Talk:Uralic languages

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uralic languages article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 3 months

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.

Russia: Language & literature / Demographics & ethnography Top‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the language and literature of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.

Finland Low‑importance

	Finland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland 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.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hungary Low‑importance

	Hungary portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary 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.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Table unusable on mobile site

The table of comparative Uralic features is unusable on the Wikipedia mobile site; when navigating around it the footnotes move with the table rather than having a fixed position. Stockhausenfan (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed families, on daughter language pages.

@Kaarkemhveel, @Thadh, @Kwamikagami, @Kepler-1229b I'm mentioning users who I know worked on at least one Uralic language, or languages in general.

Is there a rule that I have not seen that describes how disputed families should be displayed?

If not, then I suggest, we show them, just put them in brackets, so it'll be intuitive that they are considered not to exist, just as brackets are used in regular writing, to show something out of context, I think out of context can fit this use. Leave the question mark out, since it'll just cluter, and imo will not add aditional meaning. Ewithu (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in that, but I suppose it should either be made by analogy with Hungarian page or the question itself should be addressed to discussion about formatting norms (because Yeniseian page seems to display it with question mark) Kaarkemhveel (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the Yeniseian remark, it seem to use question marks for a proposed family. Ewithu (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Uralic isn't disputed (Marcantonio notwithstanding), I guess you refer to the traditional subdivions like Finno-Ugric, Ugric, Volga-Finnic etc.? Or is it about long-range proposals? In the latter case, we shouldn't mention any of them, since none has gained the level of acceptance that would justify an infobox entry.

As for the subdivisions, we'd better leave them out in the Uralic infobox. Every recent good source that gives a general overview starts with the nine undisputed branches, and only mentions the disputed subdivisions at a later point in the discussion of the family. So our current infobox aligns well with this kind of presentation as found e.g. in the Oxford and Routledge handbooks. For individual languages, it's a different thing. When you talk about the genealogical position of Hungarian, one of the first things to mention is Ugric, even if it is contested by many as a genealogical unit. I find question marks more useful than parentheses, since they explicitly display doubt, while the latter don't necessarily do so. –Austronesier (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging also User:Tropylium and User:Jähmefyysikko. –Austronesier (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The unofficial convention appears to be question marks. I have seen this used in the aforementioned Yeniseian page, but also elsewhere, like Pama-Nyungan languages which displays Macro-Pama-Nyungan with a question mark. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't understand what parentheses mean. I'd think they meant intermediate nodes between the family and the language. (Hungarian is in the Uralic language family, and BTW there is this intermediate classification as Finno-Ugric and as hUgric.) Formatting it as (Ugric?) rather than as Ugric (?) would be fine, probably better. We might want to distinguish dubious nodes in parentheses and question marks from dubious membership in an accepted node with just a question mark, but I don't know how intuitive that would be. — kwami (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]