The Barnstar of Diligence
		Your scrutiny and care for Kurdish articles that regularly get vandalized is impressive and I thank you very much. I just wanted to say thanks. TataofTata (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the word may mislead readers to think the language is not used anymore. History section may be included for each language. As for the distinction between old and new languages, it is mostly covered in this typical distinction between "official minority languages" and "other minority languages" at least in countries with decent legal framework (making Romani interesting case since it is both historic and not properly recognised). Usually, only communities living in some country long enough (usually 100 years or something like that) are recognised as national minorities (as opposed to immigrant communities). While I do not like that distinction, it implies that country has some specific active responsibility towards national minority, it's culture and identity, particularly since many of them lived in some areas before the state itself was created. There is usually no similar active legal responsibility towards immigrant cultures. As for historic language, it may include languages not used anymore like Old Norse or something. MirkoS18 (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you oppose just having one section head titled Languages and have all the languages in alphabetical order, regardless of them still being used or not? Semsûrî (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that would be the best approach. Minority languages are a notable and relevant topic in their own right, and separating them provides a meaningful framework for understanding their legal and cultural status. For example, just as Danish holds official status and is clearly recognized as the majority language in Denmark, minority languages like German enjoy specific protections under international and national law. Denmark is a signatory of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and has explicitly committed to protecting the German language in ways in which some other languages are not protected in Denmark. Lumping all languages (whether historical, official, recognized, or not) into a single alphabetical list risks obscuring the distinctions that exist in many countries with explicit language policies or hierarchies. Such a flattened structure might only make sense in countries that do not have any formal language recognition mechanisms or where no legal distinction exists between official, minority, or heritage languages. In cases like Denmark, however, where there is a defined legal responsibility toward certain linguistic communities, I believe it is important to maintain categories that reflect those realities.--MirkoS18 (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair but I have an issue with Dutch coming first - can we move minority languages up then? Semsûrî (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a great deal of sense to me. In fact, one could approach the issue by grouping languages roughly along the following lines: first, Danish; second, officially recognized minority languages such as primarily German; third, minority languages with ambiguous legal or social status, like Romani; fourth, other languages currently in use, including Arabic and others; fifth, historically spoken languages; and finally, languages primarily learned in schools, such as Spanish, French, or Swedish. I do not know if you may need special category for Scandinavian languages? While such a hierarchy certainly invites critique (and rightly so) it may nonetheless be the most practical way to highlight linguistic diversity and to challenge widespread, often unexamined assumptions about the supposed linguistic homogeneity or total hegemony of a single official language. My understanding is that this article is primarily about metropolitan Denmark so you probably do not need to deal extensively with Languages of Greenland and Languages of the Faroe Islands except if they are used in metropolitan Denmark?--MirkoS18 (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article is only about metropolitan Denmark. So Danish, recognized minority languages (for just German), minority languages (for Romani) and other languages (like Arabic). Where would you put Yiddish, Dutch, Russian and Polish? I would rather have them in the third group with Romani than in the same group with more recent languages like Arabic. Maybe a "minority languages" and a "foreign languages" distinction? Semsûrî (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I agree with your distinction between “minority languages” and “foreign languages.” It does reflect real differences in legal recognition and historical presence that many European countries, Denmark included, follow. Putting Yiddish, Dutch, Russian and Polish together with Romani as “minority languages” makes sense since these communities usually have a longer or more established presence compared to more recent languages. That said, I think it’s important to keep some flexibility in the framework (as long as it’s not abused) because language situations can get quite complex, and this is mainly a general skeleton that works for most European contexts. Since this article is about metropolitan Denmark, organizing the languages from Danish, to officially recognized minorities, then other minorities, followed by foreign and historic languages seems like a practical way to show the linguistic diversity without oversimplifying. It strikes a good balance overall. Of course, you probably know the details much better than I do, since I’m from Southeast Europe and not as familiar with the local specifics.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll make some changes per this section before expanding the article with info on more languages. Semsûrî (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed that you reverted two edits I made this week. Both edits added relevant images that are already used on the same pages in other language versions. Could you please let me know why those images were removed?

Thanks! ScottyNolan (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a map of the districts of a province is relevant to an article about a town or village. An image of the particular town/village would be much better. If the last image needs to be added somewhere it should be Arıcak District and not Arıcak, but there's already a similar map there. Semsûrî (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Semsûrî, I noticed that the government website that you and I used as reference for lists of neighbourhoods, villages, municipalities etc. https://www.e-icisleri.gov.tr/anasayfa/mulkiidaribolumleri.aspx is offline. It has been archived at the Wayback Machine, but sadly the links within the page leading to the actual lists have not been archived, at least I haven't found an active link. Do you know whether there is another page with recent lists? Markussep ^Talk 08:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found anything sadly. Each district has its own website which may include a list of villages/neighborhoods/municipalities. Semsûrî (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you created articles about Kurdish villages; could you also create articles for the Kurdish villages in Kayseri province and in the Black Sea provinces? NEMURO (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Kurdistan Presidency Council has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 20 § Kurdistan Presidency Council until a consensus is reached. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you reverted my recent updates to the Greenland infobox. I understand the sensitivity regarding the sovereignty of the Danish Realm, but per WP:NPOV and WP:CURRENT, Wikipedia must reflect the significant change in geopolitical reality following the January 4, 2026, appointment of a U.S. Special Envoy (Jeff Landry) and the subsequent formal dispute.

My edit did not claim the U.S. has achieved sovereignty, but rather documented the status dispute which is now a matter of international record. Furthermore, I invoked WP:TIES regarding the shift to American English, as the administrative focus and primary news coverage have shifted significantly toward U.S. involvement.

I am happy to discuss how to best word the 'disputed' status to maintain neutrality, but simply blanking the U.S. claim and the Envoy appointment ignores verifiable facts reported by major secondary sources (Guardian, CBS, etc.). Noseyhares (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Isolated remarks do not, by themselves, establish a recognized sovereignty dispute. There are other appropriate ways to expand the article if the US officially claims Danish territory (and please remember OR and SYNTH here). There's a section in the article about Trump that you can expand, but changing the infobox to claim that Danish sovereignty over Greenland is disputed is not appropriate. Look at the infobox at Falkland Islands where there is no mention of the Argentine dispute over British sovereignty either. Semsûrî (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]