Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list statistics Wikipedians by promoted featured list nominations Today's featured list This month's queue TFL submissions TFL statistics Featured lists that have appeared as TFL Featured lists yet to appear as TFL Featured list log Random featured list Former featured lists Removal candidates log

This is a log of featured lists from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, with the most recent at the top. Discussions about unsuccessful nominations are located in the failed log.

Candidacy discussion about lists promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2026. Summary logs of articles promoted by year are also maintained; the most recent log is at Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2026.

Full current month log

view - edit - history

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:13 7 August 2026 FACBot (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC).

---

List of international goals scored by Dimitar Berbatov

Nominator(s): TNM101 (chat) 17:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

My first time nominating any article for either GA or FA/FL, would gladly accept any feedback on improving the list TNM101 (chat) 17:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• Image caption needs a full stop
• "He subsequently went on to make 78 appearances for the national team and was the captain from 2006 until May 2010.[2][3] Until his retirement in May 2010, he scored 48 goals and finished as the country's joint all-time top scorer with Hristo Bonev" - this would read better as "He subsequently went on to make 78 appearances for the national team and was the captain from 2006 until his retirement in May 2010.[2][3] He scored 48 goals and finished as the country's joint all-time top scorer with Hristo Bonev"
• "He scored his first goal for the Trikolyorite" - nickname should be in quote marks, not italics
• "in a 2–3 friendly loss to Chile" => "in a 3–2 friendly loss to Chile"
• "Despite appearing in 24 FIFA World Cup qualifiers for the 2002, 2006, and 2010 editions, he was not able to guide the nation to the competition proper since their last appearance in 1998." => "Despite appearing in 24 FIFA World Cup qualifiers for the 2002, 2006, and 2010 editions, he was not able to guide the nation to the competition proper, in which they had last appeared in 1998."
• "He appeared at UEFA Euro 2004, where he made 3 appearances" => "He appeared at UEFA Euro 2004, where he made three appearances"
• "This would be the only major tournament that he would play in for Bulgaria" => "This was the only major tournament that he played in for Bulgaria"
• "After retiring at 29, many believed that he lacked the motivation and drive to impel a weak squad and that his performances for the team were sometimes too "languid" or laid back" - people only thought this after he retired? Nobody thought it while he was playing?

Reworded this TNM101 (chat)

• "The list below shows each of his international goals, in order from the first to the last goal." - no need to say this, as it's obvious
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you. I have implemented all of your comments TNM101 (chat) 05:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• The lead image needs alt-text. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  Done TNM101 (chat) 05:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Reidgreg

• subsequently went on to make → made
• I don't feel we should use "Trikolyorite" without defining it as a nickname of the team, and at that point we'd be going off topic.
• This was the only major tournament that he played in for Bulgaria. I feel that we can remove "in" here.
• Overlinking in the Goals table; only have to link something on its first mention in the table (generally left–right, top–bottom).

Did the ones above TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 14:57, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Is the single source used for the Goals table of sufficient reliability/quality for FA? The author of that page is credited as Roberto Mamrud, and his work for that website is used as a source for some 50 Wikipedia articles, including at least one FA. I'd appreciate someone else taking a look at this.

@Reidgreg: If another source is needed to pass this, I can try finding one TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 17:20, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments by NapHit

• "Despite appearing in 24 FIFA World Cup qualifiers for the 2002, 2006, and 2010 editions, he was not able to guide the nation to the competition proper..." I'd reword the bit about him guiding the team, as that makes it sound like it was his sole responsibility, and even like he was managing the team
• I would have a caption on the main table and have the source next to the caption, rather than at the bottom underneath the table
• Ref 1, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 14 need an en dash
• Also not sure if the dates in the ref should be changed from this format 2025-03-22 to 22 March 2025, as I think that's the preferred method of presenting dates, but I'm not 100% sure on the guidelines
• You have www.rsssf.org and Rec.Sports.Soccer Statistics Foundation in the refs. You need to pick one and stick with it. Ideally, it would be the latter
• I have no issue with the single source citing the table, that's quite common in these lists, and it's a reliable source

NapHit (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@NapHit I have done all that you mentioned above; I would appreciate if you took another look at the en dashes just so I didn't miss any. TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 09:15, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support all my concerns have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Prose review:

• Most of the sentences in the first paragraph begin with "He". Suggest changing the sentence structure of one of the sentences to avoid this.
• "on 17 November 1999, as a substitute for" I don't think the comma is necessary here.

