Talk:Bikol languages

Languages Stub‑class

	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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tambayan Philippines Stub‑class Top‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines 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.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This article is written in Philippine English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, realize, center, travelled) and some terms that are used in it (including jeepney and cyberlibel) may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Merge

Let's get the discussion started whether or not to merge Languages of Bicol into Bikol languages.

Support. Content and titles indicate that they are clearly the same. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bikol Naga as "Standard"

Seriously, why is there a "(Standard Bikol)" after Coastal BiKol Naga? This is Naga-centric. English language has many dialects in Britain, but still none of them are considered "Standard". There is also American English, but it is considered as good as the English from Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.130.2 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Visayan languages which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bisakol?

Can anyone cross-check whether Lobel et al. (2000) really employ the term "Bisakol" for the three Visayan lects spoken in the Bikol area, and whether they really treat them as part of the Bikol languages? Unfortunately, I don't have access to the book. But I have serious doubts about it, since Lobel never states anything that comes close to it in other publications available to me, e.g. in his contribution to the Concise Encyclopedia of Languages of the World. In the tree based on McFarland (1974), "Bisakol" was also falsely inserted as a branch of the Bikol languages, even though McFarland definitely treats them as Visayan languages in his dissertation. I suspect that the same distortion was done to the material from Lobel et al. (2000). –Austronesier (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]