Jump to content

Talk:Sinhala language/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Sinhalese -> Sinhala debate

I agree that Sinhala is a better name, while Sinhalese is somewhat more archaic. Glottolog uses Sinhala, and so does Ethnologue. I've been dealt with language article renaming for years. This article should best be renamed as Sinhala language. However, this needs further discussion on the article talk page in order to prevent edit wars and disagreements. We need mutual community agreement first before moving. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Other language organisations are SIL International who now maintain ISO 639-3 on behalf of the International Organization for Standardization, WALS, Omniglot, and Linguasphere. They all use "Sinhala" as the primary name too. Danielklein (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I had a look at the Glottolog Sinhala page. It cites over 150 books for its information on Sinhala. Since 1976, of those books that mention the language in the title, 9 in 10 call it "Sinhala" while only 1 in 10 call it "Sinhalese", with the ratio between the two names remaining stable in that time. That seems pretty conclusive that the current common English name is "Sinhala"! Glottolog's book list is better than searching on Google Books because we can safely assume that Glottolog's citations are from reputable authors, whereas the authors found on Google Books are of unknown reputation. Danielklein (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I would like to remind everyone who joins this discussion that pros and cons are to be presented in a factual matter, with appropriate verifiable references. The discussion will be kept civil and factual, with opinions kept to a minimum. Any decision made will comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Danielklein (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
But then comes the opinion of the "English language owners", isn't it? As per previous discussions they think otherwise! --Lee (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Lee, I've replied to your comment above on your talk page. This isn't the right place to talk about it. Danielklein (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Danielklein: sorry about writing the above in a non-constructive way. But the opinion of the native speakers should also count in this case, isn't it? --Lee (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Nobody's opinion counts. Not mine, not yours. We're here to discuss facts only, and agree on what the facts are. Then we'll make a decision based solely on the facts. Danielklein (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
There seems to have been confusion in the past about the purpose of discussing the correct name to use. This discussion is not here to decide:
  • the morally correct name for the language (see WP:TITLECHANGES)
  • what name English people should use
  • what name English people will use in the future
This discussion is only here to decide what name English people do currently most commonly use for the language, based on evidence from the last few decades. Danielklein (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment A couple points.
If "Sinhalese" is the people and "Sinhala" the language, as claimed above, wouldn't "Sinhala language" be redundant, like "Latin language"? But, per the OED, there's "the Sinhala king", "Sinhala designs" and "the Sinhala language". Or "Sinhalese" for any of those usages.
As for -ese being "incorrect" because it's supposed to be a suffix on a place name, it is: Sinhala is the Sanskrit name for Sri Lanka. So, if we're going to take etymologies literally, "Sinhala language" just means "Sri Lanka language". It's normal in such situations to derive a demonym/adjective by adding -ese.
As to who has the "right" to decide usage, that is of course English speakers. Language is what's used. If the name "Sinhalese" were demonstrably pejorative, that would be another matter, but otherwise the way speakers of a language change English usage is by campaigning for it -- just not on WP.
But finally, this isn't just a matter of which term is more widely used for the language. The MOS expresses a preference for using the same term for the people and their language. There are so many obscure languages and peoples around the world (even if this is one everyone should know) that multiplying the names they go means that fewer people will recognize them. — kwami (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: I am a little bit confused by your comment. Who are the English speakers you refer here? I think that needs to be clarified. For example in a broader sense I am an English speaker. I use English in my everyday existence and I work almost entirely in English. But you did not mean I am an English speaker in your comment, isn't it? --Lee (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you Kwami for providing something to discuss! Yes, you are correct that in speech "the X language" is redundant in most cases. "I speak the English language" can just as easily be "I speak English", although I'd probably leave "The English language is beautiful" as it is, or change it to "English is a beautiful language", making it clear in all cases that I'm taking about the language and not something else (maybe short for English breakfast). However, on Wikipedia, "X language" is needed for article titles to disambiguate from other things called "X", See English language, French language, Greenlandic language, etc. "Latin" primarily means the language. I can't say "I like the Latins" because there is no singular group called "Latin". There is Latin America and the many different Latin peoples who live there, the Latin alphabet, etc., with "Latin" being used as an adjective, and none of those terms being referred to solely as "Latin". Both "Sinhala" and "Sinhalese" can also be used as adjectives. This says nothing about which one is used more. Many articles already call the language "Sinhala" or "the Sinhalese language", indicating that "Sinhalese" is thought of as more of an adjective or a demonym than the name of the language. Yes, there are many other uses of plain "Sinhalese" as the name of the language and "the Sinhala language" too, and also many edit wars purely about the name. These should not be taken as authoritative, only reliable third-party sources should be used in deciding this issue.
