Template talk:Turkic languages

message: Hi, having a template for the Turkic languages is a very good idea. I propose a new design for this template and I hope you do not feel offended by this sudden change. I think the main requirements for such a template are:
#It should not try to include all the details of classification (the place for the detailed classification tree should be the Turkic languages article) and sacrifice some detail for the sake of cleanness.
#I prefer if it uses the blue color scheme widely established for templates of this type, like Template:English dialects by continent, Template:Finno-Ugric languages, Template:Romance_languages, Template:Germanic languages, Template:Official EU languages and the like. (Template:Romance_languages is also a good example of what I mean by not trying to put the classification details into the template. I think the template should just be a navigation tool between related articles, not a full-scale classification tree.)
#The entries should be listed alphabetically whenever possible. This gives the list a neutral look and provides a certain ease for browsing entries.
Please note that I based the Turkic language groups in my edit to the current tree in the Turkic languages article, and I realize that there are some differences in this respect with the previous template. I think it is best to stick to the classification tree and group names mentioned there, and if there are any misplacements or mistakes with the group names, these should first be discussed on the Turkic languages talk page, fixed there, and then incorporated into this template. Note: I am also adding the template to the related articles with the hope that it will get more attention and contributions. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 16:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits look great!  Thanks for getting the template up. Straughn 13:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I'm very glad that you liked it. My regards to Chicago, IL! Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A new design

message: Ethnologue says it is Altaic, Turkic, Eastern. I would like to see a source for classifying it as western Turkic. :/ pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the categorization in this template was directly derived from the list on the Turkic languages article. There, the Chagatay subgroup is listed under the western branch. But obviously, that could also be wrong. If you are more knowledgeable on this, could you please fix that article and then the change could be mirrored here. I do not know whether the Ethnologue is a trustable source for classification (I guess it should be). Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 09:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uighur 

message: I'm not sure it is a good idea to add Proto-Turkic.  It gives the impression that Proto-Turkic was a real language when "proto-languages" are rather theories.  It would be like addding Common Turkic to the list. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 02:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not very sure about the linguistic validity of putting it there as an extinct member of the family. Doesn't the concept of a "language family" directly imply that, sometime in the past, there was a common ancestor to the whole family, an actual, living language which later became extinct? I don't see a link to Proto-Germanic in :Template:Germanic languages, but extinct members aren't included in that template. In any case, please feel free to remove it if you think it doesn't make sense. What's Common Turkic? Kind regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 12:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes and no.  I found this on Wikipedia that puts the words on the idea I'm thinking about together better... Comparative_method#Non-uniformity_of_the_proto-language.  We can't really say there were actual speakers of a reconstructed language.  Common Turkic is a term for a proto-language which means basically z-Turkic, all the Turkic languages minus Chuvash. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, I think it's perhaps better not to have it on the list. Chuvash is really interesting by the way, and thanks for the explanation. Atilim Gunes Baydin 17:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proto-Turkic 

message: It says Ottoman Turkish is extinct (italics), however there are still several hundred speakers of the language still alive--24.171.6.27 (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman language "extinct" 

message: Can we please use the new version of this template with some edits, like in this revision ? -- PK2 (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose I would disagree with changing it to this new one, because instead of making it simpler for readers navigating this actually makes it far more confusing and complicated. 1. There's way too many show/hide tabs, and 2. There's a lot of WP:REDLINKS making them unverifiable and pointless. DA1 (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template edits 

message: Äynu has been classified as a Siberian Turkic language here, which is incorrect. I don't want to start a revert war. If you read Johanson (2001), Äynu is clearly modern Uyghur grammar with a Persian vocabulary. Tooru and the other sources I've consulted agree. I wouldn't consider Glottolog to be a very reliable source when it comes to internal classification. Straughn (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Äynu language