Template talk:Infobox language/Archive 7

Wording when we have no population data
User Mach is insisting that we say "this article does not contain any information regarding the number of speakers" when the number of speakers is unknown, which is rather silly. Why should the reader care what we have to say about what our article says? Better to say "the sources for this article do not contain any information regarding the number of native speakers". If our sources do contain such info, then we should of course include it. Unless maybe we want to say "reliable information", in case we use unreliable sources that give info we know to be incorrect.

For one thing, we may have info on the total number of speakers but not the number of native speakers. — kwami (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Both phrasings are long and cumbersome, and subvert the purpose of an infobox, namely to provide a succinct overview of the key data about the topic. Instead of injecting a mini-essay into hundreds of infoboxes, how about a dash or a short phrase like "no data", with a full explanation in the documentation for this field? Kanguole 22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That's what we used to have, but Mach objects that we don't know that there is no data, only that we don't have any. I don't know what you mean by "in the documentation". — kwami (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean in Template:Infobox language/doc. That is too much text for the infobox in articles.  Kanguole 00:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with it being too much. But readers are not going to see the doc. I wouldn't like a dash because that could be taken to mean 'not applicable' or irrelevant. But I think 'no data' could work.
 * Does Kanguole's suggestion of "no data" work for you? — kwami (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "No data" is fine with me for the infobox with a footnote about why. --Taivo (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * “No data” suffers from the same problem as “the sources for this article do not contain any information regarding the number of native speakers” or “no estimates available”: Who has verified the absence of data? We can easily verify the existence of data by providing a relevant source, but the absence of data is not normally verifiable (unless there were a source that affirms the absence of data). What we can say is that there is no information with regard to speaker data in the concerned article. So I would suggest the wording “no data in this article”.


 * I would much prefer not to put this absence of information into articles in the first place, but kwami has been adamant about keeping it, see Talk:Swiss Standard German. He has edit-warred over this question and has been blocked for 48 hours, see Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive295. The previous wording was my attempt at fixing the situation – keeping the non-information at kwami’s insistence, but explicitly stating that this does not mean we have sources for the absence of information, but that this is only about the article. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 06:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the long phrases are unnecessary, blathery WP:SELFREFs that we don't need. I was actually already thinking of addressing them, and youse guys beat me to it. We don't need any message at all when we're simply missing something. It's standard operating procedure to just leave IB parameters empty, with no display of anything, in such a case. We would never have "Nickname: No data" in a bio infobox, for example.  In a case where the information is not known in the real world, we should say something that sounds less like a template error than "no data", e.g. "unknown", "unrecorded", "information unavailable", or something that that effect.  "Data" is an over-used buzzword bingo term; it's like referring to your cup of coffee as a liquid caffeine delivery mechanism.


 * Anyway, there are really only two use cases for indicating explicitly that we have no "data", that I can think of: 1) When it has not been gathered yet (e.g. the Jarawa and Sentinelese peoples may kill you on sight if you approach them). However there are still published estimates, so use of the parameter in this way would be rare. 2) When the language is extinct and no way has been devised of estimating its former population of speakers or likely ever will be.  For the latter case, we already have  processing code, so we can just adapted that to display something when extinct is true and speakers is missing or empty, without someone having to manually add it. And we might not want that to be the same wording as for the not-collected-yet case. I do think that both of these should be templated; we don't want people randomly adding their own version like "We don't know" or "???", etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the absence of information, omitting the entry would be even better than some marker. And explanations belong in the article body, not the infobox.  Kanguole 15:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We do indeed indicate when we don't know information. In biographical articles, we use question marks when we don't know the date of birth or death. Why? Because that's one of the main things that readers of biography articles are looking for. Rather than make them read the entire article to discover that we don't have the info, and then perhaps ask on the talk page why it isn't there, we are up-front about it: we don't know, right there in the info box and opening line. That doesn't mean that no-one knows, or that it can't be discovered, but that the sources for the article do not provide a date of birth or death.
 * Speaker population is perhaps the single parameter that speakers are most looking for with language articles. It is therefore appropriate for us to be up-front with them and tell them when we don't know. We do the same with classification when we label languages as unclassified. Or when we say the date of extinction is unknown.
 * It is inappropriate to hide our ignorance about basic data that readers may be looking for.
 * McCandish, we do have both of those templated. "?" does it for native speakers, and we have an extinction parameter. There are many many languages for which the number of speakers is unknown. The fact that someone could go and conduct a census doesn't change the fact that no-one has, at least to the best of our knowledge through our sources, which is all we can go on. — kwami (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The above anologies don't quite work. If we say that a language is unclassified, that presumably represents the consensus in the field, which should be documented in the text of the article.  Even if we say its classification is disputed, we don't mean by WP editors, but by experts in the field.  Nor is number of speakers as intrinsic as birth/death dates.  In fact, it's notoriously difficult to find reliably sourced (let alone consistently measured) speaker counts.  Kanguole 00:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kwami, there have been multiple consensus discussions in the past, at MOS and elsewhere, concluding against using confusing, ambiguous markers like "?" that seem to indicate "huh? we dunno! article is under construction" to our readers. The fact that one infobox's editors appear to be unaware of this and a preceding on a faulty WP:LOCALCONSENSUS basis to festoon articles with easily misinterpreted ?s is no grounds for propagating this error to other infoboxes.  Myself and many others revert "?" instances on sight. In 10+ years I can't recall a single instance of being reverted on this, so I'm highly skeptical that consensus has changed on this.  The gist of the problem is that "?" means any number of things to different readers, even to the same reader depending on context, and this interpretation is not predictable or "enforceable".  The solution, thus, is to leave it blank when WP has not found the data, nor established that the data does not exist. When we have established that the data does not exist, the encyclopedic thing to do is to indicate this clearly, and explanatorily (is the data lost to the mists of time? Has it not been gathered for some practical reason? What?).  This is, as Kanguole noted, often not best done in an infobox.  Attempts to use infoboxes in ways that end up being confusion, or which make infoboxes unwieldy or stuff with hard-to-parse "unusual exception" details are among the principal reasons for the opposition to inclusion of infoboxes, giving an additional reason not to take the "?" route.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mach: you asked "Who has verified the absence of data?". If you don't believe that the sources support a claim, then check the sources yourself. That's what we're supposed to do as editors. — kwami (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mach, stop edit-warring because you can't be bothered to check the sources. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you really checked all the sources of all the articles where this will possibly turn up – and mind you: many of the sources of an article such as Swiss standard German are really in German. Do you even speak German? Have you read all of the sources? Can you confirm that none of them includes a speakers’ number? I doubt that very much. You are making a very bold claim about what is not in the sources.