Source review:

• Suggest archiving the sources. I use IA Bot.
• Refs 2, 5, and 9 are missing publication dates that should be added to the article.
• Refs 3 and 4 are missing the publication date and author
• Refs 1, 6, 7, and 8 have "last updated" statements at the bottom of the page which could be used as publication dates. They also have statements on who maintains the page, which should be listed as the author.

Addressed these TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 08:59, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720: Please check the changes TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 12:41, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720? TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 08:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait. In Ref 6, Andre Zlotkowski is the page's author (indicated at the bottom of the page). Since that's my only concern, I'll support, assuming TNM101 will resolve it. Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Done, thanks for catching that :) TNM101 (in solidarity · chat) 05:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Promoted. --PresN 21:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:13 7 August 2026 FACBot (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC).

---

List of 2026 Indian Premier League personnel changes

Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio 10:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I am back with a list from the recently concluded 2026 Indian Premier League; I formatted the page based on the 2025 list which I took to FL earlier this year. Vestrian24Bio 10:56, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments

• "third most expensive player in the history of IPL" => "third most expensive player in the history of the IPL"
• "became the joint-most expensive uncapped players in the history of IPL" - same
• "Meanwhile the 79 unsold players included players" => "The 79 unsold players included players"
• "Right-to-Match (RTM) cards were not available for mini auction." - please explain "right-to-match" cards. The link just goes to the generic IPL article so that's not really much help.
• "Any auctioned player withdrew before the 2025 season without legitimate reason or injury are banned" => "Any auctioned player who withdrew before the 2025 season without legitimate reason or injury are is banned"
• "Ten sets of players divided based on their specialisation" => "Ten sets of players were divided based on their specialisation"
• "batters, all-rounders, wicket keeper batters, fast bowlers and spin bowlers; and status: capped and uncapped went up for bidding first" - I don't understand which group(s) the last five words relate to
• I don't understand the totals mentioned in the lead: 369 players were shortlisted, 77 were sold, and 79 were unsold. What happened to the other 113 players.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude

  • Removed RTM since it was not relevant to this season anyways.
  • Player groups: capped batters & uncapped batters, capped bowlers & uncapped bowlers etc.
  • Resolved the players count; only 156 were featured in the auction.

  All else done. Vestrian24Bio 11:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• I still don't understand this part "Ten sets of players were divided based on their specialisation: batters, all-rounders, wicket keeper batters, fast bowlers and spin bowlers; and status: capped and uncapped went up for bidding first" - who exactly went up for bidding first? It seems like there are some words missing...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: this is the order they went up in

  1. Capped batters
  2. Capped all-rounders
  3. Capped wicket-keepers
  4. Capped fast bowlers
  5. Capped spin bowlers
  6. Uncapped batters
  7. Uncapped all-rounders
  8. Uncapped wicket-keepers
  9. Uncapped fast bowlers
  10. Uncapped spin bowlers

  I'm just not sure how to explain it all in a prose summary. Vestrian24Bio 11:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

In that case I would phrase it as "Ten sets of players were divided based on their specialisation: batters, all-rounders, wicket-keeper batters, fast bowlers and spin bowlers; and status: capped and uncapped. The capped players went up for bidding first followed by the uncapped players." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: done. Vestrian24Bio 11:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Birdienest81

• "The 2026 Indian Premier League was the 19th edition of the Indian Premier League (IPL), a professional Twenty20 (T20) cricket league held in India, organised by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI)." This looks like a run on sentence. Maybe replace the comma after India with the phrase "which was"
• "Organised" in that same sentence is spelled wrong. Should be "organized".
  • "Organised" is the correct spelling in Indian English, which basically mirrors British spellings -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Add a comma after United Arab Emirates per MOS:GEOCOMMA

That should be it for now. Could you proofread Cillian Murphy on stage and screen for its featured list candidacy when you have the chance?

--Birdienest81talk 01:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Birdienest81: Added the comma, but I'm not entirely sure what to do with the first point..? Vestrian24Bio 07:31, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio: I've added the phrase "which was" after the second comma of that sentence. It should be fine now. This list has my support.

---Birdienest81talk 07:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Review passed, source review passed, promoting. --PresN 21:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:13 7 August 2026 FACBot (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC).

