Template talk:Turkic languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Turkey (Rated Template-class)


Why is Uyghur a Karluk language? Where did that classification come from anyway? Have you noticed Karluk is about a ship????? pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always heard Uyghur & Uzbek referred to as Karluk. I know there's no entry on Karluk languages in Wikipedia, but there isn't one for any of the other groups either. Whenever those are linked, they either go to a specific language or an ethnic group. I'd be cool with changing Karluk to Eastern, though. Straughn 13:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The word Karluk is not mentioned on Uyghur language, that's all. It seems weird.
I think you should link the classifications, even if they're redlinks - it will encourage them to get written.
I strongly dislike the pipes (|) as separators. For one thing they look too similar to the † symbols. I think each group should start on a new line. Or if not, use something like "•" (centre dot?). Is there any reason this template has to be this width? Just make it wider... (it goes at the bottom of articles, right?) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I basically ripped this template off of the Template: Indo-Iranian languages, which uses the same formatting, width, etc. I don't know how important you think consistency is, but I agree that the current template isn't too attractive or user-friendly. Straughn 14:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Hm. That other one looks better over all, because it is more populated by blue links. It also doesn't have these "† Extinct | * Mixed language" markers. There's just too many different marks - four types - for such small text. I think we should improve this one so much that they also convert the other one. ;) What about using different types of differentiation, like italics or underline? pfctdayelise (translate?) 17:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
How about italicizing the extinct ones and ignoring that Aini is mixed? I'll test it out. Straughn 13:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, you still need to say what italics means. :P pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you think of the current note? Thanks, BTW, for all of your help with this project Straughn 17:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A new design[edit]

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.)
  3. 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)

Your edits look great! Thanks for getting the template up. Straughn 13:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! I'm very glad that you liked it. My regards to Chicago, IL! Atilim Gunes Baydin 14:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


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)

Hahn (Speaking Uyghur) says: Modern Uyghur is a Turkic language of the Eastern or Chaghatay branch (p4). They are synonyms...? pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

"Christian cross" / Dagger[edit]

As the person who selected the asterisk for the extinct languages footnote in this template, I just want to point out that the footnote symbol used by User:Strabismus to replace the astreisks is not called a "Christian cross" but rather a "dagger" (please see Dagger (typography)). It's very common to see this footnote mark used outside religious context and I don't think it's to be identified with Christianity here. Nevertheless I decided to use the more neutral looking asterisk in its place to prevent a possible revert war because of seeing a connection between the religion of Turkic peoples and the used footnote symbols. I now see the reverting started the other way and my attempt has not been successfull. Atilim Gunes Baydin 12:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's really accurate to call languages like Ottoman Turkish extinct. They're simply an older form of an existing language, just like Old Norse. It hasn't disappeared altogether, like Khazar or Pecheneg.
Peter Isotalo 20:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)
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)

Ottoman language "extinct"[edit]

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