Template talk:Indo-European topics

message: 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)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: 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)
thread_title: whither?

message: 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)
thread_title:  People 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Either Indo-Aryans and Iranians or Indo-Iranians 

message: 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)
thread_title: whither this template?

message: I redid this template a bit, adding more sections about the PIE language itself and removing the links for different homeland theories.  I think it's enough just to have one Homeland link which discusses the different theories -- there's no danger in someone otherwise missing the pages in question, as they are prominently discussed in the Homeland page.  Also, many of the "homeland theories" listed are basically just one person's pet project and have little or no academic respectability (Out-of-India hypothesis, Paleolithic Continuity hypothesis, ...).  Possibly, to reduce its size, we should take out the links to the individual IE peoples, since in almost every case the respective group has the same name as one of the languages also listed in the template ... but OTOH the articles linked to are mostly very good and full of useful info. Benwing (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redo a bit 

message: What about these two?: BMAC and Yaz. I think we should add them to archeology section of this template. Zyma (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-European archeology: BMAC and Yaz 

message: I added another category, the category of Indo-European religions; from reconstructed proto-IE religion to historical religions of various Indo-European peoples and modern reconstructionist and syncretic IE religions. Nik. 93.103.74.8 (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-European religions 

message: Although it has been an obvious sock changing the map, after reverting the sock I went back to the map the sock added. The Kurgan hypothesis map was added Oct 3 2005 and hasn't been edit since, and the same day it was created it was criticized with no response, see . The map I've replaced it with, that the sock was adding, has been actively discussed with changes even as recent as July this year. I'm not taking a stand on the Kurgan hypothesis which is still mainstream, only on which map seems to be updated more frequently. Maybe we should have no map at all. Dougweller (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: is there any structure, rhyme or reason to the listed topics?
I ask because if you just heap up random articles on the general topics, you don't need a navbox template, as the categories already do the job.
I tried to impose some minimal structure, but less would be more. We don't need to link each and every article (s-mobile? why not kʷetwóres rule?).
Also, listing "peoples" the focus should clearly be on historical macrogroups, this is not supposed to devolve into a list of Iron Age tribes. Nor a list of poorly-maintained "mythology" lists. 
Sigh, and the "archaeology" section is an alphabetical(!) list of unrelated cultures spread across Eurasia and the millennia. What possible use is that for "navigation"?
--dab (𒁳) 11:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: structure

message: why? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  but now the link is not visible anymore? By the way, the category os also in top of the template? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The category is visible on pages that it is intended for.  See Balts, for example, which is in the category still.  The only change my edit resulted in was stuff outside of mainspace that transcludes the category will no longer have the category. VegaDark (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainspace 

message: I had to remove this template from an article because it is so long that images in the first section of the article wouldn't display. I'm just making a note of it here in case any editors would be interested in possibly reducing the length of the template to something manageable. (It was a second sidebar, so I wouldn't change it over one article necessarily, but if this effecting other articles as well, perhaps editors will want to consider making some changes.)
Seraphim System (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images not displaying