible it stands to reason that the two would be considered one language, but which regional variation, which is why this and Romagnol dialects article exist. ChrisTakey (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are not.

As a native Romagnol speaker, I couldn't understand Bolognese and even less Modenese, and I'm more than sure that speakers of both languages will agree.

No one claims to speak "EmilianRomagnol" aside some delusional "rare language enthusiast" unlucky enough to fall for fake online courses. TheFlagandAnthemGuy (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 May 2023

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.

It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

result:
Not moved. See below consensus to continue with the current title. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move logs: source title · target title

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Emilian dialects → Emilian
Emilian → Emilian (disambiguation)

– To avoid confusion and bias, the title should be shorted to just "Emilian". Further elaboration on status should be kept to the text page. TheFlagandAnthemGuy (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. ExtorcDev (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: pages with content, such as Emilian, are ineligible to be new titles in move requests unless they, too, are dispositioned. Emilian → Emilian (disambiguation) was added to this request to meet that requirement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I agree.

TheFlagandAnthemGuy (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not sufficiently informative of what this article is about. Is it a type of pizza? A poetical meter? An architectural style? As to the "language vs. dialect", *shrug* There is no clear definition of either. As the old saying goes, "a language is just a dialect with an army and a navy". It is not helpful to Wikipedia readers to hold article titles hostage to such quibbles. Walrasiad (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The text will make it clear, no need for sarcasm. For the rest, that is exactly the point of switching to a neutral title that would definetely come at odd with the page text. Also, that old "definition" is just an empty catch-phrase with 0 academic usefulness, and an attempt to deviate to a discussion I explictely wanted to avoid by, again, switching to a neutral title. TheFlagandAnthemGuy (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Wikipedia has a fair amount of analogous titling, see Cantonese as an example. I don't see why here should be different. TheFlagandAnthemGuy (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Emilian shows a pretty clear spread, so for the average reader, "Emilian" is not likely to be unambiguous and it should not be used for the name of any single article. --Joy (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems to argue for the opposite. I suggest there should be a redirected for "emiliano", "emilian dialect", and "emilian language" for every reader is looking for the same thing starting from different directions like "italian", "italiano", "italian language". Finally, no other pages exist with this name, only a redirect to the italian name of Emilian, which honestly is redundant. TheFlagandAnthemGuy (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shows that people are navigating to both the dialects, the regions and to Emiliano. Even if the anthroponymy issue wasn't there (despite you dismissing it out of hand), this is still similar to e.g. Italian, English, etc. These terms are habitually disambiguated, and you need a much stronger rationale for an exception than these unsupported assertions. --Joy (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not following the example of Cantonese?

Also because there is still a issue, for which I suppose to look at other discussions, I am asking for a neutral name and if there is a better one than "Emilian" alone I am open to consider it. TheFlagandAnthemGuy (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the specifics of that case, that might as well be out of whack, too. --Joy (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
or it shows how being over invested in specifications might sacrifice wikipedia neutrality in titles. TheFlagandAnthemGuy (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its prominence over other meanings does not seem strong enough to justify treating it as the primary topic. Also "Emilian" would not necessarily suggest the dialects to many people. Maybe we shouldn't treat the language as the primary meaning of Cantonese either, but that should be decided on its own merits. PatGallacher (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how the alternatives are given names or surnames, I don't think there's such a risk of confusion. Consider that this discussion is to set a Emilian (disambiguation) page as well, which will help those who you would expect would have troubles (again, very few).

Also, there is going to be a redirect for those still searching both "Emilan language" and "Emilian dialects", this time with a true neutral title favouring neither. Let's be honest, its status is a hot topic, at least on english speaking wikipedia (and this is not the discussion where to argue over it).

Unless we find a better wording, "Emilian" alone is best for this page. The use will dictate prominency. TheFlagandAnthemGuy (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Before this was relisted, I closed two related requests: Emilian-Romagnol language → Emilian-Romagnol continuum (closed discussion) (No consensus) and Romagnol dialects → Romagnol (closed discussion) (Moved). SilverLocust (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
very well TheFlagandAnthemGuy (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SilverLocust I oppose the move of "Romagnol" for the same reasons as here. But never had a chance to comment on "Romagnol" as unaware that an RM was going on there too. It is rather poor form to have three related moves separately listed, and not informing people at one that the other is happening. Discussions should have been kept concentrated. "Romagnol" should be moved back and reopened until this ends. Walrasiad (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe.

Still, it is the best argument for moving to "Emilian": unique reference (there is literally ONE page with its name) and neutral title. It works. TheFlagandAnthemGuy (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Emilian Dialect? it's a language

emilian is a language spoken by more than 2 milion people, the fact that the wikipedia page in english is "emilian dialect" may refer as a dialect of the continum linguistico Emilio-romagnolo, but if that is the case then it would be named Emilian Dialects (as therr are a vast majoirty of dialect) and then why romagnol is classificated as a language? both of them should be, not only one Sčet de berghem (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both should be indeed.

Alas, my proposal for a more neutral naming has been rejected. TheFlagandAnthemGuy (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]