Talk:Tibetan

Proposed merge with Tibetan language
Standard Tibetan should be moved to Tibetan language to fit appropriate language links. "X language" should not be used to disambiguate, but "X" should be used instead; in this case, this page. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * About the second part of your proposal: separate "X language" disambiguation pages have normally been kept so far. But this is a tricky area, and the trickiness is illustrated not the least by the inconclusive discussion at WT:DAB. Uanfala (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see any evidence of a primary topic. As for fitting appropriate language links, a portion of the links pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language are intended for Standard Tibetan but there are many that are very difficult to disambiguate. Uanfala (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been waiting for a good while to be merged, and the merge is needed so that the ISO 639 language code for Tibetan, "bo", can be disambiguated:
 * – Tibetan (was linked to a dab page)
 * This one isn't really tricky so much and is definitely needed. The code is used in redirect categories and other pages.  So it is best to complete this merge and redirect the "Tibetan language" page to Tibetic languages.  That appears to be the general article on Tibetan.   Paine   u/ c  00:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * of all the ISO 639 name codes I've used to update redirect categories thus far, this is the only code that targets a dab page. I've already merged that page into this one, and the Tibetan languages link on this page targets "Tibetic languages".  We truly must find a non-dab page to which  can link.   Paine   u/ c  07:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There isn't a one-to-one correspondence between ISO codes and wikipedia articles on languages. It's only natural that some ISO 639 codes should correspond to disambiguation pages (one example off the top of my head is ISO 639:leg). If an ISO code has a broad meaning then it's natural that its use here will be ambiguous. Ideally, people should be tagging redirects with the more specific codes (like bod or xct). Having said that, most editors using bo probably mean Standard Tibetan (and that's where ISO 639:bo redirects). Maybe it's worth noting that any changes to how this is handled will have to take into account Template:bo, for most Tibetan-language text is handled with that template, rather than with the more generic or lang-bo.
 * As for Tibetan language, I oppose merging into Tibetan (for the reasons I gave at the top of this section) and I oppose redirecting to Tibetic languages: while that article has an excellent lead section that effectively works as as broad-concept article for the topic, that's not what people typing "Tibetan language" are looking for: most of the time they need either Standard Tibetan or Classical Tibetan and we can't serve them any better than with the dab page.
 * Linking to previous discussions: from September and October 2012. Uanfala (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Apparently has been BOLD enough to perform part of the merge (moving the content), while the other part (redirecting the original page) has been undone by . Clearly a hint of edit warring. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't like to edit war, &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62;, and in particular not with editors I like and respect.  Paine   u/ c  01:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My concern was not for where the ISO 639 redirects go, but for where the ISO 639 name template sends editors when for example "bo" is used as the first parameter. This is the first and only case I've come across where a code used in the ISO 639 name template, which is used in the R from alternative language template to tag language redirects, happens to be a disambiguation page – "bo" is the only one out of all these codes.  I think it's important that we find a language article to which the "bo" code can link – and perhaps Standard Tibetan fills the bill?   Paine   u/ c  01:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * In addition, the ISO 639 name template that uses these codes is found in many Wikipedia articles (usually via the lang template), which is one more important reason that these codes must not go to dab pages. Disambiguation links should not be used in articles (except in hatnotes).   