---

Glossary of sound laws in the Indo-European languages

Nominator(s): ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It is difficult to overstate the importance of Indo-European linguistics on historical and comparative linguistics as a whole. This glossary, which began as a nearly unreferenced list of fewer than three dozen well-known sound laws, has been a nearly two-and-a-half-year effort and I learned more than I could ever hope to know about phonological change (and editing Wikipedia!) as a result. I humbly submit this list as my first FLC. If it passes, this will be only the second glossary ever to achieve FL status after Glossary of bird terms, which I based my style and formatting on. I look forward to all your comments. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comments and Support by Kisseran

Fantastic work! I only have some comments about the content for now:

• Melchert has changed his position on Čop's law in Anatolian here

• Incredible catch! I had missed this publication entirely. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Sturtevant's law should read "after Proto-Anatolian" instead of "after Proto-Indo-European" (see footnote 74 of Yates 2019 and elsewhere)

• Fixed. Good catch again. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Laryngeal metathesis could probably make this list, as discussed in any of Byrd's overviews of PIE phonology

• I considered this, but I wanted to ensure the list contained entries that were distinctly IE; "laryngeal metathesis" could very well describe a sound law in a completely different family than IE. I can still add it, but I wanted to explain my having left it out. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Have you checked Collinge's "Further Laws of Indo-European"? The relevant ones he lists include Oettinger's (Hittite), Nyman's (Latin), and Lorentz's (Germanic).

• Incredible catch again. I was hoping to avoid Collinge's horrifically byzantine writing style, but this is great stuff I haven't caught before. Just when you think you've got all the named laws, right? Will review and integrate as appropriate. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Is there any pattern to the parentheticals (not fully accepted), (not widely accepted), (controversial), and (not fully solved)? I find it unlikely that fine distinctions can be made between all of these labels. It would probably help to lay out the criteria for labeling a sound law as one of these in the lead. Also, if these labels are to be used, then they seem to be missing from some entries that are controversial, e.g. the Kortlandt effect.

• Yes-ish. "Not fully accepted" indicates that there are notable hold outs against it (usually Pronk or Kortlandt), "not widely accepted" means there are notable hold outs for it, "controversial" means that I couldn't make a determination as to the general acceptability but that there were substantive challenges or deeply entrenched pro- and anti-camps, and "not fully solved" means that the law is generally accepted but there are substantive instances where the law should apply but doesn't and no one has provided an explanation for the exceptions yet. I'll mill through and make sure I didn't miss any; I think one of the Thurneysen laws probably needs a tag. I don't remember the Kortlandt effect being challenged in the literature. Do you have a source for that? ThaesOfereode (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Matasovic explicitly calls the Kortlandt effect "still-disputed" in the new Leiden volume this year. Kisseran (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Incredible catch again. Thank you! ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• the redlink ejective theory in Winter's law should link to glottalic theory (or perhaps create a new redirect if you have seen the term used, but I personally don't remember such a term in usage)

• Did both here since it's so named in the source iirc. I don't know how I got my wires so crossed I forgot what glottalic theory is. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• In the lead "Sound laws are processes..." is slightly confusing because I do not think Neogrammarians (or many subsequent scholars) would consider sound laws to be processes. Trask, the cited source, doesn't call them processes either. I would perhaps characterize them instead as "instances of phonological change" or "regular sound correspondences".

• Yeah, fair enough. I think they are kind of processes, but you're correct that that's not reflected in the source. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Kisseran (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kisseran: Genuinely a treat to work with someone well-versed in IE linguistics here on the quality articles side of WP, and especially someone so new! I look forward to your contributions to the project at large. Thank you for the kind words and constructive comments. I will work on the integration of the new Collinge source, but in the meantime, I believe all other comments have been addressed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@ThaesOfereode: Thank you for the praise! I'm glad you found my comments helpful. In fact I was inspired to start editing partially from seeing your IE linguistics work. I have gone through the page more thoroughly for some more comments:

Some further comments on factual content:

• Lubotsky's law is conditioned by clusters beginning with voiced unaspirated (glottalic per Lubotsky) stops, see Lubotsky's original 1981 paper and Lubotsky's Indo-Iranian chapter in the HSK handbook (ch. 110)

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Adjarian's law should be reworded to explain that it is conditioned by the reflex of the PIE voiced aspirates, since the prose is currently both ambiguous and assumes a value for the Armenian stop series when there is debate (see the Armenian chapter in the new Leiden volume again)

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• Should be good to go. As usual, let me know if something is wrong. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Centumization should mention this article by Melchert published in Sound of Indo-European 2, which states that Anatolian is centum in traditional terms, with Luvo-Lycian (aka Luvian aka Luwian aka Luwic) being the centum counterpart to Albanian. Also relevant in considering the presentation of Anatolian might be Ringe 2024 (p. 116), although the words "centum" and "satem" are not used there.

• I'll review Melchert here, but Kloekhorst describes Anatolian (specifically using Luvo-Lycian as examples) as maintaining all three series, as do Hyllested & Joseph in Olander (2022), p. 239. Probably a good idea to describe the placement of Albanian though so I'll add a footnote. Also, just for clarity, when you discuss Ringe (2024) you mean this, right? Or am I missing a publication somewhere? ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• The question here isn't so much as whether (Proto-)Anatolian maintained all three series, but whether centumization can be an "eventual" process after sound changes have already produced distinct outcomes from the etymological three series. In Melchert's newer paper, his implicit position seems to be that "if Albanian is satem, then Anatolian is centum, and Albanian is satem". Of course this position is slightly less appealing according to the previous received opinion (Melchert 1994) that the contrast was maintained unconditionally, rather than conditionally. Given that centum languages and satem languages are already not considered clades, I think this is a reasonable presentation. There's no factual inconsistency with Kloekhorst's opinion (although I don't think Kloekhorst has published anything relevant since Melchert's new paper); the main issue is the rather arbitrary definition of centum and satem.Kisseran (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is all fair enough. I think what I've added works, but if not, just ping me again. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Also, yes, that is the Ringe 2024 I'm referring to. I had mistakenly assumed that it would have already been in the bibliography.Kisseran (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• The two entries for the thorn clusters should be marked (post-Anatolian) or some equivalent, incorporating this Jasanoff paper. See also Ringe's 2024 discussion of thorn clusters. They should also explain that these clusters were identified as containing the dental fricative, rather than as the dental fricative.

• Reviewing Jasanoff, it looks like this might be post-Tocharian too, or am I misreading? Also, Byrd seems to indicate that the "thorn clusters" were seen as simply a dental fricative not as a part of a cluster (p. 24), unless again I'm misreading. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Thorn cluster metathesis, which is not listed here (although it probably could be) is undoubtedly a post-Tocharian development, but otherwise Tocharian's treatment of thorn clusters is unclear (see footnote 10 in the Jasanoff paper). I don't think you are misreading Byrd, but he's certainly made a mistake here: the segment thorn was seen as a dental fricative, but thorn clusters are so named because they are clusters containing thorn, i.e. *kþ, gð, gðʰ. This is correctly described in Jasanoff's paper, and e.g. also this paper by Kloekhorst and this paper by Watkins. You can also check the original Brugmann and contemporary sources for yourself. In Byrd's chapter in the HSK handbook, he adds a citation to Schindler's classic paper in the same passage, which correctly describes the original conception, indicating that Byrd probably made an honest mistake in his prose here, understandably, as he probably wrote that quite early on in his PhD thesis.Kisseran (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Lachmann's law should specify "etymological voiced unaspirated stop" instead of "underlyingly voiced stop": the fact that it doesn't operate with etymological voiced aspirates is significant, and underlying works only for the generative accounts from Kiparsky, while etymological is neutral, applicable to all accounts, and also the verbiage of the cited Jasanoff paper.

• Fair point. Fixed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Some further minor comments on the prose and formatting:

• Sturtevant's law should be labeled (Hittite) per the previously noted change

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Lubotsky's law "Some linguists have rejected the law on the basis that they believe Proto-Indo-European had the vowel *a" should be clarified to explain that they reject putative examples of the law that they believe should be reconstructed with *a and without a laryngeal

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Rix's law "the laryngeal undergoes coloring" should be clarified to explain that it is the epenthetic vowel that the laryngeal colors, per the cited source.

• My understanding was that epenthesis was a possible-but-not-necessary step; Höfler (2024)'s table uses the "direct vocalization" approach (cf. Byrd [2015, p. 27]), so I've moved that citation forward and added a footnote describing the debate. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Pinault's law could mention Byrd's reformulation of the conditioning environment to be the onset of a syllable. .

• Good idea. Added. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Grassmann's law should probably mention that it was independently innovated in Greek and Sanskrit. The label (pre-Proto-Tocharian) is understandable in the context that Grassmann's law remained productive synchronically in Greek and Sanskrit, but to be consistent with the labeling of other sound laws it is probably less confusing to just label it (Tocharian) as Ringe 2024 does.

• Yeah, fair points. I've added a bit (plus apparently Grassmann's is pre-Vedic per HSK). ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• The labels (Ingvaeonic languages) and (High German languages) could probably be changed to (Ingvaeonic) and (High German) for consistency with the rest of the article, unless there's some nuance I'm missing with the differing usages

• Yes to Invaeonic, though I think the simple "High German" is more confusing than necessary since that usually refers to Hochdeutsch alone rather than other HG varieties like Yiddish. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Similarly the label of (Ancient Greek) for the two parts of Grassmann's law could probably be changed to just (Greek) for consistency.

