Talk:Altaic languages

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Altaic languages → Transeurasian languagesTranseurasian languages – As mentioned in the more relative and concrete information over the case of "Altaic" homeland, and with the lack of solid results over what should be the classification of this proposed language family, there seems to be an alternative view over how this connection between the said languages and whether this includes a direct common descendent, a more acceptable and likely, areal and consistent grammatical and verbal connections are discussed and widely accepted, as well as not entirely denying any common ancestry, instead, leaving an open place for discussion and promoting more research with what evidence and reconstructions can be made. Instead of suggesting a pro and anti view of a macro-language family, using more neutral terms that fit better with both real life counterparts of the modern languages that this languages represents, and fit better with especially Precision and Consistency of Wikipedia's title change policies. With this thought in mind, I believe Martin Robberts and Alexander Savelyev has a fair point to turn this into a scientific, proper debate that encourages academic research and works to be put, without the attached meaning of what Altaic languages was initially proposed to be, and the nationalistic and unreliable narratives that used this hypothesis to move forward with their ideological views rather than to properly analyse it all through an objective, methodologically correct perspective. ^[1] ~2026-17840-6 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC) ~2026-17840-6 (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• oppose i fail to see how a minority position to use this name within the already of a minority position that it includes Koreonic and Japonic languages is in any way wp:DUE—blindlynx 17:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  The reason for the change isn't that of to include the greater interpretation of the hypothesis, however. As I have mentioned before, the reason I have made this offer is, the lack of basis, and together with the more recent research over the region, that "Altaic" homeland of the hypothesis is already more than unlikely. And not only that, but the word "Altaic" does carry a necessary implication of this hypothesis being about a "language family". This claim, however, is based over a lack of sources and further hypothesis, mostly built over, a hypothesis of existence on the Altai region. This again, has little to no basis.

  Most important reason I have offered this move was because, over the course of the years, and especially after 2010 and onwards, the usage of the term Transeurasion has been seen quite commonly. Lars Johanson's alternative theory in this case, offered a "Transeurasian" verbal morphology over these languages, rather than a directly related genealogically link between them. As an example, an overview of the term and how this hypothetical language family may instead be considered just a verbal morphology, and how this relation can be viewed as an interaction of areal interactions and relations under the name of Transeurasian languages.^[2] The academical perspective has been divided, while some do believe in this proto-language, it is much more accepted to see them as a interactive sprachbund, and this should be seen as a way to look at them in a different perspective, with a different lens that does not contain any academic "drama", instead using the common methodological instruction of linguistics to base a hypothesis over relations that is unrelated to a proto-language. ^[3] Which all this is my academic basis over this issue, trying to refer to these languages within a perspective not necessarily excluding or including a definite ancestor to them, which allows a more broad definition over this likely sprachbund, as suggested by many other post-2010 research especially.

  Despite all this, I do acknowledge the "Altaic languages" for the name of the hypothesis is much more widely known too. However, there is one issue for this that might be confusing to everyone, which is the Altai language, a modern Turkic language already spoken by a group of people mostly inside of the Russian Federation of today. The word "Altaic" for these languages in any capacity therefore also confuses the meaning of it, as most linguistic families use the suffix "-ic" to position a group of languages that are related to them, such as Germanic being a natural ethnolinguistic group of people and languages, or Japonic, Affroasiatic and so on as other common ancestorial languages. This categorisation both doesn't fit the nature of relation between what is proposed as Altaic languages, and also gives a misplaced impression of relatedness to the Altai language as a whole, trying to apply this name to the region. KyoumaHK (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  This article is already about the sprachbund ad covers most of what your objections to the current title are. Further, this article isn't just about the minority position that this sprachbund includes the Koreonic and Japonic languages. —blindlynx 22:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  It is quite unrelated to mention Koreonic or Japonic languages when mentioning the title change. That, at all, isn't my intention. I have pointed out that the word Altaic in and of itself isn't fitting, both in the regional sense, and in the hypothesis this naming was related to. I don't understand what is your opposition in this case. It is true that this title includes the naming of the hypothesis criticism, however, this isn't reflected on the title of the page. Furthermore, the connection with the region of Altai, and the genuine language that is the Altai language, having nothing to do with this naming makes this all confusing to a natural reader. How does keeping the current title solve the issue in that case? It is strange to me that with what is held, and thought about these languages, having an actually related name to this proposed sprachbund appropriate to it's reality, is something to oppose if this is your view already. KyoumaHK (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  Koreonic and Japonic are covered by the term 'Transeurasian languages' but not always included in the sprachbund that is the topic of this article—blindlynx 23:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  Not always included. The term Transeurasian languages don't necessarily refer to the macro-family that is proposed under that name. The inclusion isn't necessary, however also potentially and rarely included in the sprachbund as well, as interactions between the languages are still proposed to have existed, without an unknown degree, which does fit this article's mention of the Koreanic and Japonic if nothing else. KyoumaHK (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose this article should refer to the flavor of this hypothesis that most people would think of. Also rather than relying on your own reasoning for what seems more plausible, we rely on what the majority of sources would call this topic grapesurgeon (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Current title is the WP:COMMONNAME, as even the nominator acknowledges. Wikipedia shouldn't be at the forefront of renaming topics, we should be reflecting what sources already do. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)