Category talk:Old Bengali language

Charya language

@Aryamanarora, @DerekWinters It seems Turner's dictionary includes Charyapada's vocabulary as old Bengali. (He also includes Chittagonian and Chakma under Bengali which are separate languages on Wiktionary). The poets of Charyapada came from different regions of Eastern India, like parts of modern Orissa, Bengal, Bihar, Assam, Jharkhand. So the language is probably from different regions, though it seems they don't have much difference and can be dialectal. There are also name variations for it or for some parts of it. Like it's generally considered as an "Abahattha", which is applied to ancestors of Eastern Indic languages of that period and before (in this case, it's a late abahattha). There are of course claims as well. It's called Old Bengali, Proto/Ancient Assamese (Old Assamese started from 13th century), ancestral Oriya, Maithili etc. So can we use Charyapada as an ancestor of other languages, maybe especially Assamese, other Bengali-Assamese languages and Odia. If we can, what should be its name on wiktionary? Msasag (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Changes per User talk:Msasag#Ancestors of Vaṅgīya languages

@Erutuon, could you set Old Bengali as an ancestor of the following languages?— Sylheti (syl), Chittagonian (ctg), Rohingya (rhg), Chakma (ccp), Bishnupriya Manipuri (bpy), Tangchangya (tnv). Thanks. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 00:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Sorry, I don't know. I'm not familiar enough with these languages to be confident in making this change myself, though it looks plausible based on the Wikipedia articles. User:AryamanA, could you evaluate at this request? — Eru·tuon 03:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Benwing2, Kutchkutch: Anyone of you please execute the task. Thanks. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 12:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC) @Bhagadatta -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 02:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

For changes within a family, consensus among editors who actually contribute to the family is enough. @Chuck Entz, since Module:languages is protected from editing, I am unable to change the data myself; could you please grant me a right to edit such pages, or else progress in (Eastern) Indo-Aryan would be hampered. Thanks for considering. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 12:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: The changes have been made. You can change the etymologies now. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 05:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Bhagadatta. By the way, why do you think module pages are protected: I believe all registered users should be able to edit them. -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 16:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Not all modules are protected. Only ones like this which contain the most fundamental information about the languages are protected because things like a particular language's ancestor etc have been subjects of contention in the past. That would be my guess. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 04:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bhagadatta: Sorry to bother you again… but transliteration modules also suffer disruptive edits, right? Other editors can easily revert disruptive edits. Anyway, so seems like only template editors can edit them? -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 04:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: Depending on the protection level of a particular page. In case of these data modules the protection level is set to allow only editors who are template editors and above to make changes, so, yes. -- 𝓑𝓱𝓪𝓰𝓪𝓭𝓪𝓽𝓽𝓪^{(𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 04:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, we've had people vandalize modules before, or just make mistaken edits that caused a lot of module errors or bad output. The module namespace guards against invalid Lua syntax, but it doesn't guard against logic errors. I've caused thousands of module errors before even though as a template editor I should check that the module works before saving. But it probably saves us from a lot of module errors and breakages not having every registered editor able to edit most of the modules that are used on thousands or millions of pages. — Eru·tuon 05:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Erutuon: Okay, if not every registered user then at least autopatrollers should be able to edit protected module pages, for obvious reasons (i.e., they are trusted by the community which is why they are autopatrollers in the first place). -_⸘- dictātor·mundī 14:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Inqilābī: That might make sense if it were possible, but there isn't an "autopatrolled" protection level. The only protection levels are administrator, template editor or administrator, and autoconfirmed. Autoconfirmed is too low a bar because everybody can get it just by making enough edits over a certain amount of time, so we're stuck with template editor. And it's if anything a little easier to get template editor status (well, at least more informal): I think people tend to just ask to be made a template editor in the Beer Parlour or a talk page, whereas they are nominated by one admin and approved by another in WT:WL to become an autopatroller. — Eru·tuon 19:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)