Template talk:Indo-European topics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know whether there's a community of editors that maintains this, but I was thinking of adding Proto-Indo-European after Indo-European languages, and I wanted to send up a test balloon. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 22:17, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I had the same idea & I did it before I even saw your message :-) but since we're here: does "Vedic civilization" really belong in this template? IE is not specifially about Aryans! If we have this, all other branches should be included, blowing the box out of proportion! Dbachmann 12:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Box is Broken

This box is broken in IE for Max OS X: the way it's formatted now, the Language-Society-Religion list ends up overlapping the specific language subfamililes, so for instance you can't see or click on "Tocharian". I tried to fix this but in ended up breaking the box for other browsers. Could someone who knows more than I do about the WikiMedia syntax for constructing these boxes try and fix it so it works in all browsers? AJD 19:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some of the subtables (ewww) were oddly floated. Because of the way it's all laid out this floating didn't actually have any effect that I could identify in other browsers (tested Safari, Firefox, and IE6/Windows) but triggers float-related bugs in IE5.2/Mac. I've removed the extra float: styles; the template now looks ok to me in IE5.2/Mac, and doesn't look different from before in the other browsers (at least to my eye). --Brion 04:06, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
Looks good; thanks. —AJD 06:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] whither?

how about doing a archaeology of early Indo-Europeans (vel sim.) article, listing all archaeology that bears a relation? We can then just link this article instead of a variety of cultures. Note that it will be quite similar to the Kurgan hypothesis now, but I suppose it must mention competing hypotheses. dab (ᛏ) 14:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I had the same idea, just one link in the box to what is now pretty much filling up category EIEC. As for the article itself, an approximate chronological order is probably best. It would just be the linked name and the dates, though it might develop into an overview for IE-related archaeology.

The alternative would be to make an oversize screen-wide box that gets dumped at the bottom, such as you see on certain royalty and nobilitity sites. A small narrow box is best, I think, so as to not overwhelm things. --FourthAve 16:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

yes -- note that the kind of grouping you are now doing via the EIEC category is usually done via templates such as {{catholic}} (accessible via the "What links here" button from the template page. Just a list is not too useful, however, there would need to be some rhyme or reason, like geographical and/or chronological order. For this, we need a full article. dab (ᛏ) 17:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] People

I added peoples parallel to the languages both because the culture of the Proto-Indo-Europeans is included, and because this template is used in places that are not specific to language. Dpv 16:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Either Indo-Aryans and Iranians or Indo-Iranians

I guess it is somehow 'stressing' for some people to write only one or two of these three, but to let them all is to open the possibility for people to add more and more, like "Italic peoples, Italo-celts, Celts, Armenians, Greeks, Greco-Armenians, Germanic peoples, Slavs, Balts, Balto-Slavs, Germanic-Italo-Celts, Balto-Slavic-Germanic-Italo-Celts, Tocharians, Hittites, Anatolians, Hittite-Luvians,...". I think one should decide which of the two options is more correct here. For me it should be just Indo-Iranians.Max-hu 13:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] whither this template?

it's getting too cluttered. I suppose we should avoid linking to individual languages or peoples, and just link articles dealing with comparative IE studies. dab (𒁳) 08:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)