Module talk:languages/data/3/x

Code missing for Anglo-Norman
Could someone add data for Anglo-Norman, which has the ISO 639-3 code xno, please? I think the required text is: m["xno"] = { names = {"Anglo-Norman"}, type = "regular", scripts = {"Latn"}, family = "roa"} — I.S.M.E.T.A. 10:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Anglo-Norman is treated as part of Old French (see WT:LANGTREAT). --WikiTiki89 11:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, my mistake; thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that it is still possible to distinguish Anglo-Norman from Old French in etymologies if you want to, however (by using ). It is an etymology-only language. - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Good to know. Thanks. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing ancestors for Parthian
The language Parthian (xpr) should have the attribute

Right now, the database claims Proto-Iranian is not an ancestor of Parthian.

128.84.126.40 07:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Added. --Vahag (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Missing ancestors for Luwian and Lycian
The languages Lycian (xlc) and Luwian (xlu) should have the attribute

Right now, the database claims Proto-Anatolian is not an ancestor of Lycian and Luwian.

128.84.127.134 02:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Andalusian Arabic in Latin script
Could someone add  to the scripts used by Andalusian Arabic ? --Lvovmauro (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Missing ancestors for Pictish.
The language Pictish should have the attribute

This is the view endorsed by Wikipedia and is the present linguistic consensus. The PHD thesis by linguist Guto Rhys (2015) "Approaching the Pictish language: historiography, early evidence and the question of Pritenic." has summarized that:
 * "the lack of evidence for distinctiveness [from Brittonic] renders the term ‘Pritenic’ as redundant for the present"
 * "much of Pictland partook in the ‘Neo-Brittonic revolution’, or at least very significant aspects of it"
 * "most of the supposedly distinguishing features [of Pictish from Brittonic] cannot be demonstrated to be restricted to Pictland alone"
 * "proposals [...] that Pictish was diverging from Brittonic [...] are either demonstrably incorrect, most uncertain or of trivial linguistic impact"

Presently, the database claims descent from Proto-Celtic, displaying Pictish as a branch similar to Gaulish, rather than specifically from Proto-Brythonic. --JoeyofScotia (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Sherpa transliteration module
Could someone add Devanāgarī script and translit module for Sherpa: scripts = {"Tibt", "Deva"}, translit_module = "translit-redirect", Kushalpok01 (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Sudovian (xsv) entry_name request
Per (self-written) WT:AXSV.

70.175.192.217 05:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)