"Sri Lanka" and "Sinhala" have different etymologies. There is no language "Sri Lankese" or similar because Tamil is also a major language in Sri Lanka, i.e. both Sinhala and Tamil are first languages spoke by millions of native Sri Lankans. "Sri Lanka" comes from the Sanskrit श्री लङ्का (śrī laṅkā, literally “holy island”). "Sinhala" is from the Sanskrit सिंहल (siṃhala), from सिंह (siṃhá, “lion”) + suffix -la. It is also the source of the name Ceylon in western geographic tradition. The name is sometimes glossed as "abode of lions", referring to a supposed former abundance of lions on the island. When the country renamed itself from Ceylon to Sri Lanka, English speakers adapted by using the new name, but not everyone overnight. There are many different ways to get the name of a language but no predictable rules. People from England don't speak Englandese. Sometimes a language is called by the same name as in the language itself, such as Thai, which is ภาษาไทย (phasa thai) or ไทย (thai). "Phasa" comes from the Sanskrit "bhasa" meaning "language" which is found in the native names of many languages in the region, including an alternate name for Sinhala: හෙළභස "helabhasa" ("(Sin)hala language"). හෙළ "hela" is an adjective, while සිංහල "singhala" can be either a noun or an adjective, e.g. in සිංහල භාෂාව "singhala bhāshāwa" (Sinhalese language), and සිංහලය "singhalaya" is a noun, one of the meanings of which is the name of the language. This doesn't mean the language should be called "Singhalaya" in English because that is not a common name for it, if it's even used at all.
I've already addressed the issue of who has the right to decide what words English people use: no-one unless the word is pejorative as you say. Otherwise it's "decided" democratically by what words English people actually use. If a word is accepted by a large enough group, it is "officially" part of the language.
There is nothing on WP:MOS about language names. After much digging it appears you mean WP:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Peoples_and_their_languages. The example they give is Swahili, which is an African language. It's very common in Africa to have a different name for an individual, the people as a whole, and the language they speak. See Template:Infobox ethnonym. However, in English they are usually only known by a single name. I wouldn't expect many native English speakers to know that the language is called Kiswahili and the people are called Waswahili in Swahili. There are many peoples whose language name and demonym are different: Icelanders speak Icelandic, Spaniards speak Spanish, etc. Insisting that these names be somehow reconciled would be against the spirit of many other guidelines on Wikipedia. Another example is Jews living in Israel who speak Hebrew. None of those names resemble the others! There is no language called Jewish but you could somewhat inaccurately say "the Jewish language is called Hebrew" or "the Jewish people speak Hebrew". Likewise, "the Sinhalese language is called Sinhala" or "the Sinhalese people speak Sinhala".
When it gets down to it, none of these issues are relevant. English is not consistent enough to use the name of one language to determine the name of another language, or even have rules that are semi-predictable. The etymology of "Sri Lanka" and "Sinhala" is irrelevant when determining what English people currently call the language. English people don't care about the etymology of words as they're speaking. I hope no-one is campaigning for either "Sinhalese" or "Sinhala" to be the preferred name for all English speakers. No-one has the right to say what words 400 million native English speakers can and can't use, and trying to would be an exercise in futility anyway. The WP:MOS and other guidelines are just that, guidelines not rules. I could point you to many other guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, WP:RELIABLE, etc. In a nutshell they recommend using the names that users are most likely going to search for. WP:PILLARS also says in point 5 (WP:5P5) that if there's a good reason to ignore a guideline, ignore it! The MOS about language names and demonyms seems aimed at African languages, and the other guidelines and common sense would seem to take precedence over that. I have provided a lot of evidence that people will search for "Sinhalese people" and "Sinhala language" in preference to "Sinhala people" and "Sinhalese language", although both of the latter crop up as well. English is a fickle language! It appears to have changed the language to "Sinhala" while keeping the people called "Sinhalese". I'm not saying these are the "right" names in any moral, etymological, or any other sense, just pointing out this fact, and saying that Wikipedia should recognise the preferred English common names and use them as people expect, as laid out in Wikipedia's own guidelines. Danielklein (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Daniel. Sorry, some of my statements were meant to counter spurious claims above. I didn't mean for them to need to be debunked. But, since you have ... if "Sinhala" were the name of the language, then we would not move the article to "Sinhala language" any more than we would move Esperanto to "Esperanto language". My point was that Sinhala is not just the name of the language. Also, I wasn't claiming Sinhala and Sri Lanka were the same word or etymology, just that Sinhala is also a place ('abode of the lions' or whatever), so pace the argument above that the suffix -ese on 'Sinhalese' is somehow unnatural, even by their own (false) argument that 'it can only go on place names', it's perfectly acceptable. As for 'Spaniards', we could easily have the article at Spanish people. That would be perfectly understandable to our readers and perfectly acceptable. (See WP:NCET.) 'Jews' and 'Hebrew' are a bad example because they're not equivalent. Yiddish is also a Jewish language, for example. It's the Hebrew people (or 'Hebrews') and 'Hebrew language' that form a pair. What you're saying would be like renaming Latin the 'Catholic language' (it is 'a' Catholic language, just not 'the' one).
