Talk:Western Romance languages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Venetian

Should Venetian be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.178.182 (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR

This article appears to have been laden with original research. I removed a significant portion of unreferenced material and it was restored without providing any additional citations. If it's

reliable sources. If not, leave it out. The Dissident Aggressor 22:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

No need to get defensive. I'm happy for you to add that material back, but please provide citations. The Dissident Aggressor 22:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well there is already a glottolog reference in the article. Nordhoff, Sebastian; Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2013). "Western Romance". Glottolog 2.2. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. If you'd bothered to check it you would have realised that my work was correctly sourced and verifiable in the first place. http://glottolog.org/
I am going to revert your edit. If you continue to delete work that is correctly sourced and verifiable, you will be guilty of disruptive editing.
WP:DE Don't do it. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Category:Gallo-Iberian languages

Pyrenean-Mozarabic from Gallo-Iberian.[1] In Glottolog, "Shifted Western Romance" seems to correspond to Gallo-Iberian, and "Unshifted Western Romance" to Pyrenean-Mozarabic.[2]
However, Wikipedia articles & templates place Pyrenean-Mozarabic within Ibero-Romance, so that there is no separate level for Gallo-Iberian.

If Glottolog and Ethnologue are not considered reliable sources, then the merger is fine, and the two levels in Commons and other Wikipedias should also be merged, see Wikidata items [3] and [4]. I started by merging the two levels in gv-wiki, before looking into it further. – Fayenatic London 21:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also
    Mozarabic should not be categorized together, which confirms common sense because there is neither a geographical nor a time connection between these two languages (different regions, different eras). Though I'm well prepared to accept further clarifications. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]