 * As another possible compromise, I would also accept “?” – much better than your wrongful claims about what the sources state. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 22:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That "?" would be okay by me, but others have objected that it looks unprofessional.
 * As for your principle objection, if you find population figures in the refs, then add them to the info box! That's what you're supposed to do as an editor. That's what we do whenever we find that sourcing does not match a claim. — kwami (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is absurd to ask someone to check whether "the sources for this article do not contain any information regarding the number of native speakers". Kanguole 00:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it absurd? It's what we do when we check sources. E.g., if the only source is Ethnologue, then you follow the link and voilà, it doesn't have a number for speakers. Not difficult. And all you need to do to prove it wrong is cite the figure in the source. — kwami (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We normally check that a specific citation contains the information, which is approximately the opposite of checking that no such information can be found in any of the sources. And the burden of proof is on the person making the statement, not someone challenging it.  Kanguole 14:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. So, the person making the claim checks the sources and finds that they do not have a pop figure. In the case Mach is objecting to, he's gone through the sources to find a figure and admits that there isn't one. I don't understand why we'd want to hide our ignorance. — kwami (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not true; I have not gone through the sources. The burden of proof is clearly on your side. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 10:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason for not writing about the ignorance of WP editors in an article is that it's not part of the topic of the article, per WP:SELFREF. Kanguole 19:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about our ignorance personally, but the lack of info in the lit. Hiding a lack of info is harmful to an article. I'd have no problem with "(no data)" without the footnote. That makes no claim about who doesn't have any data, but still informs the reader that they aren't going to get the speaker population from the article. — kwami (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It might be misunderstood. A reader might assume that “(no data)” means there is no data – not with regards to the article, but none at all. Therefore, I would either
 * not display such information at all or
 * change the wording to the less misleading “(no data in this article)”.
 * What is wrong with that? --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 07:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Kanguole: I fully agree with your POV. Of course, there could be a source that explicitly says there are no numbers. Such a source could be cited like any other source – but we should not make unsourced statements.


 * @kwami: That is not true. I have done no such thing. Please do not use me as a “source” for your unsourced claims. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 19:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, what about "data missing"? That might make it clearer that we aren't claiming that no-one has any reliable data. — kwami (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying I think this is a good idea, but I'm just throwing this idea out as a possible compromise. Can't we design a template that can be used to define the parameter in these situations? A template could display a short message like "no data1" or "data missing1" in the infobox and force the explanation (along the lines of "the sources used in this article do not contain any information regarding the number of native speakers") to appear as a numbered footnote?--William Thweatt TalkContribs 03:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the first is what we currently have. Since you're not suggesting a best wording, anything you'd object to? — kwami (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We should not add an information such as “the sources used in this article do not contain any information regarding the number of native speakers” by changing the infobox. Such an information should be added on an article-by-article basis. We need to check for every article individually whether it really meets the criteria so we can add this information. When we add this information by editing the infobox – as kwami has done –, then the information is added indiscriminately to an unknown number of articles.


 * Again: I think it would be best if the infobox would not display anything about missing speaker numbers. A reader will notice that there are no speaker numbers without being told. Kwami keeps arguing that the speaker numbers are absolutely essential. That is a spurious argumentation because he never showed any evidence that speaker numbers are essential. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 09:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Nearly all of these are cases that I added after checking the sources. If I got any of them wrong, then you or others can correct me. That's no different than if I were to add an incorrect number or use a spurious source, something that happens all the time on WP.
 * Yes, readers have noticed the missing info, and gone to the talk page wondering where it is. It's not "essential", but it's like leaving out the birth and death dates in a biography. If we don't know, we have an obligation to tell the reader we don't know, just like we say "unclassified" when we don't know the family. Anything else is irresponsible. — kwami (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope we don't say "unclassified" when we don't know the family, but rather when the consensus of the sources is that the language cannot yet be classified (which should be documented in the body of the article). Kanguole 19:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @kwami, @Kanguole, @TaivoLinguist, @SMcCandlish, @WilliamThweatt, @Lerdthenerd, @Aeusoes1: Kwami, please stop creating facts while this matter has not been resolved. You have edited the template again “per talk” even though there is no consensus about the changes you have made. Please revert this. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 08:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kwami's edits are in keeping with the tenor of the discussion when there were more editors involved than just you and Kwami. At this point, I don't see what your point is, J mach, other than you you just don't like it.  There is a compromise, that the infobox contains very brief wording followed by a footnote.  You seem to be arguing that there "might" be a reliable source with data.  So?  If someone finds a reliable source with data, then they can change the infobox just as if a reliable source is published after the note is placed in the infobox.  That is true of every single piece of data in Wikipedia.  Kwami is right that readers expect there to be something in the infobox for certain critical pieces of information, even if they are informed that reliable sources don't have an answer for their question.  That, in and of itself, is an answer.  A compromise was developed.  That's good for Wikipedia.  --Taivo (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kanguole has participated just as much as me. The suggestion that has the most supporters is not displaying any information at all as long as there are no sources. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 10:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

For the infobox to add an explanatory footnote to the article reference list is a inappropriate imposition, per WP:CITEVAR, since in many articles that list consists of references in a particular format. Large chunks of text in the infobox are also problematic, as they subvert the purpose of providing key facts in a concise form.

