Talk:Mankiyali language

Languages Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pakistan Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan 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.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology: Oral tradition

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

Classification

@Sadafmunshi:, this article described Mankiyali as a Dardic language because the sources did so. Of course, that's all tentative, but what is the standard of demonstration that's expected, given that the label "Dardic" probably doesn't mean much besides "not closely related to the languages of the plains"? Anyway, I take it that you know what you're doing, so I'm not really objecting, just wanted to clarify. And if "Dardic" is removed from the first sentence, then it may be a good idea to at least mention it, with the necessary degree of tentativeness, in the paragraph about the lexical comparisons. What do you think? – Uanfala (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala:, Hey! I was just trying to add the group, so why did you mind? And if you ignore dardic, add another group which seems best to you for this language. – Zhamidz (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had initially added "Dardic" to the infobox, but Sadafmunshi objected, and I think I agree with her view – no robust classification is available in the literature, and Dardic hypothesis, if plausible, is still only tentative, as it's based solely on lexical similarities in a small sample of words. – Uanfala (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the interception of literature, but I was talking about adding a group in the infobox, which was omitted by you. Thus we don't have any other options except "Dardic", and if there is any doubt, we can add a question mark as I did recently. And in my opinion, it's a Dardic language but influenced by other local languages and this isn't tentative. But if you still ignore, I will describe it as unclassified. - Zhamidz (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have different standards for statements in the infobox than we do for the rest of the article – if we don't have enough robust evidence to claim that Mankiyali is Dardic, then we shouldn't have the infobox listing it as one. And there's no particular requirement for the infobox to give a finer classification – it's perfectly acceptable for it to stop at "Indo–Aryan". – Uanfala (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]