Template talk:Infobox country languages

Sign languages so low down...

Why oh why are sign languages relegated to the literal bottom of the list, below even immigrant and foreign languages?! This is an explicit effort to demote the role and place sign languages have in society, and it should be corrected. In my view, sign languages should be two up, above both foreign and immigrant languages but below vernacular ones. Remember, sign languages and oral languages are the same: Both categories include vast numbers of diverse, unrelated and inter-related languages. Indeed, sign languages can be immigrant/foreign languages just like oral languages can. For example, prior to the shift to Auslan, British Sign Language was an immigrant/foreign language to the Australian continent, which is home to around two dozen manual Indigenous languages. Same example, Irish Sign Language was also an immigrant/foreign language which has since shifted to become Australian Irish Sign Language.

Please, someone who can do so, fix this! Sign languages should not be relegated to the bottom of the list.

Danachos (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Keyboard layout parameter

I realize that this parameter has been in this infobox for a long time, but is it really necessary? Infoboxes are supposed to be a summation of key important information, not every true fact. A tiny picture of a keyboard doesn't seem relevant enough for the infobox. In my opinion, the parameter should be deprecated and removed. SnowFire (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Extinct languages

Is the intent of this infobox template only to include living languages within a country? I raised this question on Talk:Languages of New Zealand where I had removed Moriori from the infobox and it was pointed out that extinct languages are not necessarily excluded from the infobox, which they appear not to be. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Official language parameter

What is and is not an official language is a constant cause of edit wars. It also results in different approaches being made in different articles. The ibx parameter doesn't help. The usual compromise is to label a language either de facto or de jure. However, this is not ideal either because it treats the two as equal but different or, in some cases, it results in over an anaylised illogical result (eg the UK doesn't have an official language). It can therefore result in some people adamently stating that if it isn't in writing it isn't official (ie only the second meaning is valid, as for the USA.) The problem is that official has two distinctly different meanings which, when applied to a language results in two quite different concepts that cannot be viewed as variations of the same thing. Meaning one is the language used by officials to run the country and meaning two is what a written law or constitution says is official. The parameter does not exclusively cater for either meaning which causes the disputes and the lack of clarity that WP should strive to eliminate. I suggest that a second parameter is created, one for each version. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Would this resolve the disputes though, do you think? Pages like Languages of Mexico appears to be using "national language" to mean the "de facto official" language. How should these two labels be treated? — HTGS (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)