Talk:Tabancale language

"Tabancara language" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tabancara language has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 1 § Tabancara language until a consensus is reached. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 07:00, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that only five words are known from the extinct Tabancale language of Peru and Ecuador?

• Source: Urban, Matthias (2024-12-31), "Small and extinct languages of Northern Peru", in Urban, Matthias (ed.), The Oxford Guide to the Languages of the Central Andes (1 ed.), Oxford University PressOxford, pp. 419–437, doi:10.1093/oso/9780198849926.003.0014, ISBN 978-0-19-884992-6, retrieved 2026-07-01

• • Reviewed: template:Did you know nominations/Nathan Webb (priest)
  • Comment: Borderline but the nature of the subject makes it impossible to write much more; prosesize gadget shows 1502 bytes of prose size; possible SOHA hook for August 9

Converted from a redirect by Kepler-1229b (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 7 past nominations.

🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC).

• @Kepler-1229b: Came here to review this, and right now DYKcheck is actually giving me 1495 characters of prose, rather than 1502 bytes (DYK works with characters, not bytes). If it is possible to squeeze out more information, that would be advisable since the article could easily be brought down further by copyediting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I've managed to obtain some more info, which should get it above 1500. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. The main concern here is that much of the article is taken up by the lede, which mostly just duplicates the body's content. I am personally fine with this; however, there are editors at DYK who believe that the lede shouldn't count towards the character count. Excluding the lede, the article is only about 1,150 characters long, which is short enough that the article would almost certainly raise scrutiny. I'm not sure if there's a way to move forward with this, whether it be to rewrite the article to make it lead-less (as some editors have done), or given how you said there's a lack of information out there, that maybe the article just isn't a good fit for DYK due to the short length and how it can't be expanded much further. For what it's worth, I don't agree with those sentiments about lede sections, but the article is short enough that the lede is disproportionately long compared to the rest of the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I've done some more additions to the article now. This is probably the limit of what I can do content-wise. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• The article was new enough at the time of the nomination. Without the lede, the article is about 1,400 characters, but because the rest of the article is now proportionately longer I'll accept it (and right now, DYK doesn't exclude the lede from the character count). A QPQ has been provided; I should note that said nomination ultimately failed due to concerns over the subject's notability, with the article ultimately being rejected. However, that is not relevant to the DYK check so that should be fine. I didn't find any close paraphrasing.

There are two issues that need resolving. The first is that I don't have access to the journal article, so I'll need the exact quote referencing the claim. Second, the article and hook don't exactly match: the lede and hook say that the language is known only from five words, but the article itself says "five words were recorded", which isn't exactly the same claim. This has to be reconciled before I can approve the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: The article itself lists the five words, although other sources explicitly state this; and The Languages of the Andes Another group, the Tabancale, inhabited the village of Aconipa in an elevated area near the upper reaches of the Chinchipe river, approximately in the border area of Ecuador (province of Zamora-Chinchipe) and Peru (province of San Ignacio, Cajamarca). Five words of their language have been recorded: yema ‘water’, moa ‘maize’, oyme ‘firewood’, lalaque ‘fire’ and tie ‘house’. Their language must remain unclassified because these words do not exhibit any significant affinity with other known languages. In my opinion, "recorded" and "known from" are synonymous for all practical purposes, and the sources make no distinction. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 03:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The hook is likely to be challenged at ERRORS or WT:DYK with the current wording. Maybe instead of "known from only five words", it should be something like "only five words are known" or similar phrasing? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I've modified the phrasing of the hook slightly. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 13:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. However, the article still has the old wording, which still isn't supported by the quote. That needs to be adjusted too. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:40, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Done as well. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:22, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, that should work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Relaciones geográficas de Indias

@Kepler-1229b: I have added a documentation session to give some context at the beginning of the article. According to Torero the information about Tabancale comes from the anonymous "Relación de la tierra de Jaén" written around 1570 and published by Marcos Jiménez de la Espada in his "Relaciones Geográficas de Indias", which is available at the Internet Archive here. It might be worth quoting part or all of the section, what do you think?

