Jump to content

Talk:Sanskrit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]
Much of it is related to the overblown sections §Phonology and §Morphology. We have a dedicated article Sanskrit grammar that also includes a phonology section. The two sections in this article should be trimmed to summary size, with the rest merged into the subarticle, ideally with another subarticle about Sanskrit phonology which oddly doesn't exist–with Sanskrit being the first language in the world to be described in a structuralist phonological framework millenia before Trubetzkoy. Apart from the current length issue, this is also a classical case ("aptly" so for a classical language) of unsychronized content forking.
Moving/merging the content will a formidable task. For my part, I have to pass, at least for the near future. –Austronesier (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]