File talk:Lenguas centromeridionales.png

Central-Southern Italian family

I've checked in various texts, and it wouldn't be a language family but a language area, and that doesn't include Tuscan, just the Middle and Southern languages. --Chiorbone da Frittole (留言) 10:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chiorbone da Frittole: You have changed the purpose of File:Lenguas centromeridionales.png . I think that is it not good. I suggest you to undo your edits on File:Lenguas centromeridionales.png and create a new file File:Lenguas centromeridionales 2.png with your map. Visite fortuitement prolongée (留言) 16:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

What happens is that the users of wikipedia in Spanish used the "centromeridional" name in a geographical sense equivalent to the Italo-romance group used by ethnologue to group the Tuscan + southern varieties that do form a phylogenetic group. I know what the linguistic area is but we are not referring to the linguistic area with this name. It would be necessary to distinguish well the terms languages group ​​and linguistic area. Álvarez589 (留言) 21:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

What happened has created enormous confusion so far, this map is unsourced and completely invented. "Centromeridional" in a geographical sense equivalent to the Italo-romance group doesn't make any sense. Central-Southern in Italy is a linguistic area that includes only "italiano centrale" or "mediano" and "Italiano meridionale" e "meridionale estremo", and doesn't include either Tuscan nor modern Italian. If it is restored I will ask for deletion. You can find all the details in Treccani, Italy's leading encyclopedia, in a fairly up-to-date article from 2010. Both Ethnologue and Glottolog contain numerous errors. I can create a new file File:Lenguas centromeridionales 2.png with the fixed map as suggested, but this map as it was just doesn't make sense to exist on Wikipedia. Source: aree linguistiche di Ugo Vignuzzi - Enciclopedia dell'Italiano - Treccani (2010) [1] --Chiorbone da Frittole (留言) 00:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Álvarez589: You wanted to restore a version that is unsourced and completely made up, so it is only fair that it be deleted. --Chiorbone da Frittole (留言) 00:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not know how to solve this problem that we had in Spanish Wikipedia but we can change the name of the image to "Lenguas italorromances" if you like. What we do know is that we are not referring to the linguistic area. Álvarez589 (留言) 00:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course, it would be better "Lenguas italorromances" than now which is a linguistic area that does not include Tuscan and its derivatives. But even with "Lenguas italorromances" you would have other problems, namely that the Italoromance languages may include also languages of northern Italy. Take a look at the page in Italian "Lingue italo-romanze" [2]. I can't tomorrow, but by Sunday, if you'd like, I can help you look for updated sources to settle the matter. --Chiorbone da Frittole (留言) 01:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I already knew that Italo-Romance also referred to all the Romance languages ​​of Italy, but there are also other names for this family such as "South Romance" according to Koryakov [3] [Koryakov Y.B. Atlas of Romance languages. Moscow, 2001] or "Italo-Sicilian" as mentioned in the Spanish wikipedia but I did not find the source about. You should also correct the term in the Spanish wikipedia to avoid this confusion. Álvarez589 (留言) 01:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Never heard of "Italo-Sicilian" and neither of "South Romance" but I knew that work of Koryakov. I had already corrected the term in the Spanish article, if I'm not mistaken. I'll look at it from Sunday. --Chiorbone da Frittole (留言) 01:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

For me the correct term is "Italorromance" since in this article the authors make a distinction, [4] they do not know whether to classify "Gallo-italic" as Gallo-Romance or Italo-Romance referring to the group of the Tuscan + southern varieties. You can also see this page [5] of the Italian wikipedia. I think what happens is that these terms have different definitions that have changed over the years, for example the Ibero-Romance languages ​​originally included Catalan and Aragonese but now they are included in the group of Occitan-Romance languages ​​with Occitan. I think this would be the appropriate term to rename the image and not delete it. Álvarez589 (留言) 16:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand that you are trying to find a solution, but the article with link (Tamburelli and Brasca 2018) you included as a source is a recent proposal; it does not represent the mainstream view of all linguists, so much so that it includes for example the Venetian among the Gallo-Italic which is a very controversial attribution. The Italian Wikipedia article on Gallo-Italic languages is very poor, so much so that there is a warning at the top of the page about the problems the article has with sources. The point is that there is no unanimous consensus on the classification of the languages spoken in Italy, and a Wikipedia article should mention this. I quickly read the Spanish article you renamed, and I think you are trying to impose a point of view (I repeat, I have never seen the wording Italo-Sicilian, and even if it did exist and is supported by some linguists, it's very fringe terminology) and that is very different from the current Italo-Romance entry in Italian [6]. The Spanish article in some parts in my opinion is right on the edge of the original research (For example, without any real motivation and sources, the definition of the Italo-Dalmatian language family is challenged). The article should have much more detached and neutral tone. It's linguistics, it's not exact science at all. --Chiorbone da Frittole (留言) 02:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)