Category talk:Tonal languages

Something like half the world's languages are tonal. Should we really try to fill in this category? --Erauch 23:46, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's exactly my concern, and I'd say it's at least sixty percent. I don't like this category. &mdash; mark &#9998; 14:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

There's little sense removing some languages from the category whilst keeping others, there should be a clear discussion about this and what are categories for (aren't they for easy navigation? what's wrong with a list of tonal languages, even if it's 60 or 80% of them?). Oyd11 18:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with your first point. Thing is, the category will become overpopulated, hence unusable, hence useless. It would be about the same as Category:Men and Category:Women, only without the subcategories (since there is no agreement among linguists on a sensible way to subcategorize tonal languages). &mdash; mark &#9998; 18:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... A logical step then would be, listing language-families which are tonal, plus exceptions. Anyway, let's making the policy clear, I'm adding a cfd at the category page.
 * Indeed. I've given some more arguments in my vote for deletion. Its also unmaintainable since there is no agree boundary between tonal and non-tonal (it is rather thought of as a continuum). &mdash; mark &#9998; 07:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)