Paine   u/ c  02:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If an editor could have used lang-bo to format either a Stadard Tibetan or a Classical Tibetan piece of text, then I don't think we should be deciding for them what they meant. My personal opinion (and that's one others would probably disagree with) is that in all these cases, the more specific lang-xct and lang-bod should be used (oops, the second one doesn't exist). If a term is ambiguous, it should be disambiguated. And if one meaning should be picked over the others (and I don't think it should), Standard Tibetan does indeed come closest. At any rate, I don't have a strong opinion on this matter. Whatever is decided, it should take into account, and possibly modify, all relevant templates, and in this case that includes bo. Maybe we should seek input from the editors who actually use the templates? Uanfala (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the language experts have given us the standard, for example, in the Bo template with its link to Standard Tibetan. So you're correct, the language experts should be deciding for us, not the other way around.  Since we agree on that, since we agree that "if a term is ambiguous, it should be disambiguated" and since we agree that Standard Tibetan is the usual expected language (and has links to the others for those fewer readers who seek a different meaning), then I shall redirect the page in question to that article as a final step in this merge request.   Paine   u/ c  11:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * PS. We should also make note here that according to this discussion on the Template Bo talk page, Lang is much preferred over Bo for reason of accessibility issues. PS added by  Paine   u/ c
 * Thanks for finding out that bo is deprecated! Now as for the turning this page into a redirect: Standard Tibetan might be what most people mean when they use the ISO 630 code bo, but "Standard Tibetan" is not what most people mean when they search for "Tibetan language". The term is ambiguous and there is no primary topic. That was the point I was trying to make in half of what I wrote above. There's no consensus for redirecting. Current consensus is for Tibetan language to be a disambiguation page and if you would like to change that, please start a broad discussion and advertise it on the talk pages of all Tibetan languages articles. Uanfala (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that now you've lost me, Uanfala, because you wrote:
 * That was about the meaning of the ISO 639 code bo, not the phrase "Standard Tibetan". If there is a misunderstanding the culprit is probably the unclear style in which I write. Uanfala (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet your opinion is strong enough to appear to require a whole new discussion on the matter. Also, I don't really see much of a distinction between what people would expect when they click a link, such as  or, and what people would type into a search field.  Would you please point to a discussion or tool that shows that the common subject people search for when they type "Tibetan language" into a search field is something other than Standard Tibetan?  It would also be very helpful if you would point to the discussion that resulted in the "current consensus" that the Tibetan language page be a disambiguation page.  I can't seem to find that.   Paine   u/ c  13:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The meaning of an ISO code and the meaning of an English phrase are two completely different things. As for the discussion, the most helpful one is at Talk:Standard Tibetan (I've already linked to it above, but that might have been lost among all the detail.) True, that wasn't an easy consensus, nor was it a very clear-cut case (and the two participants from WP Disambiguation didn't seem very happy with it), but it is a consensus nevertheless. Our discussion on the other hand is happening on the talk page of a dab that has next to no watchers and as far as I know the only participants (the three of us) have no particular expertise (or editing experience) on Tibetan-related matters. Uanfala (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The meaning of an ISO code and the meaning of an English phrase are two completely different things. As for the discussion, the most helpful one is at Talk:Standard Tibetan (I've already linked to it above, but that might have been lost among all the detail.) True, that wasn't an easy consensus, nor was it a very clear-cut case (and the two participants from WP Disambiguation didn't seem very happy with it), but it is a consensus nevertheless. Our discussion on the other hand is happening on the talk page of a dab that has next to no watchers and as far as I know the only participants (the three of us) have no particular expertise (or editing experience) on Tibetan-related matters. Uanfala (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've done some things, Uanfala, that will hopefully set your mind at ease, as well as that of anyone else who has agreed with you. First, in a more in-depth