Talk:Spanish language/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

If you look at the edit history, you'll notice that this week, someone has become determined to add the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic to the list of countries where Spanish is an official language and remove it from the list of disputed territories where it's spoken. In the process they've repeatedly destroyed the language infobox. I just reverted the change again, but can it be agreed upon that calling a minor portion of the Western Sahara governed in exile an "official Spanish-speaking country" is a little heavy handed? Joshtwo (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

In fact the constitution of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic clearly states that the only official language in the republic is Arabic. --Jotamar (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to places where it is spoken and number of speakers, the Spanish wikipedia is littered with bias, the "spanish nationalits" who edit it, try to claim as much land as they can, from the Arctic, to Brazil, from the fudged numbers of native speakers (the Cervantes institute is know for inflating numbers of spanish speakers) to the fact that Spanish is the only language (other than english) in which they include the numbers of students, as if every one of them were to actually learn the language, seriously why not do the same for French ?(since it's, globally, the second most studied language after English, or maybe include German etc... ?) when you take into account that less than 2% ,of the people who study a foreign language in the US, actually learn it enough for a conversation, you see how ridiculous/biased including it is, this whole thing is a mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.137.206 (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

To end this edit dispute, I will re-add them BUT in a different category in the infobox called "As a historical or creole language" based on the article List of countries where Spanish is an official_language which classifies them dividedly. Let me know what you think in light of this. PyroFloe (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The dispute hasn't ended, if I may say: Moalli keeps on removing that infobox section, affecting other edits in the process. For example, there are sources that point to there being a minority of Spanish speakers in the Philippines (a small number relative to the population, but nonetheless still there and is by no means "dead"), with the "dead" claim not even supported by the very reference being used to support it. I'm quite surprised there's gatekeeping going on in this article to begin with, since it's pretty established that there are historical territories with minorities of Spanish speakers, but where the language doesn't necessarily have official status. (This is without prejudice to the Western Sahara issue; I am not knowledgeable enough on the situation over there to make a sound decision.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 21:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Colors - edit request

 Done. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

These colors match those in the map; someone substitute 'em in, please. Raw wikitext: {{legend|#000080|Countries where Spanish has official language status.}} <div style="font-size:90%;">'''Situation in the United States of America:''' :{{legend |#0000FF| States of the United States where Spanish has no official status but is spoken by 25% or more of the population.}} :{{legend|#0080FF|States of the United States where Spanish has no official status but is spoken by 10-20% of the population.}} :{{legend|#78C0FF|States of the United States where Spanish has no official status but is spoken by 5-9% of the population.}} {{legend|#B3D9FF|Countries or regions where Spanish is spoken without official recognition, or where creoles of Spanish origin are spoken, with or without official recognition. }} |} Renders as:

  Countries where Spanish has official language status.

Situation in the United States of America:

   States of the United States where Spanish has no official status but is spoken by 25% or more of the population.

  States of the United States where Spanish has no official status but is spoken by 10-20% of the population.

  States of the United States where Spanish has no official status but is spoken by 5-9% of the population.

  Countries or regions where Spanish is spoken without official recognition, or where creoles of Spanish origin are spoken, with or without official recognition.
NOTE: For details on the sources of information used in creating the map, see this page for full description

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

"The most common language in Mexico" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The most common language in Mexico. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 27#The most common language in Mexico until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Loafiewa (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chh8414. Peer reviewers: Rgima, Jackpaulryan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Reduction in article length

The article is huge, over 200 KB, more than double the threshold given at WP:SIZESPLIT for "Almost certainly should be divided".

I propose the following:

• Split the Spanish language#Spanish speakers by country table to its own article. That takes up about 68 KB.
• The section Spanish language#Dialectal variation is 22 KB. It's a lot longer than the summary that it should be given that it has a main article, Spanish dialects and varieties, associated with it. Cut it way down, moving to the main article any details that aren't already there.