Quote: "It is twelve leagues from this town of Pucare to that of Aconipa, which lies in the province of the Tabancales. It is situated on the royal road leading from this city to Valladolid and Quito; it is twenty leagues from this city [Jaén]. The language is different, for they call maize *moa*, fire *lalaque*, a house *tie*, water *yema*, and firewood *oyme*. They are held in *encomienda* by Juan de Robledillo, Rodrigo Arias de Buiza, Doña Aldonza Ramírez, and Luisa Rodríguez (an indigenous widow). They hold these *encomiendas* for a single lifetime, as has been stipulated. The natives are of the *behetría* type. They inhabit a cold region. Their land contains abundant gold. [via Google translate]" TSventon (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@TSventon Good call. I agree with adding a quote. I'll also expand the "Classification" section with those of other scholars. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Kepler-1229b: I think it makes sense to start with the evidence in this case, as everything else is interpreting a single short text. I am a bit sceptical about the Tabancale being assimilated, es:Jaén (Perú)#Diego Palomino y la fundación de Jaén says en el ... censo de 1561 Jaén registra 2000 indígenas, en el de 1591 descendían a 106, but that is unsourced. TSventon (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@TSventon the standard for language articles is this specific order; the skepticism is somewhat warranted as Steward and Metraux did not provide exact evidence. A source for the quoted claim would be very nice. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Peer review

Tabancale language

I've listed this article for peer review because I wish to get the article to GA status; before this, I would like for any major issues to be ironed out by a review.

Thanks, 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

GuineaPigC77

Hi. This article seems very clear. Just a few small things.

• Pronunciation tool for the language's name?
• Documentation section: typo "partt"
• I wonder if expanding the Matthias Urban (2024) study description is possible? Perhaps show an example with "yema"?

I hope you find these short comments helpful! GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 10:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help; I've implemented most of your fixes. I don't know of any pronunciation of the name but could try to find it. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

KevinTheCat

Agree with the above. There is nothing really wrong with this article. The only major thing that I would suggest is to combine both parts of the history section into one. I would put the sentence concerning its extinction at the end of the section, after the information on documentation so it flows better. You should also probably link Cajamarca Department and the first mention of Loukotka in the Classification section. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I've also implemented your suggestions, though the two links suggested have already been found in the "History" section, so I havern't linked them twice. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tabancale language/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Kepler-1229b (talk · contribs) 23:30, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dragonhawk12 (talk · contribs) 03:55, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The article is well written

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Follows guidelines above

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spot check here

I am doing the spot check, but I need the sources not linked in the article. Please email me the pages of the articles that are used for the references. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 03:55, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you accessed those sources with the Wikipedia Library, tell me what collection you used and I can go from there. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 04:50, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

1. D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Looked through the sources and found no plagiarism or other copyvios.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Covers all main aspects of the subject w/o going into unnecessary detail.

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Article is neutral

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit wars here

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Image has a valid license and a suitable caption

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passes. Good work!

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for the WP:DCWC, like you. If you have any questions or I biff anything, please tell me! Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 03:55, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dragonhawk12 Thanks for the review. Mason (1950), source 7 in the spotcheck, calls the Tabancale language "Aconipa", which is listed as a synonym. Loukotka (1968) has the map as a separate document here. I'm not really sure what to cite it as; if you have any suggestions, plase let me know. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:20, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Everything looks okay, but I don't understand how the map says that Tabancale was located in Peri and Ecuador by Loukotka. The only thing next to Tabancale is "B6". Is the map connected to Loukotka (1968)? Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 23:55, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dragonhawk12 My bad, that's the wrong link. That was the key to the map; the real map is here. It's supposed to come as an insert to the book. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 23:56, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I can't really understand the map (maybe because of the small text bunched together in bright colors, or maybe I'm just dumb), but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. To cite the map directly, assuming the map is from Loukotka (1968), I would create another citation, keep all the info the same, but change "Classification of South American Indian Languages" to "Ethno-Linguistic Distribution of South American Indians". Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 00:05, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dragonhawk12 Thanks for the tip. I will cite it separately. Tabancale is labeled in yellow near the southern Peru-Ecuador border if you can't see it. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:07, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Fixed now? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:16, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

That looks fixed. This isn't needed for GA, but I would suggest making the title of the citation in Sentence case, to keep it consistent with the other sources. I will read through the article soon. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 00:19, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Readthrough

• "The language is located in southern Ecuador by Willem Adelaar and Pieter Muysken (2004), and in both Peru and Ecuador by the Czech linguist Čestmír Loukotka (1968).": I didn't understand what the sentence was saying the first time I read it. It sounds like Tabancale is currently spoken in those regions. You could rewrite it to something like "According to Willem Adelaar and Pieter Mysken (2004), the language was spoken in southern Ecuador, while Czech linguist Čestmír Loukotka said it was spoken in both Ecuador and Peru."

...And that is the only issue I found. Sweet! Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 00:38, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dragonhawk12 Fixed? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:40, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

That is more understandable now. I couldn't find any more issues, so this article passes! Good work! (btw, I love your signature. It's so... blue...and...spacey...) Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 00:44, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

@Dragonhawk12 Thanks (both for the review and the signature). 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:46, 11 September 2026 (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.