look at lang, the ISO 639 name template is used with the category rather than with any text that would need disambiguation. Secondly, I've modified the pages I work with to link to Tibetan languages rather than to Tibetan language, which disambiguates the links – this has been done to R from alternative language and can be seen at the following redirects: Also disambiguated was the "bo" entry in the Redirect language codes list. And lastly, the important category templates were modified as can be seen at – the link is now to Tibetic languages and is now disambiguated. Therefore I no longer have issues with what happens to this page and to the Tibetan language page. I would still like to see only one dab page, because there is no reason to have two dab pages in this case. All that would take is to restore the other languages on the Tibetan language page to this page, and then redirect that page to this page. That's just a suggestion, because I'm no longer deeply invested in the outcome.  Paine  u/ c  15:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your solution with the redirect categories is an elegant one, I'm happy with it, and so will, I think, everyone else. As for the question of whether to have a separate language dab page, this is almost turning into a perennial one, I'm not sure I have much to say now, other than link to the general discussion that took place in May. Uanfala (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Lots of contention in those discussions, and the bottom line for me is what readers search for. If I am looking for a specific Tibetan tongue that is not listed on this page, that would be a bummer.  I type "Tibetan" into a search engine, and in order to find a specific language I am required after I get to this page to sift through the entries and hope that Tibetic languages will help me out.  We should not make readers jump through such hoops.  Most editors seem to consider dab pages to be a necessary evil because they can be confusing to readers.  To not have any language that could be referred to simply as "Tibetan" on this page is a disservice to our readers.  It's really that simple.   Paine   u/ c  18:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, Tibetan should definitely contain links to the various Tibetan languages (the only argument for not having them had to do with reducing maintenance – and I've given that up). The main object of contention is whether there should also be a separate dab for the language. My opinion is that if there isn't, we'll be doing a disservice to those of our readers searching for "Tibetan language" if we made them go through a big dab page full of entries that aren't for languages. Uanfala (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What's the point of a dab when we have a broad concept? (I'm assuming there's no primary topic Standard Tibetan?) Once we have a broadconcept, the dab only contains other meanings. I'll admit this is only a first impression. The (my) current redirect to the primary topic should just be reverted if there's no consensus for it. Widefox ; talk 23:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't really have a proper broad-concept article: although the lede section of Tibetic languages does an excellent job of serving as one, the article is really about the phylum. However, the main reason this isn't at the primary title is that in the overwhelming majority of cases, readers who type "Tibetan language" are looking for something else: either Standard Tibetan or Classical Tibetan. Uanfala (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The best solution for that is to link the redirect to a "Languages" subsection (as I had intended).  You've placed the languages near the TOP effectively in the lead of the dab page (no subheader), so when/if the other languages are returned to the page, it might be better to return all the languages to a subsection and then link the redirect to that subsection.  As long as readers can readily find what they're searching for without being put through hoops, then we've done our job.   Paine   u/ c  23:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going forward to restore the dab page at Tibetan language. Now, if this should redirect to a separate section at Tibetan or not, I don't see any difference for the reader searching for the language (I don't see any hoops either way). The only quibble I have is that it's redirected, the present arrangement of Tibetan (which follows the Mercury example at WP:DABORDER) would need to be changed and that would be, in my opinion, a tiny bit worse for the readers searching for just "Tibetan". Uanfala (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion about a primary topic or how these articles relate, but I can point out that Tibet has a clearcut