There has been some confusion above about what ? should mean. Obviously we can't claim (without a specific reference) that no speaker population figures exist anywhere, so suggestions have included: Which is it?
 * 1) Wikipedia editors have been unable to find a reliable speaker population figure.
 * 2) None of the references in the article contains a reliable speaker population figure.
 * 3) The article does not contain a speaker population figure.

Version 1 would be forbidden by WP:SELFREF. Version 2 would impose the unreasonable verification burden of trying to prove a negative. Version 3 is at least clear, but in my opinion not worth saying. It would be best to display nothing in this case. Kanguole 12:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * More bluntly: I think version 2 is forbidden by WP:VER because it is not verifiable. There is no way to cite absence of citation. It is logically impossible. This leaves two options: version 3 (status quo ante before kwami pushed for version 2) or not displaying anything at all. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 15:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes discussions about utter minutiae such as this are filled with more wikilawyering than might be seen in a year of editing for substantial information. "No data", with a footnote, is utterly clear and unambiguous.  Who cares if an editor in the future finds a obscure reliable source written in Swahili that has a figure?  Then the editor changes the text of the infobox and Wikipedia lumbers on without a hiccup.  Who cares if the footnote is a little different than other footnotes?  Trying to force some rule or another to cover your particular interpretation is simply a waste of time.  Compromise (actual rule number one of Wikipedia editing) doesn't rely on any forced rule interpretation, but upon mutual agreement, often in spite of a particular subparagraph in a particular rule.  WP:IAR is a valid principle when editing Wikipedia.  The real question is, "What works to inform the reader?"  --Taivo (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The most direct way to convey an absence of information (which is the situation here), is with an absence of information, i.e. no display of the value or heading. Kanguole 18:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. All the absence of info means is that no-one put it in the article. There could be many reasons for that. Problematic reasons include having the number in the article but not bothering to add it to the info box (I've come across many articles with that problem) and having the info in accessible sources without bothering to add it to the article (I've come across those too). We want to tell the reader that the info is missing not because the article is incomplete, but because it isn't available, at least to those writing it. It's also an invitation to readers who might have the info to add it themselves. If we don't display anything, readers who have access to such info might not realize it's missing.
 * Again, this is parallel to biographies. If we don't know the date of someone's birth, we don't omit it: we note in the lead of the article that we don't know it. — kwami (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If the goal is “to tell the reader that the info is missing not because the article is incomplete, but because it isn't available, at least to those writing it” – then we should not use the wording “no data”. Instead, we should use something like “no data in this article”. A mere “no data” is very unclear and ambiguous. A reader may assume that no data exists at all. An editor may challenge the claim that there is “no data” on the grounds of WP:VER. (But I finally undertand what you are getting at.) --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 20:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ? cannot distinguish between the reasons you list. Nor do any of them belong in an article – they are all about what Wikipedia editors did or were not able to do.
 * I don't agree that speaker population is parallel to birth and death dates, but I do note that the treatment of those fields in has none of the special treatment (boilerplate text and footnote) given here to speakers.  Kanguole 00:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be better not to display anything in the infobox. But since kwami insists so much on displaying something “to tell the reader that the info is missing not because the article is incomplete, but because it isn't available, at least to those writing it”, I would suggest we meet halfway: Display something, but make sure it is not unclear and ambiguous. This means we should find a wording that does not make it look like a verifiable claim that can be rightfully challenged on the grounds of WP:VER. I think the wording “no data in this article” meets this criterion: It is not a verifiable claim (like “no data”), but a summary of the article’s content – exactly what an infobox is supposed to be. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 05:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I could probably live with that. My problem with it is that it doesn't indicate that our sources don't have the info, that we've tried to find a figure and couldn't. Instead it sounds like one of those "this section is incomplete" tags, and will just invite complaints on the talk page asking why we haven't added the data to the article. When we explain it's because our sources don't have the data, their response is likely to be, well, why didn't you just say that? — kwami (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kwami that the wording "no data in this article" is bad. It simply sounds lazy even though editors might have spent hours looking for the data.  I disagree with it.  "No data" is not the horrific problem that Mach is trying to make it into.  And if data are found, then there need be no changing of the world to change the "No data" into a number and reference.  It's not an apocalyptic scenario.  --Taivo (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The simplest way to avoid the problematic wording is not to display any wording.
 * I understand that Kwami sets ? to remove an article from maintainance categories after searching for and being unable to find a reliable speaker population figure. That's important work, but it's not appropriate for the record of it to appear in the article display, for the same reason that we hide the maintainance categories (which have similar purposes): we don't show how the sausage is made.  Kanguole 02:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, here is the order of my preferences: 1) "No data"; 2) nothing displayed; 3) "No data in this article".  --Taivo (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kanguole, I don't add the "?"s to clear out the maintenance cat. Just the opposite: I created the maintenance categories to track articles that lack basic data. The category is beside the point: What's important is to ensure that we supply at least minimal data to our readers. IMO, the minimal data for a language article, even if it's a stub, is name, location, classification, population, and identification code. If we do not have any of those we should state so explicitly. There are languages that do not have a name, yet no-one complains that the info box will not function without something in the name field. The only reason the population is an issue is that Mach objects to us stating that we don't know how many people speak standard German. Personally, I'd prefer "no data" without the footnote. — kwami (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I should know better than to speculate about intention. So the ? indicates that you've been unable to locate a reliable population figure despite an extensive search of the literature.  (Is there any reason that isn't explained in the template documentation?)  We differ on whether that should be displayed in the article.
 * My preferences are: 1) no display; 2) "?" without a footnote; 3) something short, like "(no figure found)", without a footnote. Kanguole 01:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Since we all agree that the footnote is no good idea, I am removing it already. I am leaving the wording “(no data)”, not because I wouldn’t object to it – I still strongly do (see below) – but because we have not reached any consensus yet.

@kwami: “it sounds like one of those ‘this section is incomplete’ tags” – Sure it does, but isn’t that your intention? You have said you intend for the wording to be “also an invitation to readers who might have the info to add it themselves”.