These measures would chop 80+ KB out of this article, though still leaving it at over 100 KB. Comments on these suggestions? Any other ideas for slimming this article down? Largoplazo (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

That's ok with me. --Jotamar (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I concur with the first change (removing the huge table from the article) to begin with something. I however think that the section Spanish language#Geographical distribution requires both expansion (particularly the Europe and Hispanic America subsections) and trimming (the Philippines section). Regarding the second point I also agree to some extent: I suggest to trim the morphology bit in particular, there has to be a more succint way to comment on nuances on second person differences. No table displaying conjugations is really required in the main article either way. --Asqueladd (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Moalli: in case they have something to add.--Asqueladd (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal of moving the Spanish language#Spanish speakers by country table to its own article, similar to how the Geographical distribution of French speakers article is structured. The table is excessive for this article's scope, not to mention filled with questionable and outdated sources.

On a similar note, I too find the Philippines section in Spanish language#Geographical distribution too long for the language's current status and level of importance. Spanish is practically extinct there nowadays no matter how much so-called "Hispanistas" try to revise the article by adding non-credible biased sources. The bulk of that section would also be better placed in a separate geographical distribution of Spanish speakers article or simply redirected to Spanish language in the Philippines. The geographical distribution section should only be providing a summary and brief history of Spanish in various regions, along with any unique characteristics. - Moalli (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Moalli:. I think we have a sort of a consensus in some aspects brewing in here.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed the speakers table as per this talk page thread. I tried to pull a trimmed down version of the Philippines subsection, insofar there was WP:BALASP issues vis-à-vis the rest of the geographical distribution section (particularly taking into account the arguably moribund status of Spanish language there). What do you think [1]?--Asqueladd (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Equatorial Guinea

The article's infobox states that the Spanish language is native to Spain, Hispanic America and Equatorial Guinea. However, this is not quite right. Not only is Spanish not a 'native' language of the country, it is also only spoken by 66.7% of Equatorial Guineans, mostly as a Lingua Franca among ethnic groups, according to Wikipedia's article on Equatorial Guinea. I believe it would be wiser to omit Equatorial Guinea from the 'native to' part of the infobox, but I wish to consult this first and see other opinions. KOSƧIO (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it. The problem was that the infobox field name is states but what it visualizes is Native to. Perhaps EG should be included in some other infobox field, but not in this one. --Jotamar (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the full content of the parametre (I recall having done this already once or twice). Insofar it aims towards maximum gatekeeping, it mixes one sovereign country with a somewhat moot cultural (tangentially geographical) concept. Please take note that the parametre is counter-intuitively named "states". It henceforth leaves out the US, Andorra and Belize, which are not "Spain" nor "Hispanic America", but where there are a very substantial number of native speakers (conversely adding Equatorial Guinea where, as stated above these lines, Spanish is widely spoken but it is the native language of virtually not a single person). If we refer to regions (not states), Spanish is primarily a native language of the Americas and Europe (specifically Iberia), but also North-Africa. Insofar the language is somewhat global and we have this discussion largely reduplicated for another similar "ever-changing" infobox parametre, this issue (the attempt for a well-fitted gatekeeping in this parametre) can be also rendered as "unwise". I mean, particularly as long as "significant minority" countries are featured in the other parametre (they probably should not, by the way) this discussion is a waste.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Spanish language map of the world

In the map of the world, the color codes are incorrectly assigned as to where Spanish is spoken. 88.159.135.169 (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixed Erinius (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

IPA transcriptions in the infobox

@Barefoot through the chollas: The IPA you insist on including seems to be at odds with our IPA guide for Spanish. At no point does it encourage editors to retranscribe words that feature ⟨ʎ⟩ with ⟨ʝ⟩. Furthermore, your latest edit summary is false in that Castellano is not one of "terms that are more relevant to regions that have undergone yeísmo".

