Category talk:Australian Aboriginal languages
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
This overlaps a lot with the similar Category:Languages of Australia. Since presumably all Australian aboriginal languages are spoken within Australia, this category is essentially "all languages of Australia, minus English" and should be deleted. This duplication has caused some confusion among users, as is easily visible by the contents of the categories. -- Prince Kassad 10:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Rather, it is a subcategory. It is also the closest thing we have to a "language family" for many native languages of the continent, because linguists have not worked out the relationships yet for many of them. To remove this category would deny many Australian languages a genetic classification on Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 14:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- None of these "languages" you speak of seem to be represented on Wiktionary, as I had a look at the contents of the category. Of the 43 languages, 38 are also categorized in a genetic classification category. Of the remaining 5, 4 are clearly classified. So we would deny at most one (1) language a genetic classification. I think this is acceptable. -- Prince Kassad 14:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- "None of these "langauges"...seem to be represented on Wiktionary." ...yet. And how many language families are there in Australia? Should they all be listed separately because we do not know their inter-relationships yet? Or should those families be grouped usefully for those who wish to find them? --EncycloPetey 14:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- A possible alternative would be to move all the individual languages out of there, and lump all the language families of Australia in there, plus the occasional unclassifiable language. This is for example what Category:Amerindian languages does, and I think it would be more useful than the current situation.
I don't know much about Australian languages, but the amount of individial languages is estimated to be 250. The amount of language families should be at most one sixth, maybe less. -- Prince Kassad 15:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- A possible alternative would be to move all the individual languages out of there, and lump all the language families of Australia in there, plus the occasional unclassifiable language. This is for example what Category:Amerindian languages does, and I think it would be more useful than the current situation.
- "None of these "langauges"...seem to be represented on Wiktionary." ...yet. And how many language families are there in Australia? Should they all be listed separately because we do not know their inter-relationships yet? Or should those families be grouped usefully for those who wish to find them? --EncycloPetey 14:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- None of these "languages" you speak of seem to be represented on Wiktionary, as I had a look at the contents of the category. Of the 43 languages, 38 are also categorized in a genetic classification category. Of the remaining 5, 4 are clearly classified. So we would deny at most one (1) language a genetic classification. I think this is acceptable. -- Prince Kassad 14:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. This isn't the same as all languages of Australia, minus English. The languages of Torres Strait aren't included. PierreAbbat 13:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: this category was subsequently deleted following the RFDO of the code 'aus', the code of the Australian Aboriginal "language family" (which is in fact a geographic grouping). - -sche (discuss) 05:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)