“IMO, the minimal data for a language article, even if it’s a stub, is name, location, classification, population, and identification code.” – Many thanks for qualifying this statement with an “IMO”, because that is exactly what the minimal data requirement for language articles is: It is your POV/opinion. I don’t share this POV. Neither one of us is alone: There are other editors that share your POV, and there are other editors that share my POV. If the minimal data requirment for language articles is nothing more than a POV, then it should not serve as a basis for selecting what the infobox displays. The infobox should not take sides and represent one particular POV. If however the minimal data requirement for language articles is more than a mere POV – e.g. if you can verify that it is an accepted consensus – then it may serve as a basis for selecting what the infobox displays. Can you verify that the minimal data requirement for language articles is more than a mere POV? And that the number of speakers belongs to the minimal data? Please post links or diffs to past consensus or decisions.

“The only reason the population is an issue is that Mach objects to us stating that we don’t know how many people speak standard German.” That is not true. I would not have any objection whatsoever if we changed the infobox wording to “we don’t know how many people speak this language” (some might consider it too long for an infobox, but as for me, I wouldn’t care). What I object to is us stating that there is “no data” about the number of native speakers. That is a verifiable claim. If somebody challenges this claim, then responsibility for proving it is with those who want to keep the claim in the article – all they have to do is simply citing a reliable source which affirms that there is no data about the number of native speakers. If no such citation is provided, the claim can be removed from the article. All this is a straightforward application of WP:VER. There are two reasons why I have done this already in the article Swiss Standard German: I do not want that article’s quality affected by a temporary wording of this infobox that is still being discussed, and I had already challenged the “no data” claim on that article (see Talk:Swiss Standard German). Even though I would be willing to challenge the “no data” claim on any article where I find it, I would very much prefer a consensual solution here in this discussion. Please let us find a compromise wording that meets both our requirments: your requirement “to tell the reader that the info is missing not because the article is incomplete, but because it isn't available, at least to those writing it” and my requirement to have wording that does not make any verifiable claim. I have made a compromise suggestion already: “no data in this article”. Here is a second compromise suggestion: “no citations” – this also makes it clear that the information is not a verifiable claim, but that it merely summarizes what is written in the article (which IMO is what an infobox is supposed to do). Do you have another compromise suggestion? Here are my preferences:


 * 1) Do not display anything.
 * 2) “(no data in this article)”
 * 3) “(no citations)”
 * 4) “(We don’t know how many people speak this language.)”
 * 5) “(no data)” – I would challenge this claim on the grounds of WP:VER.

--mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 14:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the minimum data requirement for Ethnologue as an example. There are optional fields such as Alternate Names, Language Use, etc.  The required fields, even when the data are minimal (or virtually nonexistent) are:  Name, ISO code, Population, Location, Status, Classification.  I haven't found a "missing" number or estimate of speakers, but there are often comments about potentially extinct languages such as "No known L1 speakers".  Please give an example of a language article here in Wikipedia that doesn't have any population data.  It would be easier to compare what other sites do.  "No data" is still highly preferable to me than any other option.  "No data in this article" is a weasel tag and implies that no one has bothered to look (through laziness, lack of interest, whatever).  --Taivo (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It appears the Ethnologue does not hesitate dropping the “Population” field when it has no data, see e.g. Westphalien | Ethnologue. There are no “Population” figures, and there is no affirmation that there is “no data” with regards to population. The claim the infobox of the Westphalian language article makes – “Native speakers (no data)” – lacks therefore verification. It should be challenged and then removed.


 * I already know that you don’t like “no data in this article”. But what about “no citation”? And how would you keep the infobox entry from being challenged on the grounds of WP:VER? --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 18:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * These Ethnologue entries lack population figures: Achterhoeks, Akuku, Alviri-Vidari, Dezfuli, Gozarkhani, Ihievbe, Jutish, Kajali, Kho’ini, Koresh-e Rostam, Magiyi, Maraghei, Memoni, Oloma, Pangseng, Pfaelzisch, Quinqui, Rang, Razajerdi, Rogo, Rombo, Sallands, Samvedi, Shahrudi, Shamang, Shau, Stellingwerfs, Temoq, Tày Tac, Veluws, Voro, Westphalien, Womo, Zhire. Also a bunch of sign languages.
 * Several more have only ethnic populations, e.g. Bookan.
 * But most of the infobox subjects with no speaker data aren't in Ethnologue, because it considers them as part of a language already included, e.g. standard varieties or regional dialects like Aachen dialect. Kanguole 01:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to find those examples from Ethnologue. I still support the "No data" option as first choice.  I seriously doubt that anyone but Mach would ever think to file a WP:VER complaint in this case.  Rather than being prophetic, perhaps he's just making promises?  --Taivo (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not the only one who has removed “no data” claims about the number of speakers. ZH8000 has done the same thing (see e.g., , ). On the other hand, you are indeed the only one who insists on “no data”. Even kwami would accept “no data in this article” as a compromise . What about “no citations” or “no figure found” or simply “?” ?


 * So far, it still looks as if the claim that native speaker numbers belong to the minimal data requirement for language articles is nothing but a mere POV and thus does not belong into an infobox. So far, neither you or kwami have provided any evidence to the contrary – you have brought up the Ethnologue, but it turns out the Ethnologue does not back up your claim at all, but rather the opposite: The Ethnologue will not display any information on the number of speakers when it has no such information. Why should we?


