Template talk:Slavic languages

message: Molise Slavic is really the only name for this microlanguage I had ever heard, but never mind. I saw that the Wikipedia community had chosen to use Molise Croatian dialect as the name for the article and to have Molise Slavic language redirect there. But this "Croatian dialect" is nowhere mentioned in the whole article Croatian language, so it has to be mentioned in this template. However, the template lists languages, not dialects.  Consequently, if the template treated Molise Slavic as a Croatian dialect, then it could nowhere be found, not even via Croatian language.  Therefore please either treat Molise Slavic in the article Croatian language or let us use the name Molise Slavic at least in the template (as non-Croatian scholars like Aleksandr Duličenko or Peter Rehder usually do). --Daniel Bunčić 17:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should really be called Molise Slavic or Molise Slavic language, but Croatian Wikipedians would have us think otherwise. - FrancisTyers · 18:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed "Molise Slavic" to "Molise Croatian". I just applied the name of the page itself, just like it's case with other 36 links in the template. --Ante Perkovic 09:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molise Slavic 

message: Oh, please.  That discussion is definitely decided. Bosnian is both the official name of that language (if it is a language; in my personal opinion it isn't, but that's not the question here) according to the Dayton Agreement and the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the most common one in English. See the long discussion at Talk:Bosnian language#Naming. --Daniel Bunčić 17:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bosnian vs. Bosniac 

message: Many "languages" here beside Montenegrin are disputed (Bosnian, Bunjevac, even Croatian), as there are not only true languages listed here, but dialects as well (Old Novgorod dialect, Banat Bulgarian). Therefore, it is not neccessary to mention that Montenegrin is disputed as a separate language. This template is a list of many Slavonic languages, dialects, and speeches. --Djordje D. Bozovic 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montenegrin disputed 

message: Doncsecz, please stop edit-warring and discuss the content of this page. Provide some scholarly references for your position instead of your personal opinions. I suggest that you start with these recent works:
http://books.google.si/books?id=G2bsJdYrwD4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false (page 2)
http://books.google.si/books?id=5hOtPBF6XWwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=indo-european+language+and+culture&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false (pages 375–378)
Check the books out from your nearest library. If you cannot support your position with verifiable sources, then please stop contributing to this template. Doremo (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you come with the articles of Cambridge University. In the Slavic era other the assignment. The Russian linguist and other Slavic linguists class to the Banat Bulgarian, Prekmurian, Burgenland Croatian languages in this group, as every one had standard language, literature. Besides the Prekmurian, and Banat language was educational language in the schools and churchs, while the Gradišće (Burgenland) language also today is language of the schools and liturgy in Burgenland and Hungary. In my University educate to the language of Croatians in West-Hungary and Burgenland. Not likely, that Cambridge University ken to the Prekmurian, Banat and Burgenland-Croatian languages, but i reckon if come to know, probably not disregard. Doncsecztalk 10:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Duličenko's book in german: Das Banater-Bulgarische (1998), also discuss to the separateness of the Banat Bulgarian language. For the present i have no russian book with me, where went the prekmurian language, but Ágoston Pável also was class to, like notable separate Slavic dialect (language). Doncsecztalk 11:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Here a new solution: new group of the separate dialects and disputed languages. Separate the Prekmurian, Resian, Banat Bulgarian, Gradišće languages, disputed the Šokac and Bunjevac. And Doremo: you be a stranger, that what dogmas was in the communistic Yugoslavia on the score of the solid language. Overall was efface to this old traditional regional languages, allude to the internationalism, the "Solid Yugoslav nation," the Magyarization, and other. Doncsecztalk 15:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Gospoud moj! See the sources in the article of Prekmurian! And to top it all Ágoston Pável was appreciated, salient learned, i build upon him. Doncsecztalk 16:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

text: It is an old story that is still relevant. Good WP content is based on verifiable sources (Wikipedia:Verifiability), and you have not provided any. "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies," and you are refusing to provide anything except edit-warring to back up your position. Your edits are not verifiable, they contradict standard scholarly literature, and you have not defended them in any meaningful way. You should delete them. Doremo (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template content 

message: I would strongly suggest you people stop editwarring over Serbo-Croatian, Montenegrin etc. This is a navigation template, for heaven's sake, not a political pamphlet! Its purpose is to give links to the Slavic languages as well as the major Slavic dialects and microlanguages, just to facilitate navigating between them. This is surely not the place for all kinds of statements regarding who disputes what. Nobody denies that Upper and Lower Sorbian are two separate languages, but I haven't heard anybody complaining about them being grouped together between brackets under a common header. The same should also go for Serbo-Croatian, BCMS, or whatever anybody wants to call it. That is completely justified since all four standard languages are nearly identical to each other. This is definitely not the place to fight for the emancipation of whatever language or dialect, simply because that is not what this template is for. —IJzeren Jan  Uszkiełtu? 01:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Kubura, we've been over this for a billion times. Stop vandalizing and find something useful to do instead. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The same old story... 

message: Shouldn't Slovianski be listed as part of the Pan-Slavic languages? Gringo300 (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Slovianski

message: Why is it that this template has more info about philology unlike the templates for Celtic, Germanic and Romance languages? -- PK2 (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to add relevant material to the Celtic, Germanic, and Romance templates. Doremo (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. -- PK2 (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  addition of philology in template 

message: It has to be written italic in the table. How to do this? It would be good to have the languages that have once been clustered into Serbo-Croatian first and then Serbo-Cratian in the brickets and italic behind them.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Umno22 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Talk:Serbo-Croatian, recurring themes in the talk header (common name). Doremo (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbo-Croatian does not exist anymore