Ultimately, this post is just another call to action, meant to "help advance a discourse that challenges structural forms of racism".
I am not against creating phone-literature tags and using them, but I don't think it is a necessary affair either. In general I am against mapping existing tags onto phone-literature tags and using phone-literature tags as primary tags.
I would recommend prioritizing certain umbrella tags over its nationality-slash-language counterparts on a case-by-case basis, and I will explain why. Keep in mind that the current tag-by-language method has its own inherent inconsistencies and arbitrariness that do not seem to have been adequately discussed and addressed. The idea of tag-by-language is a great idea and I think it is working fine so far. But we also have to understand language is not only language but is also interconnected with ethnicity, race, nationality, nation-states, culture, and history. This tagging method has been largely successful in blurring the country lines: we don't have to worry about if a text is by an Argentinian author or Mexican author, or a Russian Argentine author, as long as it is Spanish by language of origin. I think that is a smart idea which effectively and successfully denationalizes literature, a necessary step to a more inclusive and holistic understanding of literature. However, by insisting upon tagging by language you are enforcing other lines that don't necessarily exist naturally in language.
One of the most commonly invoked aphorisms in linguistics that often comes as a surprise to people not familiar with linguistics is
A language is a dialect with an army and navy (Yiddish original from Max Weinreich:אַ שפּראַך איז אַ דיאַלעקט מיט אַן אַרמיי און פֿלאָט)
Or to illustrate the same point with my preferred version:
The difference between a language and a dialect is a prison and a flag.
The idea is that the distinction between a language and a dialect is blurry and arbitrary, if not totally imaginary. All dialects merit serious consideration as contenders for languagehood. In other words, all dialects are languages. Whether a dialect should or need be considered an independent language separate from a language that it is normally called a dialect of is a separate matter. All linguistic varieties/lects should be treated with (hopefully equal) respect.
If I were to ask you what language is, really, you probably would give me an answer off the top of your head or a definition straight from the OED. Merriam Webster for example defines "language" in the sense that's applicable in our context as "the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community". It should be noted that "language", "dialect", "variety" are all sociolinguistic concepts and we can't possibly do a proper Linnaean job without looking at the sociocultural aspects of language. A variety, for instance, as per Wikipedia, "[i]n sociolinguistics... also called an isolect or lect, is a specific form of a language or language cluster."
Getting back on track with the tags, the Turkic language family has around 40 languages/dialects. Do we want all those tags when questions about texts in those language surface? What about questions about a text in a lingo that's popularly considered a dialect? How do you tag Sami Frashëri's work? Note that Ottoman Turkish is not the same as modern Turkish (historically spoken in wider areas than modern day Turkey and by ethnic groups that we wouldn't consider "Turkish").
Similarly do we tag Norman literature norman-literature or norman-french-literature? quebec-french-literature, swiss-french-literature, ontario-french-literature all needed? Subsuming them under french-literature is a thought, but just know that we are dealing with a bundle of varieties. Create and synonymize azerbaijani-literature, azeri-literature, azeri-turkish-literature, azeri-turkic-literature the whole shebang? Sure, could work.
Also crucial to this discussion is the fact that there has been considerable scholarship on, for example, Hispanic literature and Chinese language literature, by academics who painstakingly try to distance themselves from Spanish literature and Chinese literature and for very obvious reasons. I wonder what Octavio Paz would say in response to people calling his work "Spanish literature" (and explaining to him "Spanish" refers to the language as opposed to the country). I don't think the intellectual giant who foregrounded la Conquista and who considered himself a direct product of the Spanish violence and who had to deny the past in order to be Mexican would be too thrilled. Octavio Paz famously declared:
El mexicano no quiere ser ni indio, ni español. Tampoco quiere descender de ellos. Los niega. Y no se afirma en tanto que mestizo, sino como abstracción: es un hombre. Se vuelve hijo de la Nada. El empieza en sí mismo.
(Translation) The Mexican does not want to be either an Indian or a Spaniard. Nor does he want to be descended from them. He denies them. And be does not affirm himself as a mixture, but rather as an abstraction: he is a man. He becomes the son of Nothingness. His beginnings are in his own self.
Why is such a Nada idea so important to Latin American identities and Hispanic literature? Let's see how Wikipedia defines literatura española/Spanish literature:
La literatura española es aquella desarrollada en castellano en España.
Spanish literature generally refers to literature (Spanish poetry, prose, and drama) written in the Spanish language within the territory that presently constitutes the Kingdom of Spain.
The English version softens it by adding a qualifier "generally" which hardly does anything to solve the problem. The definitions both describe "Spanish literature" as literature of Spain in the Spanish language. (The English page later contradicts its previous position by suggesting Latin American literature is "a branch of Spanish literature". But the Spanish page seems more consistent.) This shows how unbelievably conflicted, messy, incoherent the literary taxonomy-by-language effort has been.
Only more complicated and thorny is the mess with Chinese literature. Many, if not most, scholars of literature from Taiwan resent the label "Chinese literature", for reasons that couldn't be more obvious. Recent years have seen Hong Kong scholars start to share the same centrifugal sentiment. Not to mention a lot of Chinese language writers from Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore, Japan, Europe, the U.S. who don't consider themselves Chinese in the most common sense of the word. Dozens of conferences have been held, volumes published, talks given, courses started, and the conclusion? You guessed it. Sinophone literature. But it is even bigger dynamite than ever. Calling Taiwanese literature Chinese literature offends Taiwanese. Call it non-Chinese literature? You try it.
Keep the language tags but keep some of them with their higher category tags without mapping. Start with such tags as hispanic-literature, sinophone-literatureturkic-literature