 * Also keep in mind that a majority of the editors who have participated in this discussion favour not displaying any information while we do not have any information – you and kwami are the only ones who explicitly insist on displaying something. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 07:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I looked back through this discussion and how do you turn you and Kangoule (2) into a "majority of editors" against me and Kwami (2)? That's some pretty unusual mathematics going on.  Perhaps the meaning of "majority" has changed since I was in school?  "No citations" is a possibility.  I'll consider it.  --Taivo (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Come on, you are omitting SMcCandlish, who has very explicitly said that “[w]e don't need any message at all when we're simply missing something. It's standard operating procedure to just leave IB parameters empty, with no display of anything, in such a case” . --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 09:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right. As noted above, there's no WP-wide consensus to insert "dunno" markers like "?".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies to SMcCandlish. I missed his subtle objection to "No data".  But 3-2 is hardly the "majority" that you imply is well-established here, Mach.  And, in any event, Wikipedia doesn't work on majorities (unless they are on the order of 10-1), but on consensuses.  I agree with SMcCandlish that "?" is laziness and unprofessional.  But his long discourse against the question mark doesn't really apply to a reasonable wording like "No data".  "No data" doesn't imply a "dunno" marker, but a "I know that there's no data because I've looked".  That's not "dunno", which is short for "dunno, don't care, haven't looked".  --Taivo (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am on the side of the "standard" not to tell anything, if there is no data. As always, missing information says nothing else than that it is missing. Nothing more, nothing else. Thousands of encylopedias have been handling it that way. There is no reason to change this centuries old practical standard. To handle it differently, is pure nonsense. And impossible: Every article is incomplete, since the reality is indefinite. It's the editors' choice what to include and what not. So stop making such a fuss about nothing. This is insane. Besides: I gave up to have an argue with user kwami for a long time, since it is futile and will never end (see this endless "discussion"), not before he was able to force through his minority POV. And may it be by measure of demoralizing his opponent. My respect to mach for his stamina!! I can't. Figures, such as kwami do not deserve it. -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Taivo: You keep repeating that “no data” is a “reasonable wording”. Mere repetition does not lead us anywhere – please justify your POV. I have justified why I think “no data” is confusing and ambiguous: It can be read as a positive claim that there verifiably is “no data” about the native speakers of the respective language. And I have demonstrated that this is not a mere theoretical possibility. The wording “no data” as a positive claim has been challenged on the grounds of WP:VER in praxis.


 * What is the meaning you intend to convey with “no data”? I actually don’t know because as far as I can see you have not yet said it (unlike kwami who has said what he wants to convey ). In your first contribution, you said that there should be “a footnote about why” – what should that footnote say in your opinion? It seems you want to “inform the reader”  – but about what exactly? Please help us understand what information you want to convey so we can find a compromise. What is the information you want to convey, and why do you think it must be in the infobox? --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 15:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I thought I had conveyed what I thought about the contents of a footnote accompanying a "No data" entry, but it's either been too long ago or else I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. It would simply be a footnote indicating the major sources that were consulted (e.g., Ethnologue, Linguasphere [which gives an order of magnitude number], major grammars or publications, whatever, etc.) where one would expect to find population information, but failed.  It's a "we're not just being lazy, we looked, we tried to find it, but it's not there" reference.  I'm not against just leaving the field blank (it's my second choice), but I still lean towards more information rather than less.  As far as WP:VER is concerned, it's not unusual in my experience to make "negative" claims based on a lack of reliable sources, especially for linguistic comments.  We list the reliable sources that lack any information (and for most linguistic topics that would fit in this category, there are always only a tiny number of reliable sources to consult), and that's the end of the matter.  It doesn't have to stand up in a court of law, there may be an obscure, virtually unknown reliable source out there, written in an obscure language, that has a number that some editor might find in the future.  Great.  That's why Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  But until that source turns up, "No data" with a footnote is perfectly expressive (and accurate).  All information in Wikipedia, no matter how many reliable sources it's based on, is "as far as we know or have been able to find".  It's always editable.  Will I cry myself to sleep if the consensus here proves to be "no entry".  Of course not.  But there are good reasons to let our readers know that we've made a good faith effort to find the information for them.  It may spur some reader into a greater effort to find that rare book printed in N'Djamena in Shuwa with a population estimate based on fieldwork.  --Taivo (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly a statement that sources X, Y and Z do not contain a population figure could be useful, and would be verifiable. (Though what was being displayed by the infobox was not that, but rather a boilerplate expansion of "?".)  However, such complex statements belong in the article text, not the infobox.  Kanguole 17:07, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But many (most?) readers will be looking for population information in the infobox, not in the body of the article. They're looking for information to fill in blanks in their term papers and don't always want to be bothered with reading the article.  Population information is one of those minimal pieces of information that the infobox is designed to provide for quick reference--like what country a particular city is in, who is the mayor, and how big it is.  "Sorry, but we haven't found that particular piece of information that you were hoping for even though we have looked" is a perfectly acceptable piece of summary information to place in the infobox, shortened to "No data".  We place footnotes on infobox entries all the time; it's not at all uncommon to explain where we got a particular piece of information, why that piece of information might be controversial, why we chose X piece rather than Y piece of information, etc.  I'm sorry, but using WP:VER in a form of rigid wikilegalistic tyranny without real regard to supplying what our readers are looking for in an easy and informative format is simply unacceptable.  When rigidity bucks up against usability, then usability should always win.  --Taivo (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no wish to optimize usability for non-readers over actual readers (more the reverse, actually). Kanguole 17:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But most of these articles have nothing in the text either. Leaving the info box blank means providing no info at all. Also, we do use "?" in other articles, e.g. biographies. Although "?" strikes me as unprofessional here, it's better than hiding our ignorance, which is not only unprofessional but a disservice to our readers. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I have no wish to optimize usability". Then you have no concept of the purpose of Wikipedia--a place where everyone can come to find useful information.  That attitude would have you thrown out of every technical communication job you might ever have.  It's not professional and not encyclopedic.  Wikipedia is not the playground for wikilawyers or elitists.  Indeed, the Fifth Pillar clearly states that there are no firm rules.  We can adjust content and presentation to fit the needs of our readers.  In the case of language population figures, it is an important piece of general information about every language, so should be displayed prominently in each language article--in the infobox.  When there is no reliable information on speaker numbers, then readers who are looking at the infobox can see that information quickly.  Forcing them to read an article in detail in order to find a piece of information that they might need to find quickly is counter to reader usability.  Unlike your elitist attitude, all our users are readers and they all must be treated with respect--including respect for their time.  --Taivo (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Taivo: Thanks for explaining what meaning you want to convey: “It would simply be a footnote indicating the major sources that were consulted (e.g., Ethnologue, Linguasphere [which gives an order of magnitude number], major grammars or publications, whatever, etc.) where one would expect to find population information, but failed. It’s a ‘we’re not just being lazy, we looked, we tried to find it, but it’s not there’ reference.” – The problem I have with this is that “no data” does not convey this meaning, because it does not explain that you only mean the “major sources” – Kanguole is correct in pointing out that it basically is “a boilerplate expansion of ‘?’”.