But, you're showing, I don't want to call it your bias, because that comes off rude, but that what you personally are familiar with is not what we can expect from all our readers, when you say "I wouldn't expect many native English speakers to know that the language is called Kiswahili and the people are called Waswahili in Swahili" at the same time you're arguing that we should use the form of this name in Sinhala. Native English speakers who are familiar with East Africa make the exact opposite argument -- they can hardly be expected to know that "Sinhala" means the same thing as "Sinhalese", but everyone knows that Luganda is the name of the language and Baganda the people, so of course we should put the articles there! Specifically, all Ugandans know this, and we need to name our articles according to Ugandan usage because it's about them. This is not a hypothetical example: it's a debate we've had more than once. Except for the particular example of 'Sinhala' not coming up, it very much was an argument that anyone who didn't know that 'Luganda' was the language and 'Baganda' the people was too ignorant to matter, much as you're effectively claiming that anyone who doesn't know that Sinhala and Sinhalese are the same is too ignorant to matter.
My point is that we can hardly all be expected to know the variants naming conventions of every people on the planet.
Sorry, it was careless of me to say "MOS". The relevant guideline is TITLE, specifically the sub-document WP:NCLANG. There they say,
Where a common name exists in English for both a people and their language, it is most often the case that neither is the primary topic. A title based on that term, with explicit disambiguation, is preferred for both articles, as with Chinese people and Chinese language. This is especially so when borrowed native forms involve different prefixes or are otherwise not transparently related, as with Tswana people and Tswana language, with redirects placed at Batswana and Setswana, respectively. If an English plural form (distinct from the singular name) exists, it may be used for the article about the people, as at Russians with a redirect from Russian people. (The last addresses 'Spaniards', though that isn't 'transparently related'. An exception that IMO is not helpful.)
('A common name' here meaning 'a term in common', of course, not COMMONNAME.) Here a common name exists for both the people and their language, namely "Sinhalese". Per NCLANG, both articles should be at "Sinhalese", or perhaps both at "Sinhala". We could make an exception, of course, just as they did at Spaniards. But if you "wouldn't expect many native English speakers to know" Kiswahili and Waswahili, well, those very people who do likely "wouldn't expect many native English speakers to know" Sinhala and Sinhalese. We should pick one and use it for all the articles -- people, language, script, culture, cuisine, history, literature, etc. -- rather than using now one, now the other based on shaky arguments of COMMONNAME in specific contexts. — kwami (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realise you were intending to counter spurious claims. You voted to oppose, so without any clarifications to the contrary, it appeared that you were arguing for negative. I did say that the Jewish example wasn't a very accurate one. The most vocal argument against seems to be that because Sinhala is called "Sinhala" in Sinhala, it can't be called "Sinhala" in English, especially as there is another similar name "Sinhalese". The language has many other names in Sinhala: "Hela Bhasa", "Singhalaya", etc. None of those other names have gained any prominence or supplanted the previous English name (unlike "Sinhala"), so none of those should be considered to be the main current English name. Encyclopedia.com, ISO, SIL, Ethnologue, WALS, Omniglot, Linguasphere, Glottolog, the BBC, the New York Times, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Mozilla, and Media Wiki (the software that runs Wikipedia) all either call the language solely "Sinhala" or acknowledge "Sinhala" as the primary name in English. I can't think of a reason why so many major organisations would choose a confusing name over common one. There's also the matter of recently published books, Google trends, etc. none of which are good as reliable third-party sources such as the ones I listed before, but clearly show a mild-to-very-strong preference for "Sinhala" over the past few decades, as well as English people already separating "Sinhala" the language and "Sinhalese" the people. If the evidence shows that this is the current usage amongst those who have already heard of the language and the people, would you still be opposed to using two names because of Wikipedia's guidelines? I.e. which do you think has higher priority, sticking to Wikipedia's guidelines or faithfully serving Wikipedia's audience? Does Wikipedia have the right to use the English language in a way that is at odds with how English people use the language? Danielklein (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Your "oppose" message says:

this isn't just a matter of which term is more widely used for the language, but which is more widely used for the people and language together. Our naming conventions (WP:NCLANG) express a strong preference for using the same term for the people and their language. There are so many obscure languages and peoples around the world (even if this is one everyone should know) that multiplying the names they go by means that fewer people will recognize them. We have the Sinhalese people, therefor the language should be here, at 'Sinhalese language'. If we move one article, we should move both.

Note the hedging language used here and in WP:NCLANG: "a strong preference", "it is most often the case". These are not hard and fast rules. If a good reason exists for ignoring them (such as English people already separating the usage of two terms), then they should be ignored. We should be using the words that people expect to find. Danielklein (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm opposed for the same reason I'm opposed to 'Luganda' and 'Baganda' rather than 'Ganda language' and 'Ganda people': I think it's a disservice to our readers to unnecessarily multiply terms, even though both 'Luganda' and 'Baganda' are well established in English. I'd vote for 'Spanish people' too. You are actually evidence for my argument, since you think readers can't expect to know the difference between 'Kiswahili' and 'Waswahili'. Would you "expect to find" those? The same's true for 'Sinhala' and 'Sinhalese'. And what about 'Sinhala/Sinhalese cuisine'? Or maybe that one would be "Singhalese". At some point, trying to blindly adhere to COMMONNAME (which BTW is also not a 'hard and fast rule') is no longer helpful.
(BTW, the Jewish example isn't just 'not very accurate', it's spurious, like 'Americans' vs 'English language' would be. If you know an argument is false, you shouldn't be making it just to push a point.) — kwami (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Google trends for Swahili Google ngrams for Swahili Both indicate to me that "Swahili" is used much more in English than "Kiswahili" and "Waswahili" put together, so "Swahili" is the best name to use. Not so for Sinhala. Wikipedia is not here to guess or influence how English is used. You say "multiplying the names they go by means that fewer people will recognize them". This is not demonstrably true and assumes people can't learn exceptions, as well as making predictions. It's like saying we should all say "mouses" instead of "mice". The evidence shows that most people consider "mice" correct, so much so that it's not controversial. We should not be dictating the term "Sinhalese language" over "Sinhala" any more than "Spanish people" over "Spaniards". It's up to the majority of English speakers who use the terms to decide. Wikipedia is not, and should not be, the guardian of English use. It's not up to you or to me to decide how many or which words English can use. I think we're arguing from different perspectives. You seem to be arguing prescriptively, and I am arguing descriptively. I note that you didn't reply to whether or not you support different commonly used names where there is clear evidence for them as the main term for their respective meanings. Danielklein (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, your Swahili example is a good one. All the authoritative sources call that language "Swahili", with some acknowledging "Kiswahili" as an alternate name. The same sources call this language "Sinhala", acknowledging "Sinhalese" as an alternate name. Danielklein (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2019

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 section.

