Jump to content

Talk:Sanskrit: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Yeshehat (talk | contribs)
26 edits
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(72 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
⚫
{{Calm}}
{{Article history|action1=FAC
{{Article history|action1=FAC
|action1date=15:50, 10 Jan 2005
|action1date=15:50, 10 Jan 2005
Line 36: Line 37:
|topic=language and literature
|topic=language and literature
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject India|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject India|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Languages|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Languages|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Nepal|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Nepal|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Pakistan|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Bangladesh|class=B|importance=mid
{{WikiProject Bangladesh|importance=Mid}}
⚫
{{WikiProject Hinduism |importance=Mid}}
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes}}
⚫
{{WikiProject Hinduism |class=B |importance=Mid}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Society|class=B}}
}}
}}
⚫
{{Calm}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation|noredlinks=y}}
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation|noredlinks=y}}
Line 63: Line 57:
{{Annual readership |width=570 |days=182}}
{{Annual readership |width=570 |days=182}}
{{backwardscopy|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Ti4qAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Though+they+are+quite+similar,+they+differ+in+a+number+of+essential+points+of%22&dq=%22Though+they+are+quite+similar,+they+differ+in+a+number+of+essential+points+of%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_tOQUeK5FIq08QTKvIGwCA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ|title=Encyclopedia of Sanskrit Literature|author=Mamta Pandey|date=2008|comments=Content appears in the article prior to the year of publication of the book. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 12:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)}}
{{backwardscopy|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Ti4qAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Though+they+are+quite+similar,+they+differ+in+a+number+of+essential+points+of%22&dq=%22Though+they+are+quite+similar,+they+differ+in+a+number+of+essential+points+of%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_tOQUeK5FIq08QTKvIGwCA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ|title=Encyclopedia of Sanskrit Literature|author=Mamta Pandey|date=2008|comments=Content appears in the article prior to the year of publication of the book. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 12:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>[[Languages with official status in India#Eighth Schedule to the Constitution|Eighth Schedule languages]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Eighth Schedule to the Constitution) has been [[Special:Diff/888697138|deleted by other users]] before. <!-- {"title":"Eighth Schedule to the Constitution","appear":{"revid":405214116,"parentid":403888648,"timestamp":"2010-12-31T20:22:46Z","replaced_anchors":{"The language of Parliamentary proceedings and laws":"Parliamentary proceedings and laws","The language of Union-State and interstate communication":"Union-State and interstate communication"},"removed_section_titles":["The language of Parliamentary proceedings and laws","The language of the judiciary","The language of administration","Official language implementation","Official languages at the state level","The language of the legislature and administration","The language of the judiciary","Languages currently used In Indian states and union territories","The languages of the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution","The language of Union-State and interstate communication"],"added_section_titles":["Parliamentary proceedings and laws","Judiciary","Administration","Implementation","State level","Legislature and administration","State judiciary","Indian states and union territories","Eighth Schedule to the Constitution","Union-State and interstate communication"]},"disappear":{"revid":888697138,"parentid":888688827,"timestamp":"2019-03-20T20:06:23Z","removed_section_titles":["Eighth Schedule to the Constitution"],"added_section_titles":[]}} -->
* <nowiki>[[Languages with official status in India#Eighth Schedule to the Constitution|the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Eighth Schedule to the Constitution) has been [[Special:Diff/888697138|deleted by other users]] before. <!-- {"title":"Eighth Schedule to the Constitution","appear":{"revid":405214116,"parentid":403888648,"timestamp":"2010-12-31T20:22:46Z","replaced_anchors":{"The language of Parliamentary proceedings and laws":"Parliamentary proceedings and laws","The language of Union-State and interstate communication":"Union-State and interstate communication"},"removed_section_titles":["The language of Parliamentary proceedings and laws","The language of the judiciary","The language of administration","Official language implementation","Official languages at the state level","The language of the legislature and administration","The language of the judiciary","Languages currently used In Indian states and union territories","The languages of the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution","The language of Union-State and interstate communication"],"added_section_titles":["Parliamentary proceedings and laws","Judiciary","Administration","Implementation","State level","Legislature and administration","State judiciary","Indian states and union territories","Eighth Schedule to the Constitution","Union-State and interstate communication"]},"disappear":{"revid":888697138,"parentid":888688827,"timestamp":"2019-03-20T20:06:23Z","removed_section_titles":["Eighth Schedule to the Constitution"],"added_section_titles":[]}} -->
}}
{{blarn|Sahitya|2024-03-04}}

