List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language: And it fails WP:LSC (as noted since last August).  It's just one big mess that hasn't been fixed for over a decade, and may not be fixable.  The "number of countries' where language X is official just doesn't seem that relevant in the first place. It's not some "competition". I see no use for this list whatsoever. Edit: The best solution might be WP:TNT because of WP:NOW , and wait for someone to start over properly and show with WP:RS that there is a purpose for this list, rather than us struggling to find a purpose amongst this (seemingly useless) mess. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 12:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Law . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 12:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment List of countries by the number of recognized official languages seems like a closely related list which is properly supported by WP:RS , but its scope and added value are equally dubious. It may be worth comparing the two. If the sheer number of languages is regarded as irrelevant, then I suppose that list should be AfD'd next. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 12:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : can't see any reason to delete this, and the reasons given are a confused mess. On sources, I've added a couple of citations; obviously, it'd be nice to have more, but there is no doubt that sources exist. The charge of OR appears entirely misplaced. Cleanup is never a reason for deletion. On the supposed "vagueness", the list selection criterion is razor-sharp: it is quite clear from the text what belongs here; and the purpose seems entirely encyclopedic, these are on one view the world's major languages. If we deleted all poorly-cited lists from Wikipedia ... the encyclopedia would be a lot smaller and less informative. Chiswick Chap ( talk ) 15:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] there is no doubt that sources exist WP:MUSTBESOURCES The charge of OR appears entirely misplaced Why? E.g. the fact that Partially recognized or de facto independent countries like Artsakh, which is recognised by zero UN member states , are presented here as sovereign countries in the lead section, is a massive WP:OR / WP:SYNTH problem. Cleanup is never a reason for deletion True, not in itself; I guess I should have said WP:NOW or WP:TNT instead. It's been a mess towards our readers for over a decade and nobody has fixed it, so it's better delete and allow for the possibility to start over, if at all. list selection criterion is razor-sharp then what does "recognized" and "official language" mean? Is "Greek" "recognized" as an "official language" in "Italy", for example? Depends on your definitions of those four variables. I could make an argument either way. The fact that it says de jure or de facto official is already a major stumbling block. the world's major languages since when is that the scope of the list? It just says "languages". And what makes you think the current list is representative? I can name a couple of languages which, depending on definitions, are "recognized" as "official languages" in more than 2 "countries", but are not in this list. If we deleted all poorly-cited lists from Wikipedia WP:OTHERSTUFF . Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 18:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This belongs in an encyclopedia.  If you sincerely doubt any of the information, you can click on any nation and see what official languages it has. D r e a m Focus 15:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This belongs in an encyclopedia WP:BELONG . If you sincerely doubt any of the information, you can click on any nation and see Articles should normally be able to provide references for their own claims and not rely on other articles to do the work ( WP:CIRC ). An exception could be made for easily verifiable list memberships per WP:CSC #1, but in this case it's more complicated than that. The example I gave above illustrates that: Is "Greek" "recognized" as an "official language" in "Italy"? Depends on your definitions of those four variables. I could make an argument either way. Without clear criteria, anyone could reach opposite conclusions. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 18:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Chiswick. -- Nerd1a4i (they/them) ( talk ) 16:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of official languages by country and territory , and for the love of the gods, rename to something more sensible (just plain List of official languages would make more sense -- that list can also be subsumed in the "by country" one).  This specific cross-categorization doesn't seem to be particularly notable on its own, and this is essentially just a re-collating of the information already present in the main article, simply ordered by the number of occurrences.  It's a fairly small table that can comfortably fit in the main article, and we don't need separate lists for every single possible "by Y" , especially when the "by Y" doesn't seem to be a particularly notable categorization. 35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 17:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm open to merging, but we'll have to come up with a sustainable way of doing that. More here if you're interested: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#List of official languages and List of official languages by country and territory . Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 18:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment it's an odd list, some countries aren't recognized by others, yet are in the list (South Ossetia), so I'm not sure we can keep the list without some clear guidelines. Oaktree b ( talk ) 22:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of official languages by country and territory . Aggregating this information by number doesn't really add any significant information. Also, there's a lot of potential apples and oranges here: What is the criterion for inclusion of countries with minimal recognition by UN countries? Is the same definition of "official language" applied for every entry? (not an academic question; the OP and I are currently discussing the status of Dutch based on differing definitions of "official language") What does "recognized" mean here? If an official language is only de facto official (which according to some definitions is a contradictio eo ipso, s. point 2), where does its "recognition" come from if not by some kind of legal regulation, which would turn it de jure official? What about pluricentric languages that are single language from a descriptive linguistic viewpoint, but are distinct by the very criterion that we use here, i.e. official status? E.g. Hindustani (aka Hindi–Urdu) is not an official language anywhere in the world: it's Hindi in India and Urdu in Pakistan. When used for offcial purposes, they are very distinct from each other. The same holds for Malay: the Standard Malay of Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore is quite different from the Standard Malay- based national language of Indonesia in the official context; in Indonesia, the term "Malay" is only used for vernacular varieties of Malay which are considered regional languages. While AFD is not about cleanup, I consider this list per se unmaintainable as it requires universally accepted criteria that simply don't exist. In a non-aggregated form (e.g. the proposed merge target), we can at least add notes to specify the details about how a language X is considered official in country Y, or use parentheses for problematic cases. – Austronesier ( talk ) 11:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Austronesier completely agree with all points you made. As I said above, I'm open to merging, but we'll have to come up with a sustainable way of doing that. I've made a point about that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#List of official languages and List of official languages by country and territory . I'd love your input. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 15:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment There seems to be general consensus that the countries listed as partially recognized or de facto independent are Palestine , Kosovo , Taiwan , Western Sahara , Northern Cyprus , Abkhazia , South Ossetia , Transnistria , Artsakh and Somaliland Atavoidturk ( talk ) 16:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What do you mean 'There seems to be general consensus'? The list just currently mentions these items, there is no 'consensus' anywhere that it should list exactly these items. This is just WP:OR . Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 16:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] i don't think this is formalized at all, and likely is a case of circular referencing, but this is general what i have seen cited as the partially recognized or de facto countries on the internet. c.f. List of partially recognized states , Montevideo Convention , Declarative theory of statehood Atavoidturk ( talk ) 13:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Alright, well if that is true we need WP:RS for it. As far as I know, the usual standard for statehood is being a UN member state, and being recognised by most other UN member states. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 21:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge to List of official languages by country and territory as an editorial decision.  Cleanup is needed, but I agree that "this is the type of list that should be in an encyclopedia".  The likes of Babbel and World Atlas discuss this topic.  And while there is an argument those are PR-driven blog posts, it is still coverage that I could not find for List of largest languages without official status . Walt Yoder ( talk ) 00:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. We'd have a consensus if "keep or merge" was an option for a close. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: If we are going for a Merge, I think we shouldn't just look at these 2 lists. There are about 22 wildly WP:OVERLAPping WP:REDUNDANTFORK lists/sections about "official languages" on English Wikipedia right now. I'm trying to get people interested in seeing the broader picture of potential Merge options here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#List of official languages and List of official languages by country and territory . Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 06:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or delete: I'm unconvinced by the arguments that this can be kept and still be encyclopedic, even if rewritten. What counts as an "official language" or a "country" is too disputable/inconsistent to be the basis of quantification as suggested here. ( t · c ) buidhe 00:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 13:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus is still unclear… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I think the proposed merge target is different enough that they don't have to be combined, though that is still preferable to deletion. I think the "official" standards use are appropriate but can be subject to normal discussion. Reywas92 Talk 13:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Reywas92 I'm open to certain mergers, but then we should do it properly. If you're interested in further merge discussions, please come and have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#List of official languages and List of official languages by country and territory , where I'm trying to address issue in its entirety. This list is just a symptom of the larger problem. You input is appreciated. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 15:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Dronebogus For you the same invitation. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 07:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with List of official languages because it seems like information that can be covered there. No need to duplicate stuff at weird alternate titles. Dronebogus ( talk ) 06:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Boldly relisting for a 3rd time to come to consensus on keep or merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 00:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or just redirect , per Austronesier and others above, without prejudice to any future general RfC on our official-languages-list coverage. While this seems like a naturally interesting topic and some sources have been added, the lack of cited sources about the topic (i.e. about ranking languages in this particular manner) raises considerable LISTN and maintainability questions. There are a lot of thorny problems around "what is a country", "what is a language", and "what is official" that would need to be grappled with in a coherent way for the totals in the list to be meaningful.  And the fact that the list hasn't been maintained for lo these many years is a pretty strong indication that it isn't suddenly going to be maintained.  Merging seems a bit suboptimal here given the size and unwieldiness of the lists, but perhaps there is a sensible way to whittle it down.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 02:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge I lean keep per Reywas92.  I'd also note that this AfD shouldn't apply to any RfCs regarding language information per Visviva.  SportingFlyer T · C 11:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Visviva I agree with pretty much everything you say.  Did you see that I am making preparations for an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Official languages lists ?  Because I hadn't mentioned it here so far, and you haven't commented on it (yet), but you seem to be aware of it.  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 16:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think I must have followed the link you posted to WT:WikiProject Lists and read your pre-RfC discussion there.  I didn't realize you hadn't mentioned it here.  (Regarding your question just below,  what I think both SportingFlyer and I are saying is that whatever the outcome of this AFD might be, it shouldn't constrain the possible outcomes of the RfC. At least that's what I meant.)-- Visviva ( talk ) 17:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ah ok, now I understand, thanks!!  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 17:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SportingFlyer What do you mean by this AfD shouldn't apply to any RfCs regarding language information per Visviva ?  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 16:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If there's a subsequent RfC saying this shouldn't be on the site, this AfD's result could be ignored if kept.  SportingFlyer T · C 22:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for clarifying!  Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk ) 01:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  I cannot tell exactly which article to merge it to, but I’m supportive of Nederlandse Leeuw’s efforts to rationalise this cluster of related articles.  Barnards.tar.gz ( talk ) 21:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge