Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Sanskrit 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Languages with official status in India#Eighth Schedule to the Constitution|Eighth Schedule languages]] The anchor (#Eighth Schedule to the Constitution) has been deleted by other users before.
[[Languages with official status in India#Eighth Schedule to the Constitution|the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution]] The anchor (#Eighth Schedule to the Constitution) has been deleted by other users before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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.
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.
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]
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:
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.
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]
(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]
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]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Done Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)