⚫
== Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2024 ==

⚫
{{Edit semi-protected|Sanskrit|answered=yes}}
'''Remove note j and its associated reference 121.''' Note j is irrelevant to its sentence's meaning, and ref 121 has no other usages on the page.

The note's sentence ("...suggests that by the start of the common era, hardly anybody other than learned monks had the capacity to understand the old Prakrit languages...") refers to the "start of the [[common era]]", which was a couple millennia ago, but ethnologue.com, the website of ref 121, only documents ''current'' language status, which means the reference is irrelevant. Pali's current status says nothing about its status 2000 years ago.


(Side note: ref 121's link is broken, and the correct link for Pali (https://www.ethnologue.com/language/pli/) now lists it as "endangered" instead of "extinct", which means note j is not just irrelevant, but unsupported by its reference.) [[User:SashaBerkman|SashaBerkman]] ([[User talk:SashaBerkman|talk]]) 12:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:SashaBerkman|SashaBerkman]] I removed the note. [[User:Asteramellus|Asteramellus]] ([[User talk:Asteramellus|talk]]) 12:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> <span style="font-family:Arial;background-color:#fff;border:2px dashed#69c73e">[[User:Cowboygilbert|<span style="color:#3f6b39">'''Cowboygilbert'''</span>]] - [[User talk:Cowboygilbert|<span style="color:#d12667"> (talk) ♥</span>]]</span> 02:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

== Introduction ==

The introduction to the article on Sanskrit is nearly illegible. An introduction should be a concise synthesis -- clear, easy to understand, and memorable -- that prepares the reader for what follows and sparks curiosity to learn more.


Instead, it presents a visually cluttered and dense paragraph, difficult to read and even harder to grasp and retain.


This issue is widespread across Wikipedia. If not addressed, the encyclopedia risks being gradually supplanted by alternatives that offer a better reading experience. [[Special:Contributions/2A01:CB1C:854A:D400:99CA:8F1E:4111:1742|2A01:CB1C:854A:D400:99CA:8F1E:4111:1742]] ([[User talk:2A01:CB1C:854A:D400:99CA:8F1E:4111:1742|talk]]) 00:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:Hathibada Brahmi Inscription at Nagari, Hinduism Sanskrit India.jpg|Hathibada Brahmi Inscription at Nagari, Hinduism Sanskrit India.jpg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-07-29T10:37:32.569690 | Hathibada Brahmi Inscription at Nagari, Hinduism Sanskrit India.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hathibada Brahmi Inscription at Nagari, Hinduism Sanskrit India.jpg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 10:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


:If you have suggestions, you can request suggested changes here. [[User:Asteramellus|Asteramellus]] ([[User talk:Asteramellus|talk]]) 18:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
== [[MOS:ERA]] ==


== Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2024 ==
This article has long used CE/BCE to refer to the eras. A few hours back {{User|Prophet of Truth and Knowledge}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanskrit&type=revision&diff=1112136284&oldid=1111814018 changed that to AD/BC] throughout the article with the edit-summary "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanskrit&diff=prev&oldid=1112135860 If people are offended by the gregorian calender then they're free to use other calenders."]. I reverted their edit and informed them about the relevant guideline [[MOS:ERA]], which says {{tq|An article's established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content; seek consensus on the talk page first (applying {{section link|Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Retaining existing styles}}) by opening a discussion under a heading using the word ''era'', and briefly stating why the style should be changed.}} Unfortunately, instead of following that advice they simply reerted back to their preferred version. So I am starting this discussion to give them an oppurtunity to explain their edit-warring and so that others can chime in. [[User:Abecedare|Abecedare]] ([[User talk:Abecedare|talk]]) 00:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
:Hmm. "Long" but not always - it was begun using BC/AD & used that for many years until a no doubt undiscussed and illegal change in late 2007. As I'm sure you know, that is a factor under [[WP:ERA]]. Personally, I generally prefer BC, but used to use BCE on Indian articles until I realised that a high proportion of Indian readers don't know what it means (sometimes they ask). Now I use BC (mostly). [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 01:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
:CE/BCE is modern usage used worldwide in all English language academic sources. Style guides for journal and book submissions require them.
:If some Indian readers know "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini," their knowledge of Christ (let alone Latin) is rote. In other words, the proportion of Christians who know Latin in the Indian population is small. Similarly, some aging Indians very likely know SOS (Save Our Soul) or E&OE (Errors and Omissions Excepted), or at least that is what authors such as Salman Rushdie and his clones&mdash;who have made their careers parodying Indian English for Western readers&mdash;think they know.
:The use of BC and AD in an article such as Sanskrit, which predates all notions of Christianity or the Gregorian calendar by more than a millennium, would be doubly meaningless. [[George Cardona]], for example, in the Britannica article "Sanskrit language," uses only one notation: "the Rigveda (“The Veda Composed in Verses”), which scholars generally ascribe to approximately 1500 BCE. ... one of the finest grammars ever produced, the Aṣṭādhyāyī (“Eight Chapters”) composed by Pāṇini (c. 6th–5th century BCE). ... known from the time of Kātyāyana (4th–3rd century BCE) ... the pinnacle of which is represented by the Vākyapadīya (“Treatise on Sentence and Word”) of Bhartṛhari (late 6th–7th century CE)" and so forth. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 10:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
::"CE/BCE is modern usage used worldwide in all English language academic sources. Style guides for journal and book submissions require them." is not actuially true - always. The point is not ''what'' Indians understand about the origin of BC/AD, but that they do understand it as an era style, whereas only those expensively educated in English are very likely to understand BCE/CE, which, as you know perfectly well, they will not encounter in the Indian media. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
:::"as you know perfectly well, they will not encounter in the Indian media"
:::I'm not aware that I do know. I hardly ever read the Indian media, preferring the NY Times, Washington Post, Guardian, the Times of London, Le Monde, Sydney Morning Herald, Toronto Star, and Lord knows a few others before I even deign to employ The Hindu as a source. See [[2020 Delhi riots]] or my latest effort in the lead of [[Cheetah reintroduction in India]]. The Indian media is not reliable.
:::But you are correct about one point. The NCERT textbooks, the ones that see India-wide use, and by no means in expensive English medium private schools only, do use [https://ncert.nic.in/textbook.php?lehs1=2-4 BCE/CE] in English, but they also use [https://ncert.nic.in/textbook.php?luth1=2-4 ''taqreeban qabl masih'' and ''isvi''] in Urdu (taqreeban = approximately, qabl = before, masih = messiah, isvi = of the isa = Jesus as in the "I" of INRI, hearkening to the earliest times). I wouldn't change it in Urdu, not because the Urdu speakers are used to it, but because a link to a past and heritage will be lost upon changing, in other words precisely because the Urdu speakers do understand the origins of BC/AD. Had the English conventions been Ante Messiah and Anno Domini, I would have been less likely to oppose them, because they too would have been a link to a past and heritage that "Before Christ" is not, in the same way that the King James Version is and the Revised Standard Version is not (when it comes to the heritage of the language). Its too late in English usage. BCE/CE is here to stay. Once you make the changes, there's no going back. Anyway, thank you for your observation that seems to be borne out in the NCERT text books. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 13:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
::::Sadly "Once you make the changes, there's no going back" is usually true on WP, but this is entirely due to American cultural imperialism, and nothing else. Actually the [[Canadian Museum of History]] did make the change and a few years later (in 2013) reversed it, because even in Canada not enough of the general population were familiar enough with BCE, see [[Common Era]]. They continued with BCE in the scholarly publications, and if WP was a scholarly effort, I'd be happy to always use BCE. But it isn't - policy is very clear on that. You seem very hung up on the historical/cultural nuances, but the crucial point for any shorthand term of this sort is, do people understand it readily? [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
:::::That may be where we part ways. I'm not devoted to Wikipedia or its policies, only to the best scholarly sources and their consensus. I see WP as a means to disseminate the consensus of the best scholarly sources. One of the big problems on Wikipedia (i.e. one of the main reasons that it is not considered reliable) is that a large number of people have mastered policy but are clueless about scholarly consensus. They think that truth on Wikipedia is what is determined by an RfC in which a nominator can pull it out (like a [[Saturday night special]] in a Chicago bar) at will at the slightest altercation and perform a long drawn out smoke and mirrors show in the hope that the clueless WPians will [[vote early and vote often]]. I mean look at all the Indian or India-POV editors who edit Pakistan-, Afghanistan-, Tibet- and Central Asia-related pages and have turned those pages into nightmarish caricatures. Anyway, I better stop. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 16:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
::<small>Can we hat/archive this section quickly? Most of the edits made by that account are era style changes, and the best way to deal with [[WP:NOTHERE]]-editors is [[WP:DENY]]. –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 15:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)</small>


