Category talk:Austronesian languages

earlier comments
I've been writing pages for language groups that are part of the Oceanic languages, and wasn't quite sure how I should categorise them. Someone added Admiralty Islands languages to this category. Is this appropriate, or should we have a category for Austronesian language families? I'm a little undecided about this, which is why I haven't been categorising as I've gone. Conrad Leviston 17:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think they should only be used for stable nodes such as Oceanic. Otherwise we'd have to recategorize with each vagary of taxonomy. kwami (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Redundant categorization
There is no reason for a language to appear in both a sub-group category and in the main language family. I am gradually removing most individual languages from Category:Austronesian languages. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. kwami (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I'll appreciate your assistance at Talk:Borneo-Philippines languages. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that the procedure of removing individual languages from main language family categories is scientifically unwarranted, especially in cases where subgrouping techniques are contested as is the case for Austronesian where foundations for classification are unstable and moving, especially since techniques, in the absence of phylogenetical certainties, took a definitely typological bent. The procedure also conflicts with other editorial decisions that were made when allowing cross-referencings such as List of Austronesian languages and List of Austronesian regions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eklir (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)