I'm writing here so that more editors see this. There is an active discussion on Help talk:IPA/Spanish#Yeísmo that is the most appropriate place to discuss that, per MOS:PRON (to quote it, Other languages have dedicated IPA-xx templates, where xx is the 2-letter ISO 639-1 code or the 3-letter ISO 639-3 code for the language in question, as in {{IPA-el}} for Greek or {{IPA-fa}} for Persian. (...) These languages and templates are listed at {{IPA}}. Again, if the language you're transcribing has such an IPA key, use the conventions of that key. If you wish to change those conventions, bring it up for discussion on the key's talk page. Creating transcriptions unsupported by the key or changing the key so that it no longer conforms to existing transcriptions will confuse readers.). Sol505000 (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yesterday I posted here an attempt to engage in reasoned civil discourse with you re your repeated deletion of and quarreling about basic information in the Spanish language infobox. You removed that posting, and I'll not attempt to repeat it. The essence of the issue is that someone, not me, had offered in IPA the two major standard phonetic versions of castellano in the infobox, and you deleted one, with the explanation "IPA spam." Since it obviously wasn't "IPA spam", but someone's reasoned (presumably) attempt to supply helpful information to readers (i.e. the purpose of an encyclopedia), and in light of your record of "contribs" and reprimands on your talk page, I reverted your deletion, explaining briefly, perhaps too curtly, why. That could, and I maintain with the minimum application of calm good judgement should, have been the end of the issue. Instead, it has by now degenerated to being down the rabbit hole of chasing ISO codes and IPA keys for Greek and Persian, entirely irrelevant to the original point: the simple straightforward presence of one piece of information that not all readers are guaranteed to know. I don't really have anything more to add. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

You removed that posting, and I'll not attempt to repeat it. No, I have not. I moved it back where I originally posted the thread. What's more, I wasted 30 minutes replying to what you wrote (which, I imagine, cannot be done without reading what you're replying to, no? So what do you need to repeat?) only to get ignored in return (there's you being "reasoned" and "civil") - just because I moved the discussion back where it belonged after you moved it without my permission (I was the original poster) and against MOS:PRON, which states that issues like that need to be resolved on Help talk:IPA/Spanish, not here or any other single article.

Instead, it has by now degenerated to being down the rabbit hole of chasing ISO codes and IPA keys for Greek and Persian, entirely irrelevant to the original point. Wow. You never stop, do you?

The place to discuss the issue is Help talk:IPA/Spanish#Yeísmo as there is already an active discussion there. Sol505000 (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

etymology of Castilian

The article suggests this is to do with castles. Has it really nothing to do with Castile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:59C5:6700:11C0:A4FC:EC2E:2C9C (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I'll edit it. --Jotamar (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Restoration of the first paragraph

I will restore the introductory paragraph with the content that had been there since long ago, as I don’t consider the change made on December 8 by Uanfala to be positive.

Here are some of the reasons why:

• It’s appropriate for the introductory paragraph to state the language's place of origin, rather than simply saying that it "is a Romance language". We only have to look at articles of other major languages, such as French or English, to see that this is usual.
• Before the change, there was a line of text (“Spanish is the official language of 20 countries.”) that provided information about the number of countries in which the Spanish language has official status. However, after the change, it is located at the beginning of a larger line of text, suggesting that only in those 20 countries the Spanish language is spoken or has official status. However, in territories such as Puerto Rico Spanish is the majority language, has official status, and is spoken by native speakers.
• And finally, in the first line it reads "spoken by half a billion people". This is confusing and inaccurate. "Spoken"? natively? Or overall? If it means native speakers the number is less than 500 million, and if it means overall speakers (which is what can be understood if nothing is specified), the number is 592 million, which is a considerable difference from "half a billion".

It may be necessary to discuss possible changes to improve the article, but I think it's appropriate to restore the content of the introductory paragraph, since it has not improved the article at all, and it's more inaccurate than before. Later, we could change the phrase "with more than 500 million native speakers" to "with up to 500 million native speakers", or change the last sentence of the paragraph about the native speaking population of Mexico as Uanfala had done (which I thought was correct), but we can discuss that afterwards. AnneDant87 (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Numerals

Numerals seem to be missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by PastafarianMonk (talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The numerals are part of the page for Spanish orthography, which focuses on how the language is written. Ravenclawjedi42 (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Spanish language map of the world mistake