== Language ==

Linguists generally classify the Tibetan language as Widefox ; talk 11:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Tibetan language dab page
The inclusion of the Tibetan language (disambiguation) page in the TOP section with the other languages is, as I see it, and especially after older ≠ wiser reverted your edit, imperative to give readers, who come to this page looking for one of the other Tibetan languages that are not listed, a link to more easily find the language they want.  Paine  u/ c  22:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

PS. Since I believe that an even better way to do this (I've seen no "consensus" in your cited discussions, only contentiousness) would be to list all the languages on this page and either redirect Tibetan language to this page or delete it, then it might be time to go ahead with a deletion discussion in the correct objective venue. PS left by  Paine   u/ c
 * Sorry, my bad – I thought it was obvious given the discussion above. Maybe we should try to find what exactly we don't agree on? The edit that and  insisted on doing has the following components:
 * Moving the entry for Tibetic languages out of the top and into the "see also" section. The reason I gleamed from the edit summary was that this has a title similar to (but apparently not ambiguous with) "Tibetan language". This is bogus. Tibetic languages are also known as (which was its title before a move a few years ago), the article used to be where Tibetan language redirected to for a brief period, and this is what readers are looking for when they search for "a Tibetan language" (vs. "the Tibetan language", which refers to either Classical Tibetan or Standard Tibetan). Also, that article's lede is the closes we get to a broad-concept article on the topic.
 * Replacing the entry for Tibetic languages with a link to Tibetan language (disambiguation). Now, right above this entry there already are entries for Standard Tibetan and Classical Tibetan. Now, if a reader follows the link to the dab, then what they'll see is these two entries + an entry for Tibetic languages. Now, if there are three items that are ambiguous with the title, why should readers be shown just two of them and then be forced to click through to another dab page to see the third one?
 * I'd appreciate it if we could try to find the precise locus of disagreement. Uanfala (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe you're correct, and maybe it's kind of nitpicky, but (1) the fact remains that the title of the page is "Tibetan", not "Tibetic", which means anything "Tibetan" goes above the See also section and anything "Tibetic" (or anything that's not "Tibetan" and yet is related to it) goes below in the See also section. It doesn't matter that "Tibetan languages" was moved to "Tibetic languages".  There was a good reason for that move: to dispel confusion, which to me means that "Tibetic" is not quite exactly "Tibetan" for Wikipedia's purposes.  As for (2), Readers do see more than just the spoken, written and nearly-broad-concept titles.  In the See also section are listed Old, Central, Khams and Amdo Tibetan languages, and that will pretty much cover all for which a reader could search.  In the discussion you linked, you wrote:  "Double disambiguation: keep Bo language and add a link to it at Bo."  So why do you want to remove the link?  Finally, as the DDAB link tells us, double dabs with links to each other are "rare on Wikipedia".  Why do you think this is so?  [hint] Do you think it might have something to do with confusion and putting our readership through hoops?  Double dabs should only exist when the confusion they dispel is far greater than the confusion they cause – and that is rare.   Paine   u/ c  10:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , I actually don't care where those particular entries are placed (at least not at this point). My main concern is that your edit removed the disambiguation template. I saw nothing here that would provide basis for a broad concept article or any reason for this not to be a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 11:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , so it's that then! I hadn't noticed I had accidentally wiped out the template (and the BCA I was referring to in my edit summary was about a different article – Tibetic languages). Maybe all this confusion would have been prevented if, when reverting, we had only reverted the bits we disagreed with, no?
 * , it's me who's being nitpicky here. "Tibetan languages" is a synonym for "Tibetic languages". The logic you describe in (1) works most of the time, but what is relevant is not so much the one exact title of an article, as the range of accepted names for the article's topic. There are synonyms, accepted alternative names, common alternative spellings etc. and they all go in the main body of the dab page. The link to United Kingdom doesn't go in the "see also" of UK (disambiguation) and neither does the entry for Moscow at Moskva (disambiguation). Although the only relevant link to an explicit mention in the guidelines I could find right now is MOS:DABSYNT, this is an underlying general principle of disambigation. As for (2), none of the entries in the "see also" of Tibetan language are referred to as just "Tibetan language" so they aren't members of the set of terms to disambiguate between. The bit you quote about double disambiguation works if the language entries are present only on the language-specific dab page, and not on the general one. If the general dab page already lists all relevant entries, then a link to the specific dab page is redundant, at least in the body of the dab: I don't object to including it in the "see also". Uanfala (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Points taken. We were both being nitpicky, Uanfala.  Since you agree to the See also entry, I left it in.  So those readers who actually are looking for Central, Amdo and so on, won't scratch their heads for too long.  I'm still hazy about one thing:  Is "Old Tibetan" actually a "language" or an "era"?  Both perhaps?   Paine   u/ c  17:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the understanding, . As for Old Tibetan, the article is about the language, but I don't think the distinction between "language" and "era" is a meaningful one. Old L is just a language that 1) was used sometime before L, and 2) is either (close to) the ancestor of L or is associated with the same geographical region. Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pleasure! and yes, after I asked I took a few minutes to actually read the article rather than just the lead. Thank you for clarifying!   Paine   u/ c  21:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 3 October 2016
This page needs the merge template added back in. Please modify it as follows:


 * from this:

Tibetan may mean:


 * to this:

Tibetan may mean:

Thank you in advance!  Paine  u/ c  09:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , is there any need for this merge notice? I thought we've already reached consensus: the "upstream" bit of the merge is complete (the relevant entries of Tibetan language have been merged now), while the "downstream" bit (redirecting Tibetan language) is unnecessary. – Uanfala (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, I just went by your (Uanfala's) Tibetan language restorations from the redirect, which also restored the merge notice there. Since that notice wasn't removed, then it also needed to be restored on this page.  I am not in the least averse to seeing both notices removed as long as the merge discussion has reached consensus.   Paine   u/ c  15:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * PS. I notice that Martin must have also removed protection (no, I see that the protection expired on 6 Oct), so I went ahead and removed the notices from both pages. If anyone objects, the notices can always be restored. PS added by   Paine   u/ c