• For sure, done. I wonder if we might just change it to "Hellenic" for consistency at large. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• I personally think "Hellenic" would be unnecessary additional jargon that doesn't even enjoy much scholarly popularity either. If there's ever any cause for confusion (e.g. the unlikely event that Tsakonian has a named sound law to itself) then I would be in favor of changing it. Having Hellenic as a heading makes sense to me too, if not only for the reason that if the heading were named Greek, plenty of people would be rushing to change it back to Hellenic on sight. Kisseran (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• The formulation of Osthoff's law is rather confusing and syntactically ambiguous. I would either be sightly more elaborate with the description (as done by Trask and Collinge) or adopt Byrd's clean prosodic formulation.

• I think I've fixed this (+ examples). ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Eichner's law: "a-coloring and o-coloring laryngeals"

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Joseph's law: "During the period between Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Celtic"

• Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• In the lead, it might make sense to state negatively that in families with many well-attested members—Slavic, Germanic, Italic, and Indo-Iranian—sound laws affecting only one descendant language are excluded. There are more branches without many well-attested members, and it is also otherwise unclear what counts as well-attested.
• The following sentence is also somewhat strange, since my understanding of Olander's "neo-traditional" model involves the primary branches of PIE being Anatolian and Indo-Tocharian. I don't think referring to any of the "main branches" of IE requires any explicit acknowledgment at all, since this is neither common practice in the literature nor is it actually relevant to any entry in the list. There aren't really any notable named sound laws that are prominently attributed to more contentious subgroupings like Italo-Celtic or Greco-Armenian (and if there were, then the subgroupings probably wouldn't be so contentious), or the minor languages like Phrygian or Messapic.

• So three things here:

• By "neo-traditional" here, I was mostly trying to avoid the various outdated "traditional" models (like Schleicher's) which contained phylogenetic branches like "Aryo-Greco-Italo-Celtic" and "Slavo-Germanic" which are now contrary to modern scholarship. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• While descriptions of this model are not necessarily found in other literature, I think its inclusion here is helpful. For one, it seems like something that could be reasonably challenged so I wanted to get head of that. For another, it's more likely that a reader will develop an interest in historical/comparative linguistics for the first time from reading Wikipedia on their phone than they are to randomly select Szemerényi's or Beekes's introductions to IE ling off a bookshelf. I think it's important to guide that nascent (or simply uneducated) interest with what the current view of IE linguistics is. Obviously, this page is hugely technical (but still appropriate given the level, I think), but it's a jumping off point. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Third, some laws did have some putative "higher-order" approaches; I've included Cowgill's Italo-Celtic view of the pius law, for example. I think it's the only one here right now (I'm admittedly sympathetic to – but not convinced of – Italo-Celtic), but given that these laws sometimes linger in rather obscure papers, there may be other laws that "may apply" to less widely-accepted groupings. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• I probably didn't word my concern very well here. I assumed that by "main branches", you meant something different from "primary branches", in the sense of PIE's immediate descendant nodes on the phylolinguistic tree, since you didn't write "Anatolian and Indo-Tocharian". However, I get the sense that even in the outdated models with more intermediate nodes within core IE, those groupings were never treated with greater importance than the lower level uncontroversial groups. I also thought that this could not be reasonably challenged, although I was clearly mistaken on account of you thinking otherwise. Perhaps it is helpful to write that Anatolian split off first, then Tocharian, then the rest is uncertain, but my main concern with the current way it's phrased is that it makes the position seem more controversial than it really is, potentially giving undue weight to holdouts against the scholarly consensus without even mentioning them by name. After all, the lead doesn't explicitly say that the list adopts laryngeal theory, for example. Kisseran (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  No worries, I think I see. So in accordance with WP:ONEDOWN, I've aimed to have this accessible to a late-undergraduate-to-early-graduate linguistics student. I think this is a very difficult page to pare down to my usual target of high school student, in part because a glossary demands a particular kind of terseness to be useful (see also: WP:TECH-CONTENT). I think we may be diving into silicate chemist territory here, but special care needs to be taken in the lede (from ONEDOWN: The lead section should be particularly understandable). I don't think your average early undergrad (certainly not a high schooler) really knows the branches outright, especially if they're not historical/comparative-focused, so I feel it's important to say "look, here is the main model and this is supported by most people" and I don't think that necessarily creates undue weight. My understanding is that laryngeal theory does not have any serious critics at this point; there is still debate about Italo-Celtic and other subgroups in the two branching models (Ringe's and Gray's; cf. Olander 2022, p.6) and I believe Kortlandt had (has?) some other ideas. I can see the standard phylogenetic view of IE languages changing in the near term (i.e., 10–20 years); I don't see that for laryngeal theory.