In the map of the world, the color codes are incorrectly assigned as to where Spanish is spoken since they mention Peru, Bolivia an Paraguay speak the language as an "Coofficial language" which is incorrect. I am from Peru, and I know the Article 48 of the Political Constitution of Peru states: The official languages are Spanish and, in areas where they predominate, Quechua, Aymara and other aboriginal languages, according to the law. Map is not correct, and this is not the first time someone reports this mistake. I tried to make the edition but there is another user which for some reason disagrees, despite it is a fact, Spanish is official in those South American countries. LordEdurod97 (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Official alongside other languages is what "co-official" means. — kwami (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Official vs co-official

Should the map in the infobox be changed? Specifically, should Spanish count as the sole official language of Peru, or as co-official with Quechua? The same question may apply to other countries (e.g. Spain with Catalan) where Spanish is regionally co-official. — kwami (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The map should reflect reality -- co-official when co-official. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 04:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Mexico's another country where Spanish is regionally co-official, and its indigenous languages alongside Spanish are all considered "national languages". The map also says Spanish is also co-official in New Mexico, but I don't think that's true. And while we're talking about fixing that map, the "official" and "co-official" shades of blue are just so similar they're hard to tell apart sometimes. Erinius (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear on whether a "national language" is equivalent to an "official language". My impression from Mexico is that it's not, at least there, but I don't really know. I know that years ago Quechua was supposed to be co-official in Peru, and the Mayan languages in Guatemala, but that was rejected. The heightened position of Quechua since then might not be what was originally envisioned, so it might be closer to the situation in Mexico. AFAIK, though, Quechua and Aymara are much more important in Bolivia, as is Guarani in Paraguay. In NM, my understanding is that the constitution does not declare any language as official (just as the fed constitution doesn't declare English to be official), but the laws give special place to both English and Spanish. — kwami (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment: An alternative here—just for the sake of brain-storming—is that we might expand the categories in the map. In Paraguay & Puerto Rico, Spanish is co-official for the whole region. In Perú, the Constitution makes Spanish official for the country as a whole & indigenous languages official for regions in which they are relevant. In Bolivia, Spanish & all indigenous languages are official, but everything needs to be published in at least two languages, one of which must be Spanish & one of which should be an indigenous language determined by circumstances of use. In Perú, Spanish is the official language for the state as a whole, but indigenous languages are co-official in areas where they predominate. We could group Paraguay & Puerto Rico together & distinct from Bolivia & Perú. One additional note: I don't think that Spanish has official status in Western Sahara. This should probably be the lighter shade of blue. Am I missing something there? Pathawi (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah something like that could work Erinius (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

For compatibility, I think the categories should be equivalent to those of File:Detailed SVG map of the Anglophone world.svg and File:Detailed SVG map of the Francophone world.svg. If we don't show regional official languages on those maps, then IMO we shouldn't here either. For Bolivia, all languages may be locally official, but IMO the fact that all docs must be published in Spanish + something else qualifies it as co-official nationwide. So maybe color Bolivia, Paraguay and PR the same (perhaps a lighter shade than we have now, but then we should do the same to the other maps), and change Peru to dark blue like Mexico.

I don't know about NM or W.Sahara. I think the latter is for the UN-recognized govt, but don't know the facts. And indeed, I don't even know if it would qualify for light blue: does 20% of the population still speak Spanish, and which population are we taking a percentage of, the Sahrawis or the total including Moroccan immigrants? — kwami (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I see the appeal of consistency, but three partially connected thoughts:

1. These maps aren't quite the same as it stands: That for the Anglophone world is a superset of that for the Francophone world (tho the Francophone map clearly doesn't apply the 20% criterion used in the Anglophone map for the lightest shade of blue—fewer than 10% of people in Maine & Louisiana speak French at home). In an ideal situation, that means that the category 'Co-official and majority native language' is one that doesn't apply for Francophonie, but I haven't checked.
2. But… perhaps it should only be consistent if the categories make sense. The history of Spanish colonialism is not the history of French or British colonialism. Political tendencies in South America aren't those in Africa.
3. Finally, we use sub-national regions for the US & Canada in these maps, but nowhere else.