 * An example: The article Swiss Standard German lists more than two dozen sources. Most of them are written in German, and they probably amount to thousands of pages. Neither the Ethnologue nor Linguasphere or any major grammars are among them. I know quite a lot of them because I have studied the matter for many years, but I must admit that I have hardly read any of them entirely, so I for one cannot confirm that they contain no native speaker numbers. Which of these more than two dozen sources are the “major [...] publications” you are referring to? And how can you confirm that they do not contain any native speaker figures?


 * “As far as WP:VER is concerned, it’s not unusual in my experience to make ‘negative’ claims based on a lack of reliable sources, especially for linguistic comments.” – That is news to me. Please provide some examples. I would say that at best, WP:VER allows a statement that there is no mention of some fact in a specific source on a specific page. A general statement such as “no data” cannot be verified when it has no citation. The policy WP:VER repeats several times that the sources must “directly support” the material.


 * Neither you nor kwami have so far provided any evidence that the requirement for adding speaker numbers is more than your personal POV. You want to add this information, so it is your job to provide the evidence. To the contrary, the only evidence that you have provided so far – the analogy to the Ethnologue – does not support your POV, but refutes it, because the Ethnologue actually does not display any information the native speaker numbers when it has no information on the native speaker numbers. The analogy to biographical articles does not work, because biographical articles do not have native speaker numbers.


 * What an infobox displays should not depend on some editors’ POV. Please show that the requirement for a language article infobox to display something about native speaker numbers is more than your POV.


 * Providing evidence is really not my job since I am not the one who wants to put the material into the infobox. But since you do not provide any evidence for supporting your POV, let me provide some evidence that refutes it even more. Manual of Style/Infoboxes says that the purpose of an infobox is:


 * to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)


 * Your “no data” information, however, only appears in the infobox, and not in the article.


 * Citing from Manual of Style/Infoboxes:


 * Lack of information : Some items in infoboxes may not be readily available or not available at all, such as the producers of an album or film. In these cases it is better to provide available information  while concealing fields for which information may not be available.


 * There you have it: The MOS explicitly says that a field should be concealed when there is lack of information. You want to do the exact opposite of what the MOS says. The concealment of fields that lack information is reaffirmed a second time in Manual of Style/Infoboxes:


 * Any field that might reasonably be empty should probably be optional.


 * Citing from Manual of Style/Infoboxes:


 * If the material requires a reference (see WP:MINREF for guidelines) and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. However, editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article.


 * Please notice that Manual of Style/Infoboxes is undeniably highly relevant to the design of infoboxes. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 08:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I find Mach's demand for "evidence" humorous. We aren't talking about data such as whether Vladimir the Great was Ukrainian, Russian, or Klingon.  This is a discussion about how to format an infobox.  We are Wikipedia editors and our consensus is what is required, not "evidence".  You seem to be confused about what we are talking about here.  While your degree in wikilawyering is obviously from the best institute, the Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia is a clear statement to ignore all rules if it makes for a better encyclopedia.  Quoting reams of Wikipedia rules doesn't impress me.  Not one single time that I recall have you talked about usability for our readers.  That's far more important than your ability to quote obscure Wikipedia policies as if they are scripture.  Talk about usability and I'll listen on the edge of my seat; continue to be a wikilawyer and threaten to use WP:VER incessantly and I'll go back to sleep.  How does removing the tag "No data" (with an explanation either in a footnote or in the text or both) increase usability?  How does it help our readers?  I've cited a respect for our reader's time.  What have you suggested to help our readers?  --Taivo (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since neither Mach nor Kangoule seem to respect our readers by making this important piece of summary information easily accessible, perhaps one option would be to include a link to the relevant section of the article in the infobox. Instead of "No data" with a footnote, there would be a note "See relevant section of article" that they can easily click on and go to find the sentences that Kangoule wants them to read so badly.  If the article has no such section, then "No data" can remain until there is one.  --Taivo (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have very much talked about usability. I have repeated several times that the wording “no data” is unclear and ambiguous . That is why I think removing it helps readers and increases usability. And that is why I keep asking you to propose a better wording that would not affect usability. So far, you have not made a single proposal that works while Kanguole and me have made several ones.


 * Your proposal “there would be a note ‘See relevant section of article’ that they can easily click on” does not work because (a) we cannot make a link because we don’t know the name such a section would have and (b) the articles in question normally do not have such section – among the 124 language articles with  I found the day before yesterday (see User:J. 'mach' wust/sandbox), there is exactly one that has such a section: Ulster Scots dialects.


 * Please stop accusing me of wikilawyering. Wikilawyering means “[u]sing the rules in a manner contrary to their principles in order to ‘win’ editing disputes”. I am really not using the rules in a manner contrary to their principles. I am rather insisting we use them in accordance with their principles.


 * You apparently think that MOS:INFOBOX is not relevant for formatting this infobox, dismissing it as “obscure Wikipedia policies”. Please explain yourself: Why do you think that MOS:INFOBOX is not relevant for formatting this infobox?


