Template talk:Infobox language family

message: I propose the ISO_15924 to be added to the template. They have a nice notification system of new languages added and they use 4characters code. (talk) 26 November 2010 (UTC))  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.74.224 (talk)  
Any reasons why not add a field number of speakers? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Hey folks,
Can we make the text for this template the same as the text used for Infobox Language Template? 06:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandbox edits 

message: I noticed that neither the iso2 nor iso5 fields were documented at Template:Infobox language family/doc so I went ahead and added them. Please feel free to improve.
I've also noted that 6 pages so far use a "proto-name" field which is not yet supported by the template nor covered by the docs:
* Altaic languages -> Proto-Altaic
* Indo-European languages -> Proto-Indo-European language
* Mayan languages -> Proto-Mayan
* Mixe-Zoque languages -> Proto–Mixe-Zoquean
* Oto-Manguean languages -> Proto–Oto-Manguean
* Uralic languages -> Proto-Uralic
— Hippietrail (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. But most are red links. — kwami (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other fields 

message: Should we add an ethnicity parameter to this template, as I recently did for Infobox language? E.g., Maipurean languages should probably have a link in its info box to Arawak peoples (unless they are not congruent, in which case having to make that decision will clarify things). 
However, IMO it would need to be optional, as there is seldom an ethnicity for a language family (though there often are for branches of families), and we would need to keep an eye out for people trying to spuriously add e.g. Sino-Tibetan peoples as the "ethnic group" speaking Sino-Tibetan languages. I'm not sure it would be worth the complications that would cause. — kwami (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ethnicity parameter? 

message: So we have a convenient way of ref'ing family stubs, how about adding a field for the 5-number SIL code and link to their site? E.g. 242-16 for Edekiri languages, which are now tagged for no refs. What would we call such a field? — kwami (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Should we add s.t. for LingList as well? — kwami (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ref link? 

message: Currently our maps are manually sized, and the infobox has apparently been enlarged, leaving the maps looking rather puny. I plan on automating it unless a 'mapsize' parameter is used, in which case that will override the default. Default will be set at 350px, which fits the current infobox size; that can then be changed here to keep all articles in sync. Once the infobox is changed, the maps be screwed up until I can AWB all the transclusions, which will take a few minutes. — kwami (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  map size & infobox size 

message: Sometimes i feel it would be useful to give more information about a child language category by showing what languages are part of that category, particularly if that category is a geographic category or proposed language family, for instance, the "formosan" category of Austronesian languages, it seems neater and easier to separate into formosian and malayo-polynesian, and then under the "formosan" category list the the languages that are in that group (like bullet pointed under, or maybe in a drop-down menu?). Similarly, in the formosan page, the "northern formosan languages" is a proposed grouping of three formosan languages and I think it would be neater and easier to list it alongside the other divisions of formosan and then have its 3 sub-groups listed under it. 
I propose the code would look something like this:
|familycolor = Austronesian
|child1      = [[East Formosan languages|East Formosan]]
|child2      = [[Northern Formosan languages|Northwest Formosan]]
||2subchild1      = [[Western Plains Languages|Western Plains]]
||2subchild2      = [[Atayalic languages|Atayalic]]
||2subchild3      = [[Northwest Formosan Languages|Northwest Formosan]]
|child3      = [[Bunun language|Bunun]]
|child4      = [[Tsouic]] 
|child5      = [[Rukai language|Rukai]]
|child6      = [[Puyuma language|Puyuma]]
|child7      = [[Paiwan language|Paiwan]]
Where "2subchild1" is the 1st "subchild" of the 2nd child.
This concept is somewhat acheived in the page for West germanic but It looks kinda ugly, and difficult to easily understand.
Is this kind of thing possible to implement? I don't know how these formatting things are made so I'm unsure.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaasa (talk • contribs) 14:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  sub-children? 

message: Looks like this template is newly causing referencing errors in some articles. Alta language is one example. Were recent changes made to the template that might have caused this? -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Ingain language is another article with a bad reference that used to be fine.  do you think something might have gone wrong with your recent changes to cause these problems? -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the fixes! Kwegu language is another problem, as is Mayo language. It seems like the documentation for the template isn't particularly good ... I wouldn't know that an ISO code is necessary to generate the reference--and I instead simply see the referencing error(s). (Oops!  I guess those are both using  and not .) -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference errors

message: Previewing an edit at Aramaic shows . However, the documentation includes script with "The writing systems that literate speakers use for the language family". I'm hoping someone who understands what's going on will fix the article or the documentation. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Script parameter 

message: I'm wondering if it might be more helpful to by default link the auto-populated "Linguistic classification" field "title"/parameter name text to Language family, but the text of the field itself, which reads "One of the world's primary language families" should link to List of language families. This seems far more intuitive, as people who want to look at the idea of linguistic classification might be interested in learning about the idea of the idea of a language family, but people who want to see what the primary language families themselves are might prefer to see that list. Also, it removes redundancy from that field.
Determinerteeth (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Classification" links to "Language family"--better to link to "List of language families"? 

message: In some articles, there seems to be a convention that the subdivisions (child1, child2 etc.) which are single languages are in italic type, while branches with multiple languages are in roman type. See for example, Indo-European languages. Is this a commonly accepted practice? It is not explained to the reader, and not mentioned in the template documentation. It also seems difficult to implement consistently, as there is often controsversy about whether some dialect constitutes its own language. An example of this is Ugric languages, where all languages are now italicized as singular languages, while that view is challenged in the language articles Khanty language and Mansi languages. 
This problem could be solved by removing the italics, with a small loss of information, since the convention is not explained to the reader. Would this be ok? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italic for singular languages 

message: The field ethnicity is used on pages like Turkic languages, Slavic languages and Iranian languages to link the corresponding groups of peoples (Turkic peoples etc). While the links are useful for navigation, the label Ethnicity seems wrong. As repeatedly discussed on the article talk pages, these are not single ethnic groups (or more specifically ethnolinguistic groups), but linguistically motivated collections of multiple ethnicities.
Ethnicity is of course a valid label for single languages which are spoken by a well-defined ethnic group. That should not change, but would it be possible to find a better label for this field, which would be more agnostic and not refer to ethnicity, when used with language families? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnicity for branches