{{edit semi-protected|Sanskrit|answered=yes}}
⚫
== Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2022 ==
Tamil is the oldest language in the world not sanskrit [[Special:Contributions/94.129.166.246|94.129.166.246]] ([[User talk:94.129.166.246|talk]]) 22:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:This article doesn't say Sanskrit is the "oldest language in the world". --[[User:AntiDionysius|<span style="color:green">AntiDionysius</span>]] (<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:AntiDionysius|talk]]</span>) 22:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)


== This article's length ==
⚫
{{edit semi-protected|Sanskrit|answered=no}}
Change the IPA symbols for त,थ,द,ध from t,tʰ,d,dʰ to t̪ ,t̪ʰ ,d̪ ,d̪ʰ respectively which includes the diacritic for dental plosive which are missing from the original draft. This might unambiguously mistake it for foreign alveolar plosives.
Suggested edit location: Phonology>Consonants> the table under 'Sanskrit consonants in the Devanagari script'>Row for dental plosives titled 'dantya'. [[User:AbhishekDixit638|AbhishekDixit638]] ([[User talk:AbhishekDixit638|talk]]) 14:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


[[user:W.andrea]] has brought attention to the length of the article in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanskrit&oldid=1256362136 this notice]. I tend to agree with them; it probably is too long at 14,841 words, and inching toward [[WP:TOOBIG]].
== NO KNOWN SPEAKERS of Sanskrit? ==


*Among [[WP:FA|featured articles]], there aren't too many languages represented (see [[Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Language_and_linguistics |here]]), but among the few there are:
The article downright says *the heading*.
:*[[Mayan languages]] has on 5,724 words.
Recently from an RTI, the information was given by Union Home Ministry’s Registrar General and Census Commissioner office that there are 24,821 speakers of Sanskrit from Census 2011 (NOT of 2022, of which the data is in segregation as I write this), but the article completely turns a blind eye from this fact and Evidence 6 is about the village Jhiri, not of all of India, thus it's a false evidence keeping in mind entire India.
:*[[Levantine Arabic]] has 6,806 words, and
:*[[Nahuatl]] has 6,476 words


*In the category [[Wikipedia:Good_articles/Language_and_literature#Language_and_literature_2|Good Articles: Language and literature]]:
Evidence 7 is about Uttarakhand's CITIES and not of India, again, false evidence. Oxford University's data collection, again, is not from all of India.
*[[English language]] has 14,401 words. (So, it too is creeping up to overlong status), but
*[[Biblical Hebrew]] has 8,415 words and the others have fewer.