So a couple more developed possibility (again, just possibilities, not proposals I'm trying to advance): If we wanted to treat Spanish like English & French, Bolivia might group with Puerto Rico and Paraguay. Someone might do a little digging into the policies for the regions of Peru to determine where in the country Spanish is the sole official language (like Quebec), and where it's co-official (like New Brunswick). If we wanted to expand categories (& didn't want to do a deep dive in Peruvian regional language policy), we might say that there's a fourth category for something like 'contextually co-official' (I'm sure someone could think of a better term), which would apply to Bolivia & Peru.

I'll warrant that there isn't good data on home language for Western Sahara. The Constitution, however, clearly states in the third article that the official language is Arabic. Spanish isn't mentioned. Pathawi (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

And per the Cervantes Institute,Table 2, p. 12 there are only 22k speakers with "competencia limitada", so if it's not official then there's no reason to show it at all. — kwami (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Support I believe Spanish should be shown as the sole official language if it's more important to the country than any other languages. If Quechua was of the same importance as or more important than Spanish to Peru, I would oppose, but Spanish is spoken natively by about 6x as many people than Quechua, so it's vastly more important that Quechua. interstatefive  00:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The legal category official applies to languages that are just that legally, regardless of relative importance (assuming importance can be defined). Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment: We can also use the category of "an official language". This would serve as a superset covering the status of either the sole official language or one of several co-official languages. Senorangel (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

So, how would you handle Mexico and Peru? — kwami (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It is an official language in Peru, no? As for Mexico, we already have comments above asking what difference there is between official versus national language. Do we also want a separate map for regional in additional to national language? Senorangel (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay, Peru and Spain then. Should they be dark blue or medium blue? — kwami (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you're thinking of deleting the co-official label altogether. No, this series of maps shows sole-official and co-official status, so we should do the same here. The question is how to treat countries where Spanish (or French or English etc.) are regionally co-official. — kwami (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe just keep it simple, send readers elsewhere for specifics. Something like Sole official language (Official language is obviously not sufficient in that case) and Co-official nationally or regionally. If co-official nationally doesn't actually apply anywhere, then even easier, just Co-official regionally. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm a passing RFC respondent and not particularly familiar with the considerations here, but I'm not sure if it's really necessary to distinguish official vs co-offical on the map. The fact that another language may also have official status seems incidental.

Also I'm pretty sure the colors badly fail our WP:ACCESSIBILITY standards. The visibility is notably better when I load the full size image in another browser tab, but viewing it in the infobox takes uncomfortable effort even with excellent eyesight. The official vs co-official are rather close shades of dark blue, and cultural vs grey has approximately zero luminosity contrast and quite low color distinction. Alsee (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Excellent point about the colors -- greater contrast needed. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

To my mind, the map as current is correct. Spanish is co-official in those countries, what's the problem with showing this? Boynamedsue (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding the Philippines to isoglosses of Spanish

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, folks. I'm requesting for input from editors on the English Wikipedia about the inclusion of the Philippines on Spanish linguistic maps (isoglosses), and whether or not the country should be included. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 19:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

(Context follows)

Hi, folks. I'm requesting for input from editors on the English Wikipedia on a discussion I've also opened on the Spanish Wikipedia (disponible aquí para los que les gustarían participar) about the inclusion of the Philippines on Spanish linguistic maps (isoglosses).

Over the last few weeks I've been working on the Philippine Spanish article, spurred in part due to disputes both here and on Commons (available here) over whether or not the Philippines should be included on Spanish language maps. This is because although the Philippines has a recognized Spanish dialect, as attested to even by linguists who specialize in Spanish, the country does not appear on a number of maps that we use. These include the following:

• Names given to the Spanish language (Castellano-Español-es.png; a version with the Philippines included is here)
• Phonological history of Spanish coronal fricatives (Seseo-ceceo-distinción en el español.png)
• Voseo (Voseo-extension-real.PNG)

I don't know what the consensus is on the English Wikipedia regarding the Philippines on Spanish language maps, but I've been told (specifically by Moalli, who I'm tagging here so they're aware that this conversation is happening) that there's an "informal consensus" somewhere that countries where there are officially recognized Spanish dialects but don't have legal status (mostly the Philippines and Western Sahara) are to be excluded from these maps. I've yet to find any evidence of this discussion here nor on the Spanish Wikipedia nor on Commons, and at any rate I would think any such consensus was made without the input of Spanish speakers from either country.