No consensus. After re-reading this RM plus the new material, two more opposes and a comment, plus the newer material in the debate below this RM, and taking into account that the most recent opinion was posted about six days ago, this debate still does not seem to be going anywhere soon. The main difference between this and the previous close is that a no-consensus outcome means the most stable titles, Sinhala language and Sinhala script, must be used. See #Analysis below for more detail. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  21:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

– Revert to the title reached in the previous consensus

  • Consensus reached three times before that the title should use "Sinhala" instead of "Sinhalese"
  • Google Trends shows the ratio of "Sinhala":"Sinhalese" in searches was 4:1 in 2004, increasing to greater than 80:1 since October 2015. No country had fewer searches for "Sinhala" than "Sinhalese", with ratios varying from 8:1 (Canada and the US) to 99:1 or greater (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Oman, Italy, Japan)
  • Google Ngrams shows the ratio of "Sinhala *":"Sinhalese *" in book searches was approximately 5:3 by 2008
  • "Sinhalese" can be used for both the people and and the language, so directly comparing "Sinhalese" and "Sinhala" on Google Ngrams is not useful
  • Verifying the results from Google Ngrams shows most uses of "Sinhalese" after 1990 referring to the people and "Sinhala" being used in contrast to refer to the language
  • Seven instances of consensus, attempted moves, and discussions that the title should use "Sinhala", not "Sinhalese" on the Sinhala language talk page
  • The New York Times consistently uses "Sinhala" for the language and "Sinhalese" for the people
  • BBC in other languages (at the bottom of the page) calls the language "Sinhala"
  • Some other reputable publications such as Encylopaedia Britannica use both "Sinhala" (1, 2) and "Sinhalese" inconsistently, and the ratio between them is not clear
  • Wikipedia only uses "Sinhala" when linking to the equivalent article in Sinhala

In short, authors/publishers, the general public, and Wikipedia all prefer "Sinhala" to "Sinhalese" when referring to the language Danielklein (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Previous closure statement

The result of the move request was: Not Moved per consensus. (non-admin closure) Xain36 {talk} 12:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Google Books and Ngrams show "Sinhalese language" as being more common in English, as was explained at the recent move request at Sinhalese script. It's possible that one may be able to argue that there may be a trend toward using "Sinhala", but this has not played out yet in reliable published sources, and any move would be pure WP:CRYSTAL. RGloucester — ☎ 14:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    We need to look at all the reliable evidence available and not pick and choose the evidence that suits our preconceived ideas, nor use low-quality evidence. Refuting your points:
    • Google search numbers by themselves are not reliable - there's no quality indicator. The New York Times should be rated higher than some random blogger who's written "Sinhalese" a million times
    • Your Google Books search is for all books going back to at least the 19th century. "Sinhala" was practically unknown in English before 1950 (Sri Lankan independence)
    • On Ngrams you've selected the only variety of English (British) that shows "Sinhalese language" used slightly more than "Sinhala language", and even then not consistently. I've already provided a link to Ngrams which encompasses all varieties of English, and that shows "Sinhala language" used more than "Sinhalese language" consistently since 1982.
    You say "this has not played out yet in reliable published sources" - I have already provided ample evidence that "reliable published sources" (books, newspapers, the BBC) are already using "Sinhala" in preference to "Sinhalese", and that at least in the case of books, that this has been going on for decades. We should accept that the evidence that shows that "Sinhala" become the de facto name a long time ago. No crystal ball needed! Danielklein (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - As far as I know the correct term is Sinhala. I have no idea how these *English* people get the right to name languages, people and scripts. --Lee (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    English people get the "right" to name what the language is called in English. We don't call the French language "Fronsay" because that's what the French name (français) sounds like to us, we call it "French" for reasons which are unknown to me as I write this. The Sinhala word for "Sinhala" is indisputably "සිංහලා" (transliterated as "Sinhala"). Before 1950, the only English name for the language was "Sinhalese", with variant spellings such as "Singhalese", "Cinghalese" and "Chinghalese", all ending with "-ese". When "Sinhala" first appeared in English it was as a foreign word. After Sri Lankan independence, a second English name, "Sinhala" entered the language proper as a borrowed term. Both names are still in use in English, but "Sinhala" has now overtaken "Sinhalese" as the de facto name of the language. Danielklein (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sinhalese is still the clear common name in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
    What evidence are you basing that on? "Citation needed." I've provided evidence that "Sinhala" has been the preferred term for almost 40 years. Just saying "No it isn't" carries no weight. Danielklein (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - The 'ese' ending is usually used for something that has relation to some proper noun - like People of Japan are Japanese and they speak Japanese language: Nepal, China, so on. There is no such thing for Sinhala, the language name stands in itself. "Sinhala" is also the internationally accepted standard name, for e.g. by Unicode Consortium. Majority of the references to "Sinhalese" must come from old texts, compared to newer usages such as BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenleaf~enwiki (talk • contribs) 19:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as the common name is Sinhalese in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.231.12 (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I am the move requester, so I can't also vote. I just want to remind people (such as the previous IP-only voter) that votes need to be based on evidence, not just ipse dixit (see the debate below which so far no naysayers have contributed to). Danielklein (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There have been a lot of spurious claims made here, some addressed below. But this isn't just a matter of which term is more widely used for the language, but which is more widely used for the people and language together. Our naming conventions (WP:NCLANG) express a strong preference for using the same term for the people and their language. There are so many obscure languages and peoples around the world (even if this is one everyone should know) that multiplying the names they go by means that fewer people will recognize them. We have the Sinhalese people, therefor the language should be here, at 'Sinhalese language'. If we move one article, we should move both. — kwami (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Analysis