 * If you continue unwilling to compromise – and I repeat: you are the only one who is blocking the compromise since even kwami would accept “no data in this article” – I am prepared to make a formal request for comment. I personally expect it would end in a clear vote not to display anything because that is what MOS:INFOBOX says – which means you would probably get a better deal if you compromise now instead of provoking a formal RFC. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 18:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You have never offered a compromise. I have offered several.  But you don't seem to think that "See X section" is workable because most articles don't contain such a section.  That undermines your and Kangoule's entire argument that users should read the text to get the information.  If the text doesn't contain the information they are looking for, then your arguments make no sense.  I was very clear--if the article doesn't contain such a section, then "No data" with a footnote would replace that.  That fulfills your point that "No data" alone is insufficient and satisfies the need for more detail about what "No data" means if there is no section of the article that fulfills that need.  And how is giving users nothing more usable and informative than telling them why there is no data?  That's simply a ridiculous comment.  You are claiming that telling them nothing is better than telling them why there is no data.  And using wikipedia rules to avoid building an actual consensus is wikilawyering.  Wikilawyering is an attempt to subvert the consensus process, which is far more important to Wikipedia than mindless rule-following.  When you ignore the Fifth Pillar of Wikipedia in favor of legalism, then you are certainly wikilawyering.  When you put legalism above reader usability you are certainly wikilawyering.  Kwami and I have offered multiple times ways to increase reader usability while your claims of "usability" by silence are laughable.  --Taivo (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't see a better solution than writing "this article does not contain any information regarding the number of speakers". The fact that it is a long sentence is not a very good reason not to include it in the infobox. , you should read the last paragraph of WP:OFFLINE. We also have the Wikiproject Fact and Reference Check. Peter238 (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Taivo: I am sorry for accusing you of not offering any compromises – sure you have. What I meant to say is that as far as I can see, you have not yet made any actual wording proposals that would express the meaning you are trying to convey (if I have overlooked such a wording proposal, please accept my apologies and kindly point me to it) – apart from wanting to keep “no data” and adding an optional footnote that would point to a section about speaker numbers if that section exists (maybe at the moment it exists only in the article Ulster Scots dialects). But as an actual wording proposal, I think the wording “no data” is not good enough because it is too unclear and ambiguous (see, , ). A wording that is unclear and ambiguous affects the usability for the reader because the reader can misunderstand it. Therefore, I think we need a better wording than “no data” – that is the compromise I am offering (I personally think we should display nothing at all): Display something, but please make it something that is not as unclear and ambiguous as the wording “no data”. I am really interested to know what actual wording you would propose that more clearly expresses the meaning you are trying to convey.


 * I personally think the wording you have used above would be a good solution, even though you did not intend it to be a proposal: “Sorry, but we haven’t found that particular piece of information that you were hoping for even though we have looked”, which we would probably display as: “Native speakers (Sorry, but we haven't found any data even though we have looked.)” I think it is better (and shorter) than: “Native speakers (This article does not contain any information regarding the number of speakers.)” The problem is that others probably would want to change it because it is not encyclopedic enough.


 * “If the text doesn’t contain the information they are looking for, then your arguments make no sense.” – I don’t agree. If the text does not contain any information, then the infobox should not contain any information either, see MOS:INFOBOX. That does not undermine my entire argument, but continues to be a part of it.


 * “You are claiming that telling them nothing is better than telling them why there is no data.” – I don’t agree with that comparison. All we are telling the readers is “Native speakers (no data)” – nobody is telling them “why there is no data”. If you want to tell the readers why there is no data, then please propose an actual wording that really tells the readers why there is no data. The wording “no data” is not sufficient for that. What better wording would you propose?


 * @Peter238: I know quite a lot of the offline sources of the article Swiss Standard German and I certainly know how to find them – I even might have added some of them myself. But I must admit that I have hardly read any of them in their entirety – and reading all of them in their entirety is what I would have to do if I wanted to verify that they contain “no data” regarding the number of native speakers. Verifying the absence of data is not something that can be done as easily as verifying a real citation. There is no way you can possibly provide any citation in the text that “directly supports” the absence of data – but such a citation is what WP:VER explicitly requires (and I think using IAR in order to subvert VER would be wikilawyering indeed). --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 23:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mach, you have gotten my proposal wrong. My proposal for languages that have no published data is this:
 * 1) In the infobox:  "Information about speaker numbers can be found in linked section name".
 * 2) If there is no section in the article, then in the infobox:  "No data" or "No data available" with a footnote that explains why.  Obviously, if we can write a footnote, then that information can be moved into the text of the article without a lot of effort and then option 1 applies.  There is absolutely nothing ambiguous or vague about "No data".
 * I don't agree with any weasel wording in the infobox that rambles on about "We're sorry, we can't find anything". The infobox wording should be simple and crisp:  "No data".  The footnote can explain our fruitless search or why census data in Switzerland fails to distinguish "German" from "Swiss".  --Taivo (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * “[...] with a footnote that explains why.” – My question to you is still the same: What words would you really use? Please make an actual proposal of a wording we could use (if I have overlooked such a wording proposal, please accept my apologies and kindly point me to it).


 * “There is absolutely nothing ambiguous or vague about ‘No data’.” – At this point of the discussion, merely repeating you POV is not helpful. Please answer the following questions:


 * A reader can (mis)understand the wording “no data” as ‘there are sources that verifiably affirm that there is no data’. What should your footnote really say in order to prevent this (mis)understanding?
 * An editor can (mis)understand the wording “no data” as ‘there are sources that verifiably affirm that there is no data’, and then go on to ask for these sources on the grounds of WP:VER. What should your footnote really say in order to prevent this (mis)understanding?