The reason why I'm opening this discussion is precisely for one reason: while I understand that Spanish no longer has official status in the Philippines, isoglosses are supposed to be representative of the language as it is used in countries where it is spoken, not carrying any political or legal connotation. Spanish in the Philippines, contrary to what people may think, is still spoken as an indigenous language (as in it's as deeply rooted as Tagalog/Filipino and English despite the current small speaker base), and our maps propagate this false idea that the language is dead in spite of what the academic record says and despite clear evidence of people still speaking it. Spanish speakers in the Philippines don't necessarily speak Castilian Spanish, and so while the article on voseo, for example, may say that Philippine Spanish doesn't have it (which is true) the map doesn't show that, producing a disconnect with the text. I think it would be more than appropriate to find ways of including the country in these maps given the distinct nature of the dialect, and I look forward to seeing how this discussion goes. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about this topic area, but based on what I’ve read here I’m inclined to include, for the following reasons:

• Languages are defined by the people who speak them, and legal recognition is something that exists for legal and bureaucratic purposes, not to be authoritative on who speaks what languages.
• Not sure about eswiki, but on enwiki, we don’t really cite maps. The linguists are the reliable sources here, and they say the Philippines speak Spanish.

Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 23:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know anything about how prevalent or how Spanish the Spanish language is in the Philippines, but I can at least contribute this: I don't believe status as an official language should have any bearing. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

@Giraffedata: To add helpful context for you: Spanish is spoken nationwide but by a small minority relative to the total population (the minority is spread out, but the biggest center is in Manila) and is definitely standard Spanish. Some will confuse Philippine Spanish with Chavacano (a Spanish creole which has more "visible" speakers as it's the language of Zamboanga City, where there are also speakers of standard Spanish), but that's a completely different language. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd say include. A number of old Supreme Court cases whose decisions still take effect in the Philippines are still in Spanish. -Object404 (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• Don’t include or, at least, not uncoditionally. There are undisputable clear-cut cases of Spanish-speaking countries where Spanish is the native language of the majority, and then there are border cases where Spanish has some status or is spoken without being the most used language, including the Philippines, but also parts of the U.S. I think it is important not to mix the two categories. Otherwise, we promulgate a wrong impression about the extent of Spanish. What we should do instead is something as in the following map: Obviously, when it comes to maps about linguistics features, you cannot use the colors in this way because they are already being used for the linguistic features. I think there are two solutions: Either only include the countries where Spanish is the native language of the majority, or use stripes instead of solid colors for the regions where Spanish is not the most used language (similar to the stripes that are already being used in File:Voseo-extension-real.PNG). --mach 🙈🙉🙊 09:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hi, J. 'mach' wust, and thank you for your inputs.

  First, I categorically disagree with any option that excludes countries that have Spanish dialects but where it lacks official status or it is not spoken "widely" by the population. That is basically the status quo, and the very reason why we're having this discussion in the first place. The closest argument that I got to this is on the Spanish Wikipedia, where El Mono Español said that "the group of Spanish-speaking countries is relatively well-defined", never mind that these other dialects exist and the definition does, in fact, change depending on who you ask. (Case and point: last year, the Philippines was included in last year's celebrations for the Día de la Hispanidad in Madrid, alongside Equatorial Guinea which was also included for the first time.)

