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]
The two versions of the word Samskritam (nominal and adjective) are unnecessary and clutters the side bar. The word was initially used like an adjective for anything well made and later for the language nominally, thus only the nominal form must be used. The word संस्कृतं is pronounced as [ˈsɐ̃skr̩tɐm] or as [ˈsɐmskr̩tɐm] as per https://ashtadhyayi.com/sutraani/8/3/5. Thus, both must be listed. AchyuthaVM (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we remove the second (and third?) para of the intro? Their content is addressed in the same detail in the history section. AchyuthaVM (talk) 05:13, 30 December 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]
Agree about those two sections, but note that § Writing systems is half again as large as either of them, and has a long § Epigraphy subsection (6.5kb, 1,016 words). Would be nice to summarize it, but there is currently no Sanskrit epigraphy article, but we do have Early Indian epigraphy, with some additional information at Western Satraps, some sources at Prashasti, and bits and pieces of various biographies, such as of John Faithfull Fleet, B. Lewis Rice, K. V. Ramesh, Vasudev Vishnu Mirashi et al., and sources like The Indian Antiquary, Epigraphia Indica and Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum.[redirect] That ought to be more than enough to spin off a new article and summarize it here. Mathglot (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to bell the cat @Mathglot: or you @W.andrea:? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about @Joshua Jonathan, Ms Sarah Welch, and Dāsānudāsa:? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, I'm unsure as to what the problem is here. What's the issue with the article being as long as it is? Is it just a case of being too much information to digest? Or putting strain on the servers? Too long to load? My instinct is that the more detailed it is, the better! Dāsānudāsa (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it primarily because it took a long time to load. I was on a slow connection and it took something like 10 seconds, and all I wanted to know was the ISO 639 code. But also, long articles can have too much information, yeah; WP:SIZESPLIT says Large articles may have readability and technical issues. A page of about 10,000 words takes roughly 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes. — W.andrea (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be overly concerned about what SIZESPLIT says. It takes more than 40 minutes to read a book and people still buy books. On the flip side, studies have also shown that few people read past the lead of a Wikipedia article, and yet nobody is saying we should chop articles down to four paragraphs. I prefer the portion of the size guideline at WP:HASTE, which says:
"Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage"
and if Sanskrit isn't one of those subjects, then I don't know what is. I'm all for carefully splitting content to other articles per WP:Summary style—books have chapters, after all, and long chapters have sections—but I don't think we should remove good content that some serious readers might want to read simply to adhere to some idea about average reader behavior. I'm more interested in catering to the curious or passionate reader with some staying power and who can't get enough of the topic. Let the average readers drift off after 40 minutes and go do something else. Mathglot (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less worried about the overall size too (although loading time of large articles can indeed be a pain on mobile browers when the connection is slow), but it's obvious that important pieces of information grow out of sync in multiple articles when there's no hierarchical structure of topics and subtopics. Sanskrit grammar is obviously a notable topic of its own, so anyone who wants to know the details can be guided there with a hatnote, while in this article, we can keep a short outline. And ideally in a less weirdly-written style without all those in-text attributions ("According to Ruppel", "states Jamison"). I've just noticed it now, which perfectly illustrates the point of concentration span ;) –Austronesier (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Mathglot:, for the insightful analysis. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Austronesier: for the in-depth suggestions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Actually, I've started on it: see Draft:Sanskrit epigraphy. First thing I noticed, is a rather haphazard organization of the existing content, as a mix of timeline-based, and region-based content (and the former is not in chrono order). I will continue for a little bit more, then pause to let anyone jump in; will give you a sign shortly... Mathglot (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, Mathglot! More power to you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done for now, and released to Sanskrit epigraphy. Section § Epigraphy here has been summarized via excerpts, reducing total length by 14kb. The actual body text has been only very minimally changed, so there is plenty of room for improvement to it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Phonology Section "Pronunciation"?

[edit]

It doesn't really do much; it's pronunciation guide is just IPA transcription. Since these transcriptions are already given in the sections titled "vowels" & "consonants", it seems redundant to keep it. AchyuthaVM (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"is"?

[edit]

Most of the article refers to Sanskrit using present tense. If the language is extinct, is it appropriate to use "was" instead? Or does the revival mean it is no longer extinct? guninvalid (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extinct means that the language is no longer spoken and that no one studies or can study it. A dead language is one that is attested and can be studied and learned. Since Sanskrit still exists, it can be referred to in the present tense AchyuthaVM (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sanskrit&oldid=1266118610"