 * The weasel words I used were a quote from a post written by you . I know you did not intend them as a real wording proposal for the infobox, but rather as a description of the meaning you intend to convey. Assuming that you have not changed your mind in the meantime and that the meaning you are intending to convey is still described in the weasel words you have used, please consider the following question: Since the meaning you are intending to convey is described in weasel words, is it a good idea that we should convey this meaning at all? Using a superficially encyclopedic wording for conveying a meaning that is really described in weasel words seems not entirely honest. If you would no longer describe the meaning you are intending to convey with weasel words, then how would you describe it instead? That question might help you for proposing an actual wording to be used in your footnote. Please make a proposal: What words do you really want to use in your footnote? --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 15:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Footnote text
The footnote wording will depend on the particular situation of each language/dialect. What makes you think that all footnotes on this issue will be the same? I have never proposed wording for the footnote because they will all be different. The text of the infobox will be the same: "No data". Your demands for specific footnote wording are actually rather silly. Sorry to be blunt, but what makes you actually think that every situation will be identical? They won't be. Footnotes will contain whatever information is appropriate for the situation. If the footnote doesn't contain appropriate information to satisfy the wikilawyers or honest editors who simply wonder what "no data" means, then the editor can start a discussion on that page's Talk Page to fill in whatever information is necessary. The reason there are no data for Swiss German is different than the reason there are no data for some uncontacted tribe in Peru. Your demand for a standard wording is simply an attempt to push your own POV. And your entire last paragraph makes absolutely no sense. What is confusing about my proposal above? If you actually read my "weasel words" from two days ago, you would see that I finish that sentence with "shortened to 'no data'". You need to read the whole sentence. --Taivo (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that what you're proposing can be done with appropriate text in the speaker field of the infobox for a particular article, and I agree that this is a matter for discussion at the article concerned. It would have no effect on the coding of this template.  Kanguole 22:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is individual depending on the article. But rather than leaving the infobox blank, as has been proposed by others, the infobox should have a brief tag to lead readers to either a paragraph in the article ("See section X") or a footnote ("No data" or even "See footnote").  Including all the relevant information in the infobox or leaving the infobox empty without a direction marker negates the function of the infobox.  --Taivo (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * “[W]hat makes you actually think that every situation will be identical?” – That is easy: I understand how infoboxes work technically. When an infobox is set to display a particular wording if the value of speakers is set to , then it will necessarily display this particular wording in all articles that have ?, and the display will be exactly identical in all of these articles. There is no other way – that’s just how infoboxes works, whether you think it is silly or not. Of course you can replace   by whatever individual information when editing articles on an individual basis. But that is not what this discussion is about. This discussion is only about what to display identically in every article that has ?.


 * “What is confusing about my proposal above? If you actually read my ‘weasel words’ from two days ago, you would see that I finish that sentence with ‘shortened to “no data”’.  You need to read the whole sentence” . – Maybe the “weasel word” meaning you want to convey can be shortened to the wording “no data”. But that is a one-way operation. There is no way to assure that a reader will expand it back to the meaning you want to convey, not unless there is additional instruction. And we really have to think about the readers’ perspective here. It strikes me as quite odd that you have put so much emphasis on reader usability when you keep ignoring the impact on usability of the ambiguous wording “no data”. Sorry to be blunt, but this smacks of double standards. There are several ways a reader can understand the wording “no data”, for example the following (I notice now that these three are exactly the same Kanguole has presented six days ago ):


 * Sorry, but we haven't found that particular piece of information that you were hoping for even though we have looked (this is the meaning you want to convey).
 * There is no data about this particular piece of information in this article.
 * There is no data about this particular piece of information anywhere (this can be challenged on the grounds of WP:VER).


 * Can you propose any mitigating measures to fix the ambiguity of the wording “no data” so a reader will get the meaning you want to convey? (Please do not propose individualized footnotes again – I have now explained to you that they are technically impossible for the case of ? we are speaking about.)


 * “Including all the relevant information in the infobox or leaving the infobox empty without a direction marker negates the function of the infobox” . – That is only your personal POV about infobox functions. Which brings me back to another question you have still not answered: Why do you think MOS:INFOBOX does not apply to this infobox? --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 00:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Mach, we put individual footnote information in infoboxes all the time. There is absolutely no requirement that footnotes from infoboxes have to be identical.  I have offered a very reasonable proposal that Kanguole seemed to understand perfectly, but you don't seem to comprehend.  You ignore the fact that my "no data" proposal includes a footnote (that is tailored individually for each article).  You grab a quote or two, but completely ignore what it says or the sentence that follows it.  I have written at least four or five times now that "No data" should be followed by a footnote that explains what the problem is.  "Can you propose any mitigating measures to fix the ambiguity of the wording “no data” so a reader will get the meaning you want to convey?"  Yes, footnotes.  They are perfectly possible.  Here are some examples:  Comanche language; Shoshone; Republic of Macedonia.  All of these have individualized footnotes in the infoboxes.  --Taivo (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * “You ignore the fact that my ‘no data’ proposal includes a footnote (that is tailored individually for each article).” – I don’t understand. Are you now saying that we should not display anything as long as there is no footnote?
 * Of course individualized footnotes are possible, nobody has ever denied that. But they are impossible as long as an article has ?. And these articles are what we have been discussing all along. Please have another look at the articles you have just mentioned: None of them has ?. Individualized footnotes require that the individual articles be edited, not the infobox template (that is exactly what Kanguole said, by the way). --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 07:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Mach, but your continual inability to read and understand my simple proposal is frustrating, to say the least. You said above that individualized footnotes within infoboxes are not possible when you asked for specific wording on the footnote.  And I am saying that there should always be "No data" displayed in these articles, but that a footnote should also always be displayed.  Of course, there will be circumstances where a footnote has not been added yet, but these should be corrected based on discussions on the individual talk pages.  Individualized footnotes are not impossible at all in infoboxes.  And your "?" is not what I have proposed at any point.  It is you who are putting that question mark there.  I have always proposed "No data" as the text for the infobox.  If there is an infobox that contains a "?", it should be changed to "No data" and a footnote inserted explaining why there are no data presented.  And yes, individualized footnotes must be individually edited.  What is your point?  That you cannot write a computer program that will do your work for you?  Wikipedia is based on individual editors making individual edits.  So what?  Some articles that have a section in the text about why there are no population data, will require a different infobox text that points to the paragraph in the article.  Other articles will require their own footnotes.  That's life.  Wikipedia is not the mindless automaton that you want it to be.  It requires humans to physically edit things.  --Taivo (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems you really don’t understand how an infobox works. Maybe that is why this discussion is so pointless. When you want to use the infobox in an article, you have to add some code to the article source. Typically, the language infobox code includes lots of parameters. One of these parameters is speakers. When the speakers parameter is empty, nothing happens:

You can add anything you wish for to the speakers parameter, including footnotes. Nota bene, this has to happen in the code of the individual article you are adding the infobox to:

{{markup }} Mylingo is just an example.
 * {{Infobox language
 * name=Mylingo
 * speakers=No data about native speaker numbers exist.
 * date=2015