  Anyway, moving on. I see there being three types of maps coming out of this discussion:

  • The first type is the map that you describe above, which outlines countries where Spanish is either spoken by most people, some proportion of the population, or has some cultural or social significance. On this type of map, where the presumption is the number of people who speak the language, I would totally agree with separating countries based on the prevalence of the language as, of course, we don't want to mislead people on how many people actually speak it.
  • The second type would be maps that are supposed to be in the spirit of Variedades principales del español.png, which outlines all the Spanish dialects and varieties. Linguistic maps like the map for voseo that you cited earlier should be based on this type of map since, as I mentioned earlier, they're supposed to document the language as it is spoken in that country and as noted by linguists, regardless of how many people speak it. The U.S. doesn't have a recognized nationwide Spanish dialect, or at least not yet save for New Mexican and Isleño Spanish, but the Philippines does have a single recognized, national-level dialect that is relatively uniform. I would get the use of stripes for areas where there is divergence from the national standard (for example, in the case of Chavacano, which exhibits voseo whereas standard Philippine Spanish does not), but when we're discussing linguistic features I would think it prudent to disassociate from population figures.
  • The third type technically doesn't apply to the English Wikipedia, but it does on the Spanish Wikipedia. These would be maps which document popular use of the language, similar to El Mono Español's map of countries based on how they call a watermelon in Spanish. For this type of map, I would wholeheartedly agree with using stripes or, in this case, dot patterns to denote that the language isn't widely spoken, but should you encounter people who speak the language this is normally how they say it. (Caveat in case people misread me: I'm seeking a separate consensus there for these types of maps, so whatever we decide here will not apply there and vice-versa.)

  That said, I'm open to whatever solution we can get out of this discussion. If, let's say, we find a way to incorporate the Philippines on linguistic maps that doesn't mislead people and at least looks pretty, then I'd be all for it. The only solution I will categorically be opposed to is, as I said earlier, a total exclusion of the country from these maps. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. In the three examples that you provide, I think it's perfectly valid to include the Philippines as long as it's Philippine Spanish being referenced and not the Philippine languages, including the Spanish-based creoles spoken there; as you may have likely noticed, on the internet people seem to conflate Spanish and Chavacano within the Philippine context.

For the castellano/español isogloss map, a part of me wonders if it would be useful/relevant if the usage of Tagalog kastila and Cebuano katsila were represented in spite of español being used in Philippine Spanish. But then again, those are different languages and would more than likely be more appropriate on a different isogloss map for languages across the world. --Chris S. (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Christopher Sundita: I have noticed that and this is actually addressed in the article. Lipski in particular has noted how other linguists have conflated the two as if a dialect of actual Spanish doesn't exist, so I too would want to exercise caution and not treat these maps as if we're talking about Tagalog/Filipino, Cebuano, Chavacano, etc.

As for the map of names, I do occasionally still hear people call the language castellano; I'll check Quilis and Casado-Fresnillo again to see if they asked this question in the course of their research into Philippine Spanish. Constitutionally speaking, the language is still called castellano so I do bear that in mind, but from what I've seen español seems to be more common? That said, you're the linguist, not me, so I trust your expertise on the matter. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, when speaking Spanish, Filipinos usually have preferred español. I only ever hear castellano from South Americans. But take my anecdote with a grain of salt as my experience with Spanish is mainly outside of the Philippines and don't have much expertise on this subject. --Chris S. (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I managed to check the online preview of Quilis and Casado-Fresnillo and according to them, 85% of the speakers they studied used español to refer to the language , while 15% used castellano to do so. Will add this to the relevant pages. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 19:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Tagging other users who were involved in "rescuing" the Philippine Spanish article to keep this discussion moving along: Jotamar, MarkH21, Austronesier and Makisig Chua. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Native to"

