Talk:Italo-Dalmatian languages/Archive 1

Venetian

Bizarre revert by Kwamikagami, restoring Venetian to this list. As noted in my original edit, the actual (much better referenced) article on the Venetian language explicitly denies that it is a member of this language family. If Kwamikagami feels this is in error, he needs to actually provide a source here and go talk to the guys over at Venetian and get them to fix their article (or note that its placement is for some reason controversial).

Otherwise, I'm only passing through. If he subsequently restores it without a source, other editors should kindly revert his changes (or – if it happens too much – bring it to the attention of the mods.) — $Llywelyn II$ 22:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever it goes, we should be consistent about it. Currently it's not listed in any of the clades it supposedly belongs to. A reader navigating down a tree should be able to find any language they like, and you've removed Venetian from the only clade that listed it. If there's consensus that it belongs elsewhere, then we should list it there, not just delete it.

Actually, the Venetian article supports including Venetian here: it says V. is closest to Istriot and Tuscan, which is where we had it. The only thing that contradicts this is the info box, but that is not referenced and contradicts the text. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you're now being consistent and editing their page as well. Pretty damned sure you're wrong given Venetian's placement and similarities with French, but at least this stub has their attention and is their problem now.

You might also "fix" the list at Italian dialects while you're at it. —

Llywelyn II

23:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily be wrong. I have no idea where it goes, but if it groups with French, we'll need to fix the Ven. article, since that says it doesn't. I don't see any list at Italian dialects. Too messed up for a quick fix anyway. — kwami (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) Nope. French is Gallo-Romance and Venetian's article (before your edit) explicitly said that they did group.

b) If you have no idea and everything (me, google, Venetian's page, Venetian's Italian page, your page's Italian version) is telling you you are wrong... is it really that hard for you to take a few minutes and go find any source at all that supports you, instead of "correcting" my edits that bring this page in line with what everything else is telling you?

c) Yeah, it's got some regionalists who prefer an awful page to one that clearly describes a situation they don't agree with (i.e., that their government doesn't recognize their tongues as proper languages.) I restored the list, but we'll see how long it lasts... —

Llywelyn II

23:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Nonsense. I didn't even touch the text, so I couldn't have changed what it said.

(b) Since you got the article backwards, I didn't take you very seriously. The consensus on the article seems to be that the sources which say Venetian is not a Gallo-Italic language trump those which say it is. I am following that consensus. If you wish to change it, you should do so first on the Venetian article. Then we can bring secordany articles like this one into line with it.

— kwami (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italo-Dalmation languages versus Italian Romance

According to glottolog.org, Italo-Dalmation languages include two branches:

Dalmation Romance, with the Dalmation and Istriot languages.
Italian Romance, with the other Italian languages, except for the Gallo-Italic languages.

Do you think the page should be updated to reflect this? I think otherwise it is confusing, as some sources mention Italo-Romance instead of Italo-Dalmation. Mrjulesd (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop disruptive editing

User:DissidentAggressor You are claiming that this article needs additional verifications. But there is already six references that, if you consulted them, would provide evidence of correctly sourced and verified work. You are wrong, and I am reverting. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]