  
  

  All that having been said, do you think I should change it from "main" to "primary" branches? I'm happy to write about Anatolian breaking off first, though Tocharian's being next (though I agree) is not noted in Olander's neo-traditional model, only in the branch model. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, while the sentence itself is clearly ONEDOWN, I fail to see its particular importance for understanding anything in the body. I get that most people new to the topic won't know the branches by heart, but for each sound law, the important thing to understand is what branches are subject to that law, which is made perfectly clear in each entry. If there were many entries of the form like (all branches except Anatolian, Tocharian, and Germanic), then yes, you'd need to keep in mind which branches are there for it to make sense. I think the wording of "this glossary uses..." is what really sets me off: considering that the example of Romance sound changes in the first paragraph is most certainly less relevant to the content of the body, but it is clear that it provides context for the reader in understanding the content, and not a practical, arbitrary decision with other sensible alternatives. If you had simply wrote in wikivoice in the first paragraph something like "Anatolian was the first to branch off, and the internal relations of the rest, Albanian, Armenian, ... Tocharian, are undetermined", then that would seem to me as completely appropriate mundane background information and I wouldn't have any reason to comment on that.

  There are no serious critics of the "neo-traditional model" because the point of the concept is to reflect the state of academic consensus. It doesn't state that the core IE branches have no intermediate relations with each other, but merely that its undetermined (Olander p.5). Nobody seriously disputes the facts that (a) Anatolian branches off first and (b) the rest of the relationships are undetermined, even though they might have personal opinions about the organization of core IE.

  I don't think you should change it from "main" to "primary", because that would be incorrect: Indo-European has two primary branches, one of which is Anatolian. In the interest of avoiding confusion perhaps it is best to avoid both terms altogether. You are right that Olander doesn't put Tocharian next in his neo-traditional model; I should have double checked before saying that. Kisseran (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, I see now. I apologize sincerely for the confusion. I think maybe when I wrote that bit I was simply trying to explain why the branches are set out the way they are so that the target audience (late under–early grad) wouldn't go hunting for Celtic under Italo-Celtic, though saying it out loud (or typing it out loud?) does make that seem a little silly in retrospect. What do you think about replacing that sentence with something like "While there is consensus that the Anatolian languages broke off first, the internal relations of the other widely-accepted subfamilies – Albanian, Armenian, ... Tocharian – are undetermined. This glossary uses this model, known as the "neo-traditional" model, to organize laws." or words to that effect? Open to input here too. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think having the first sentence would make sense to me. I think if you don't say it, then it goes without saying that the organization of a list is going to adhere to academic consensus (and would be obvious to anyone looking at the TOC). Also, while the contents of the model are accepted by everyone, I'm pretty sure that the name "neo-traditional model" is just a neologism Olander made up, and I don't think it has found too much usage yet. Also, this glossary isn't actually organized by such a model, because both Anatolian and the core IE branches are second-level headings. If you really were to organize the page according to the neo-tradtional model, then all the core IE branches should be third level headings, but clearly that would not be a good organizational decision. I suppose you could mention that instead, but then again I really doubt that it would be a cause for confusion otherwise. Kisseran (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• The external links section is empty, as it probably should be, but the heading is still there

• Looks like someone beat me to it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• I presume the further reading section is just the leftover sources that happen to have been left out from citation? Otherwise I don't really see any purpose or intent in the organization of the section. Given how meticulously referenced the list already is, I feel that a further reading section is quite unnecessary. For the laws with their own pages, it would make more sense to add the relevant further reading to those pages, and for the laws mentioned in the list but without their own page, it might be more useful to integrate those into the prose of their respective entries. For the general reference works, I think they absolutely do not belong in the "further reading" on this page since this page is already more comprehensive and detailed than every general reference work I can think of.

• This is a artifact of my writing process; often I will have found a potentially useful source that I just don't have the energy or time to mine so I will plug the DOI into Citer (which is amazing if you haven't used it before) and put in further reading until I can get to it. This is in part so I don't lose it, in part because I don't want to re-template the citation, and in part because I think sources I don't get to (or find out later don't really have the information I was looking for, are entirely redundant from other sources, etc.) are still useful to other readers.

