Talk:Western Romance languages

Venetian
Should Venetian be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.178.182 (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR
This article appears to have been laden with original research. I removed a significant portion of unreferenced material and it was restored without providing any additional citations. If it's verifiable material, please restore it with proper citations to reliable sources. If not, leave it out. The Dissident Aggressor 22:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * All the info is in this template. Are you going to delete that too?--Mrjulesd (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No need to get defensive. I'm happy for you to add that material back, but please provide citations.  The Dissident Aggressor 22:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well there is already a glottolog reference in the article. Nordhoff, Sebastian; Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin, eds. (2013). "Western Romance". Glottolog 2.2. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. If you'd bothered to check it you would have realised that my work was correctly sourced and verifiable in the first place. http://glottolog.org/


 * I am going to revert your edit. If you continue to delete work that is correctly sourced and verifiable, you will be guilty of disruptive editing. WP:DE Don't do it. --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Gallo-Iberian languages
Category:Gallo-Iberian languages was merged to Category:Western Romance languages following this speedy nomination by Marcocapelle. Was that right? Ethnologue shows a division within Western Romance, and excludes Pyrenean-Mozarabic from Gallo-Iberian. In Glottolog, "Shifted Western Romance" seems to correspond to Gallo-Iberian, and "Unshifted Western Romance" to Pyrenean-Mozarabic. However, Wikipedia articles & templates place Pyrenean-Mozarabic within Ibero-Romance, so that there is no separate level for Gallo-Iberian.

If Glottolog and Ethnologue are not considered reliable sources, then the merger is fine, and the two levels in Commons and other Wikipedias should also be merged, see Wikidata items and. I started by merging the two levels in gv-wiki, before looking into it further. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * See also Italo-Western_languages, according to the map Aragonese and Mozarabic should not be categorized together, which confirms common sense because there is neither a geographical nor a time connection between these two languages (different regions, different eras). Though I'm well prepared to accept further clarifications. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)