Talk:Uradhi language

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Queensland / Indigenous peoples Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Uradhi language is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Mid-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Merge proposal

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was unopposed Merge . Викидим (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I propose to merge the Atampaya dialect here due to very thin coverage of the dialect independently of the Uradhi group. I have spent a considerable time trying to locate a decent source describing Atampaya as a whole (rather than saying that a particular language feature is different from the mainstream Uradhi), and came up with nothing. I will gladly acknowledge my error and reverse my opinion on merging if shown even one such research work. Викидим (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Agree. While I've been able to find some mentions online , I don't have access to Tony Crowley's books to gather more info. It's likely he's the only one mentioting the dialect.

The subject lacks notability to merit it's own article. A merger is the best option. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 06:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

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.