• I agree with the IP user on the talk page that the see also section is somewhat bloated. I think keeping all of the links to other named sound laws makes sense, since those are clearly in the same defining category as this page. It is also natural for a reader to wonder about named sound laws in other language families once finishing this page, and for the Indo-European ones linked it could have the additional utility of preventing future editors from mistakenly adding them to the list. For someone who is concerned about named sound laws in general (and not just in IE), they might struggle to find all of the linked sound laws on their own without having heard of them beforehand (although in the ideal world there'd simply be a page named Glossary of Sound Laws in general). For the other links, I don't see the same utility, nor do I think they're in the same defining category. Phonological history of Old Irish and Historical Chinese phonology are pages that anyone who knows about the existence of Old Irish and Chinese would be able to navigate to, and it might be sensible to have them listed at the bottom of Proto-Indo-European phonology. Grammatical aspect in the Slavic languages feels out of place because it is so specific and also the only page of its kind linked in the section. Perhaps it would feel less out of place to link a comparable "Grammatical developments in the Indo-European languages" page if such a page existed, but I can't really see any relation between the two pages aside from the trivial ones of both being broadly about Indo-European linguistics and being written by you. I think Caland system and Indo-European ablaut are given enough prominence in the navbox already, but I don't think those two links would stand out to me in either possible treatment.

• I think I agree with you. The thought process behind the Slavic aspect one was that it was also about IE change, but you're right that it's a stretch to include it here. I've removed the others as requested, though I kept the Old Irish one just because it's basically a collection of sound laws, just unnamed sound laws. I asked for guidance elsewhere on whether this is allowed, but I thought a good way of reducing bloat here would be to keep the other IE laws (e.g., Jakubinskij's), remove the tangentially related ones (e.g., Slavic aspect), and collapse the rest into simply Category:Sound laws. Would that work from your perspective? ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

This has been discouraged by an admin I spoke with. Will consider other ideas in the meantime. ThaesOfereode (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• I think the clear ideal eventual solution is having some sort of "List(s) of Sound Laws" page to link to, but in the meantime I'm ambivalent with regard to keeping or removing non-IE sound laws from the section. Perhaps as a compromise (and to ensure that it doesn't grow out of hand), the section could link to only the named non-IE sound laws with their own page? Kisseran (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  My knee-jerk reaction is that, given that naming sound laws is a primarily IE thing to do, maybe there should be a "Glossary of non-IE sound laws" page, but I feel like maybe there's a better approach. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Kisseran (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kisseran: Thanks for the kind words. Glad to see my editing is having some downstream effect too! This is all tremendously helpful and I'm working on integrating the larger issues into the page right now, but wanted to let you know I've addressed some of the smaller problems.

@ThaesOfereode: I've responded to some of the responses so far, and in the interest of not dragging on the review any more than it needs to be I'm just going to add some final comments without waiting for you to finish the previous batch:

• Several things with Bugge's rule: "become voiced fricatives whenever accent falls...". Also, is there any reason why "not less than three syllables" is directly quoted? I think it wouldn't be OR to just write "three or more syllables". The following sentence about hemp and kannabis is wrong, or at least mistates the cited Collinge passage: Bugge accepted the correspondence despite hænep being voiceless-initial.

• No reason for the quote on second look; must've just struck me at the time. Fixed the accent issue and removed parts of the rule. Using this space to once again curse Collinge's nightmarish writing style. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Kluge's law: "common Germanic"—did you mean "Common Germanic"? It would probably be clearer to just write Proto-Germanic.

• I think I meant it as in "common to all Germanic languages", but your suggestion works to so done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Bartoli's law: words ending in short-long metrical feet... the word becomes paroxytone...

• Good catch. Fixed with a tweak. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Exon's law: "do not undergo this process as they succeed the law chronologically" or some other clear equivalent phrasing.

• Yep, done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Thurneysen-Havet's law: I'm pretty sure "heterosyllabic" is completely redundant to specify in that position and also not stated in any of the cited sources.

• Fixed. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Interlanguage links on authors in the bibliography is somewhat confusing as I assumed the labels were about the texts, but I don't know if anything can or should be done about that. The titles make it pretty obvious what language the texts are in.

• Yeah, not much to be done there unfortunately. I wish they would let us use {{ill}} templates in the citations but alas... ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Are you sure the archive.org links to full books aren't copyright violations?

• This should be good to go now, I think. Let me know if anything else looks a little sketchy. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• All the images are encyclopedic and properly licensed. The modern Irish song and modern Persian video seem rather bizarre to me as choices for illustration here, but they are properly licensed, and a more general audience may well find them helpful, but I wouldn't know. Kisseran (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Yeah, I really wasn't sure what to put here, but felt like it would be helpful to hear what the languages sound like and felt those two groups were probably the least likely to have been heard by the audience before. I would love to have used something like File:Celtic languages over time.gif, but of course it's uncited and there's a lot of information to mill through to confirm (if such reading even did confirm it). I'll try to look for something more pertinent in the meantime though; I hadn't really thought about these media in quite some time as I was working to get the rest of the laws filled in, so to speak. ThaesOfereode (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kisseran: Should be all caught up here, but let me know if there's still something missing. ThaesOfereode (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems good to me. Support. In terms of FLC criteria, this article is already clearly superior to Collinge 1985, the only comparable reference work in this subject, in both breadth and prose quality. Kisseran (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Shwabb1

• Will review this (for compliance with MOS, clarity, accessibility, and images). For now, just one comment: per MOS:DASHVAR, in the case of en dashes with spaces on both sides, the first space should be non-breaking. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 11:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to review! I believe the dash issue has been resolved now, but if you find another error, just let me know. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Continuing...