Since there's a small disagreement about whether or not the US should be included in the "native to" section of the infobox, I thought I'd give my thoughts. First, I think it's inappropriate to place "United States" as a whole alongside "Hispanic America" and Spain. Secondly, there are varieties of Spanish native to the US, albeit they're all endangered at best and are in regions which were once part of Spain's American colonies (ie, Hispanic America). It would be inaccurate not to mention Spanish being native to parts of the US. Maybe the infobox could say "parts of the US" (and maybe also "much of Belize"?), but I think it would be better for this article to just not have a "native to" tag in its infobox (like English language), or for the "native to" tag to include a link to Hispanophone, like what French language and Chinese language do. Erinius (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami @Jotamar: thoughts? Erinius (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Something like 'see Hispanophones' would be fine by me. I only added the US because it is excluded from Hispanic America according to our article. — kwami (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me too. It is somewhat circular since Hispanophone means Spanish-speaking (so we'd be saying Spanish is native to Spain, to Hispanic America, and to the other places it's native to), but it's an accepted convention and it works for the reader. Erinius (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Erinius you might also want to comment on the next thread. — kwami (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Instead of Hispanic America, it would be more exact former Spanish colonies in the Americas, which includes the SW US and (I think) Belize. --Jotamar (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know much about Belizean history. Like half of its population are native Spanish speakers, but I'm not sure if Belize used to be a Spanish colony and they're descended from colonial settlers, or if part of Belize was colonized by Spain, or if they're mainly descended from immigrants from neighboring countries. I think determining where exactly Spanish (or other world languages) is natively spoken can be a tricky question in some edge cases, so I think it's best to either not have that tag or to have some kind of cop-out like "see Hispanophone" or "see geographical distribution section" after "Spain, Hispanic America/former Spanish colonies in the Americas". Erinius (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'll accept whatever gets consensus, I just think that the current list (Spain, Hispanic America, United States) is quite misleading. --Jotamar (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

"but I think it would be better for this article to just not have a "native to" tag in its infobox" I wholeheartedly agree with Erinius' suggestion of not filling the native parametre in the infobox.--Asqueladd (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Just drop the Native to label in the infobox. It's open to interpretation and speculation as to what it means, who it includes and who it doesn't. It's not meaningless, but unless and until a precise definition is presented (which may be overkill for this article) the meaning is so elastic that it can turn out to be either not informative or, at the very least, misleading. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

So, I take it we do have consensus to at least replace "United States" with "see Hispanophones" or "see geographic distribution", right? Do we have consensus to go further and remove the "native to" tag entirely? Erinius (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, myself, Barefoot, and Asqueladd have said they'd prefer to remove the "native to" tag (although I'd also be fine with "see Hispanophone" or "see Geographical distribution"), and Jotamar has said he'll go along with whatever reaches consensus, @Kwamikagami, what do you think? Erinius (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with either of those suggestions. "Native to" is really intended for small languages spoken in a limited area, that people may not have heard of and can't identify. It's not meant to be a list of countries, and IMO (and in the opinions of others who have discussed this for e.g. English and French) it is not necessary or even beneficial for major languages. On the other hand, if it's not there, people may try putting it back in, so s.t. "see Hisponophonie" would be reasonable to head that off. Really, though, I think leaving it out is the easiest option. We still have the map, after all, to show where it's spoken. — kwami (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

"Native to" is really intended for small languages spoken in a limited area Exactly, most languages are not world languages and the infobox parameters that work for most languages don't always make sense for world languages. This discussion reminded me of the ethnicity parameter discussion on the Infobox language talk page, which I'd read a while back - your pointing out that that param was meant for smaller languages and not very widely spoken ones really informed my thinking on this. I'll go ahead and remove the param. Erinius (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

In line with other major languages such as English and French, I propose to indicate places where the language is the majority native language to be included in the 'native to' category, followed by its "sphere" to include other areas of significance without being specific (e.g., English listing out the core Anglosphere followed by "other areas of the English speaking world"). In the case of Spanish, this would be Spain and Hispanic America plus '(see Hispanosphere)'. - Moalli (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not agree, for reasons above, as well as other such as the poor Euro-centric balance itself in the wording "Spain and Hispanic America plus '(see Hispanosphere)'". Contrariwise, there is however potential to further trim the infobox elsewhere, such as the values of the nation parametre (rendered inline as "official language in"), in which places where the language is non-official are paradoxically featured.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Renaming "Dependent territories" to "Subnationals"

Should I rename "Dependent territories" to "Subnationals"? As it would look like in the French language JrBooyah (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"Subnationals" doesn't mean anything, so no. "Subnational jurisdictions" or "National subdivisions", perhaps. Largoplazo (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)