I will now look at the history of this article and report back. Thank you [[user:W.andrea]] [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 14:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The argument is fluctuations in the reported speakers of sanskrit from 1991 to 2001, which are now 20 years old and are again, turning blind eye to 2011 Census data. Even if we are keeping out the fluctuation data, there are still atleast thousands of "Sanskrit speakers" in India as opposed to the.... scholarlier claim of "No known speakers". I am to change it based on the official evidences directly from government, and not from "intellects" which haven't even done anything to collect data from whole of India and talking from just puny data collected [[User:Yeshehat|Yeshehat]] ([[User talk:Yeshehat|talk]]) 07:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


:And here's the history. (I shall be soft pinging various editors by citing their diffs, but no comment on their edit is implied:
https://www.cnbctv18.com/india/only-24821-people-in-india-have-sanskrit-as-mother-tongue-govt-data-14819891.htm
:*On March 28, 2022, at the time of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanskrit&oldid=1079775010 this edit] by [[user:Dāsānudāsa]], the article had 14,876 words.
If you're looking furthermore [[User:Yeshehat|Yeshehat]] ([[User talk:Yeshehat|talk]]) 07:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
:*Three days before [[Armistice Day]] 2019, at the time of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanskrit&oldid=925171100 this edit] by [[user:Austronesier]], the article had 12,460 words
:*On [[Halloween]] 2018, at the time of this edit by [[user:Ms Sarah Welch]], the article had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanskrit&oldid=866620169 12,474 words]
:*On the day after [[St Patrick's Day]], 2018, the article had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanskrit&oldid=831135960 4,140 words]
:*On [[April Fool's Day]] 2017, at the time of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanskrit&oldid=773329168 this edit] by [[user:Fowler&fowler|yours truly]], the article had 3,950 words, and finally,
:*On [[Boxing Day]] 2016, at the time of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanskrit&oldid=756693294 this edit] by [[user:Joshua Jonathan]], this article had ''3,907'' words.
:So there seems to have been a jump in 2018. Can someone help with identifying and reducing the additions? Thanks. [[User:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&amp;fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&amp;fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 15:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::Just to mention, you can see a size graph (in bytes) here on Xtools: [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Sanskrit Page statistics] § Year counts. It confirms there was a jump in 2018. — [[User:W.andrea|W.andrea]] ([[User talk:W.andrea|talk]]) 17:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:58, 14 November 2024

Former good articleSanskrit was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 10, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 17, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 8, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 20, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
February 1, 2016Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2024

[edit]

Remove note j and its associated reference 121. Note j is irrelevant to its sentence's meaning, and ref 121 has no other usages on the page.

The note's sentence ("...suggests that by the start of the common era, hardly anybody other than learned monks had the capacity to understand the old Prakrit languages...") refers to the "start of the common era", which was a couple millennia ago, but ethnologue.com, the website of ref 121, only documents current language status, which means the reference is irrelevant. Pali's current status says nothing about its status 2000 years ago.


(Side note: ref 121's link is broken, and the correct link for Pali (https://www.ethnologue.com/language/pli/) now lists it as "endangered" instead of "extinct", which means note j is not just irrelevant, but unsupported by its reference.) SashaBerkman (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SashaBerkman I removed the note. Asteramellus (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]

The introduction to the article on Sanskrit is nearly illegible. An introduction should be a concise synthesis -- clear, easy to understand, and memorable -- that prepares the reader for what follows and sparks curiosity to learn more.

Instead, it presents a visually cluttered and dense paragraph, difficult to read and even harder to grasp and retain.

This issue is widespread across Wikipedia. If not addressed, the encyclopedia risks being gradually supplanted by alternatives that offer a better reading experience. 2A01:CB1C:854A:D400:99CA:8F1E:4111:1742 (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have suggestions, you can request suggested changes here. Asteramellus (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2024

[edit]

Tamil is the oldest language in the world not sanskrit 94.129.166.246 (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't say Sanskrit is the "oldest language in the world". --AntiDionysius (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article's length

[edit]

user:W.andrea has brought attention to the length of the article in this notice. I tend to agree with them; it probably is too long at 14,841 words, and inching toward WP:TOOBIG.

  • Among featured articles, there aren't too many languages represented (see here), but among the few there are:

I will now look at the history of this article and report back. Thank you user:W.andrea Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the history. (I shall be soft pinging various editors by citing their diffs, but no comment on their edit is implied:
So there seems to have been a jump in 2018. Can someone help with identifying and reducing the additions? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to mention, you can see a size graph (in bytes) here on Xtools: Page statistics § Year counts. It confirms there was a jump in 2018. — W.andrea (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sanskrit&oldid=1257392610"