• In the lead, link "phonological" to Phonology
  • Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For asno law, link diphthongs. Later on, a reader not familiar with the topic may not know what "[gen. sg.]" stands for, so I also recommend linking to Genitive case and Grammatical number.
  • Done, with tweaks. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For aspirate throwback, "for whatever reason" can be removed. Also, link "stop" to Plosive.
  • Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For Beekes's law, link "resonant" to Sonorant and "laryngeal" to Laryngeal consonant or Laryngeal theory
  • Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For boukólos rule, link "labiovelars" to Labialized velar consonant
  • Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For centumization, link "assibilate" to Assibilation
  • Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For métron rule, link Gaulish
  • Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For Pinault's law, link "onset" to Syllable#Onset
  • Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For footnote f, link schwa
  • Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For Schwebeablaut, link "syllable coda" to Syllable#Coda and "metathesizes" to Metathesis (linguistics).
  • Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For Stang's law, link "acc." to Accusative case
  • Done, with tweaks. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For Weise's law, I would separate the consonants *ḱ *ǵ *ǵʰ with commas following the structure at the sections ruki sound law and satemization.
  • Good call. Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For Rosenthall's law, link "morphophonological" to Morphophonology
  • Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For Čop's law, "syllable contained" → "syllable contains". Later on, link lenition.
  • Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For Ebeling's law, I assume "the language" refers to Proto-Balto-Slavic but this is not clear.
  • Somewhat controversial; I've rewrote part of this to clear it up somewhat. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For Dolobko's law, link "encliticized" to Clitic#Enclitic. Later on, "The law is named after ... who wrote about the law" → "The law is named after ... who wrote about it", or rephrase in another way (the two instances of "the law" not far from each other make the sentence seem clunky to me; this change is just a suggestion, not a requirement). Also, it seems that Illich-Svitych wasn't Russian; "Soviet" would be a more accurate adjective to refer to both linguists.
  • Done, done, and done. Normally I'm reluctant to use Soviet unless the person was born and died during the USSR period, but Illich-Svitych is certainly an odd enough case. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
    • I understand. If it really bothers you, I think nothing of significant value will be lost if the adjectives are removed altogether, as the nationalities are not very relevant to this article. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 09:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• For Hartmann's law, missing the closing bracket after (bobróvyj
  • Good catch. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• So far, very well written, and I have no major complaints. Most of my suggestions are extra wikilinks which should be easy to add (unless you disagree with anything, in which case feel free to contest). I'll go over everything after Balto-Slavic tomorrow. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 22:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Continuing...

• Going back to Szemerényi's law, link fricatives. And for Havlík's law, link "moraic" to Mora (linguistics). Now continuing from where I stopped.
  • Done and done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For High German consonant shift, link affricates
  • Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For Thurneysen's law, I believe "stress-bearing" is a compound adjective and should thus be spelled without the hyphen when used predicatively (per MOS:HYPHEN), though I'm not entirely sure on this one (I couldn't find enough evidence of the similarly structured "word-initial" and "word-final" used without a hyphen so not sure whether the same applies here).
  • Rephrased as a work around, but let me know if that doesn't work. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• For Verner's law, the first sentence has awkward wording (unless I am misreading it). It would be more clear with an extra "is": "and not word-initial or abutting" → "and is not word-initial or abutting".
  • Good call. Done. ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• All file licenses check out. Alt text is present and sufficient, and I detected no issues with accessibility. This is it from me, then. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 21:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • @Shwabb1: Should be good to go above. Thanks again for taking a look at this! ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
    • Support on prose and pass accessibility & image reviews. I'll admit that I did not understand every single sentence but whatever amateur linguistics knowledge I have has helped a ton. This will also be the second FL in the category of "Language and linguistics" once promoted; I'm glad to see the coverage of topics that are currently underrepresented here. If you have the time and interest, I would also appreciate a review of my FLC Monuments of national significance in Chernivtsi Oblast. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 09:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Source review passed (though largely assuming good faith on the technical aspects due to Kisseran's excellent review), promoting. --PresN 21:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.