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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics 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.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Timor, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Timor 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.East TimorWikipedia:WikiProject East TimorTemplate:WikiProject East TimorWikiProject East Timor articles
@Verdy p: You cannot pack the Glottolog classification into Hull's and Edwards' classification, especially when Hull and Edwards does not mention all these details (or even treat them differently as in the case of Dadu'a). This is SYNTH. If you want to fix redlinks, that's fine, but don't add Glottolog material that is not mentioned at all in Hull (1998) and Edwards' papers. A better solution would be to add it in a section by itself. Pinging @Kwamikagami and @Sagotreespirit. –Austronesier (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Filling in the red links. BTW, we currently have Ba'a as a dialect of Lole, whereas Edwards has them in separate groups. That should be double checked.
@Verdy p: BTW, if you included the dialects from Glottolog (in italics there), those are generally not from the sources listed, but blindly copied from Linglist, where they were put together by students who generally didn't know any more than we do (and often less) and are unreliable. Glotto is starting to replace the dialects per RS's, but I don't know how to tell where they have and where they haven't. — kwami (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the purpose then to revert all, including:
alternate orthographies (which are obviously equivalent, independantly of authors/site that may use one or another)?
keeping redlinks for names without any explaination of what they mean?
And I did not change the wording of the main sentences, and the 3 base subgroups (just added the two other subgroups that were already indicated, but linking to nowhere, and using alternate orthographies that could be easily resolved)?
If there are no links possible, of course Hull and Edwards are considering prior art (notably the classificaiton in ISO 639 and Glottolog which adds more references and synonyms).
The revert makes all this ambiguous and in fact it is even less clear without these. Note that for dialects, these are effectively those listed in the prior references given by Hull and Edwards. They are in italic because they are not strictly classified (or there may be too many as they could be alternate names used in some villages or socila groups, or because these names evolved over time). Hull and Edwards are not clear enough. So I just pasted the details found in documents they reference (not just Glottolog), and alternate names already given in existing articles (which are matched in lists computed by the Linguist List, and if refs given by all these people). Italics for dialects were justified to see exactly what is covered, and what may cause problems between classifications. Without them, it is impossible to compare the classifications and see in what they are different and what they have in common. verdy_p (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