This is an FYI for all editors who were involved in the RM above to explain why a "no-consensus" decision did not result in a rename to Sinhala language.

Page move logs:

My analysis of these logs shows that the page title was stable at Sinhala (now a disambiguation page) for about 3 years. The title was stable at Sinhala language for a bit less than 6 years, and it was stable overall at its present title, Sinhalese language, for a bit less than 7 years. Since a no-consensus outcome should place the page title at its most stable name, that would be its present title, which was stable for about a year longer than the first title requested by the RM above.

The second request's analysis resulted in recognizing a consensus on that article's talk page, which was mentioned in the edit summary of its most recent page rename from Sinhalese alphabet to Sinhalese script, as follows: "...per unanimous requests on article's talk page: Sinhala has an abugida writing system, a 'script', not an 'alphabet'".

Thank you for reading! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  22:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat with your analysis of name stability. To me, stability means "no-one tried to change it". The language page was created at "Sinhala" and was stable for 2 years. Then it was changed to "Sinhalese language" and reverted 2 days later. It was stable for another year (total 3 years with a minor break). The name was changed to "Sinhalese language" and was stable for 1.5 years. A minor edit war occurred over 10 days, and the name was reverted to "Sinhalese language" where it was stable for another 1.5 years (total 3 years with a minor break). The name then became "Sinhala language" which saw the longest period of stability: 5.75 years. Then it was changed back to "Sinhalese language" and was stable for 4 years. Total for "Sinhala (language)" 8.75 years. Total for "Sinhalese language": 7 years. Total for no "language": 3 years. Total for "language": 12.75. It's not fair to count "Sinhala" and "Sinhala language" as two different titles when totalling since the debate is over "Sinhala" vs "Sinhalese", not whether "language" should be part of the title or not. I'm also not sure if you're supposed to add periods with the same title together, or look at unbroken stretches.
The script page was created at "Sinhala alphabet" and was stable for almost 3.5 years. It was changed to "Sinhala script" for 0.75 years, "Sinhala alphabet" for 2.67 years, "Sinhala script" for 2.5 years, a minor edit war lasting 43 days (add a month to "Sinhala alphabet"), "Sinhala alphabet" for 4.75 years, "Sinhalese alphabet" for almost 2.5 years, and "Sinhalese script" for almost 0.5 years. The single longest unbroken stretch was "Sinhala alphabet" at 4.75 years. Totals: "Sinhala alphabet": 11 years; "Sinhala script": 3.25 years; "Sinhalese alphabet": 2.5 years; "Sinhalese script": 0.5 years. "Sinhala": 14.25 years; "Sinhalese": 3 years; "alphabet": 13.5; "script": 3.75. "Sinhala alphabet" wins the combined title, "Sinhala" & "alphabet" both win as individual words. The last consensus was only to decide between "alphabet" and "script", not also "Sinhala" and "Sinhalese". "script" clearly won, and "Sinhala" has historically clearly been preferred over "Sinhalese". Note that even in the close message, it says: "Sinhala has an abugida writing system, a 'script', not an 'alphabet'", i.e. even though the article was called "Sinhalese alphabet", that wasn't the name used to refer to the language in the close message. If you were going strictly by policy ("a no-consensus outcome should place the page title at its most stable name"), you'd have to change "Sinhalese script" (in use for less than half a year in total) to "Sinhala alphabet" (in use for 11 years total, stably for 4.75 years). If you then reapplied the last consensus ("Sinhala has an abugida writing system, a 'script', not an 'alphabet'"), you'd get "Sinhala script".
The two pages combined have been called "Sinhala" longer than "Sinhalese", average 11.5 years and 5 years respectively.
Danielklein (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Your disagreement is noted, and I may very well be wrong. I think I'd like to see input from other involved editors, though, specifically on the subject of title stability in this article's case. If other editors also disagree with my analysis, then the right thing to do following a no-consensus outcome would be to rename the article to its most stable title. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  11:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I missed an edit where someone deleted the whole article and redirected Sinhalese language to Sinhala language. It spent two weeks at each name, extending the edit war I reported as 10 days to just over a month in January/February 2008. There was also a significant edit war over 4 days in October/November 2005 where two IP users (one in Australia, one in the US) kept changing "Sinhala" to "Sinhalese" in the article itself (they left the title alone), as well as adding non-encyclopedic content. These edits were reverted by a team of four logged-in users. The total number of edits during this war was 71. User:Hottentot tried to get the article renamed from Sinhala to Sinhala language on 24 September 2005, but they didn't follow the correct procedure and as a result the discussion never appeared on the talk page. Danielklein (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Completed

It has been determined after extensive study that the most stable titles for these articles are Sinhala language and Sinhala script. As we are guided at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus, a no-consensus outcome means to use the most stable titles of the articles. As is usual with such an outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to garner consensus for the previous names. Thank you for reading! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  20:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sinhala Language is NOT an Indo-Aryan Family Language.

Sinhalese Language Contains more than thousands of Tamil words by the way other words are from other Dravidian Languages, altered and Modified according to the Sinhalese Tonal System. Only found a few number of North-Indian Words, So How Could we say this is an Indo-Aryan Language? Most of Wiki paragraphs says it's an Insular Indic (means Alike Indian) Language....(Mistakenly added to Indo-Aryan Language Family) An Insular Language is hard to belong to a wider Language Families as Indo-Aryan or Dravidian, And also it's shows very lack of Indo-Aryan or North Indian Qualities. It's completely build up on Dravidian Cultures and Structures. Recently added a New branch as Sinhalese Prakrit, what a joke! It's hard to find such a branch within Indo-Aryan Language Families. Sinhalese writing System depends on Pallava Grantha and Kadamba Script not Sanskrit or Prakrit, hard to find a single letter looks alike Sanskrit. Sinhalese Language is not a naturally evolved one it's created and copying contents from near by South-Indian Languages, especially Tamil & its' twin (Malayalam Language), Telugu, Kannada and the other 73 Dravidian Languages.

LET's TALK... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oct8pus (talk • contribs) 17:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Sinhala is Indo-Aryan, not Dravidian! That is because of borrowed words. Geckosurprises737 (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
That a lot of vocabulary is borrowed isn't what determines the historical source of a language. For example, English remains a Germanic language despite its huge vocabulary drawn from French as well as many other non-Germanic languages. (Check your first sentence: "language", "contain", "alter", "modify", "accord", and "system" are all from French; "tonal" is from Latin.)
The script has absolutely nothing to do with the classification of a language. Roman-based alphabets, for example, are used for languages in the Indo-European, Turkic, Uralic, Afroasiatic, Niger-Kongo, and Austroasiatic families, many Western Hemisphere languages, and more. Largoplazo (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Hi 2402:4000:B194:A7B7:1:0:1203:B8B2 (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sinhala_language/Archive_2&oldid=1147780437"