Template talk:Altaic languages

Useless
This template seems really useless. Most of the language articles include a giant Infobox that clearly displays language affiliation right at the top. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If this templat seems to be useless then i would like to have your opinion concerning that template : Template:Chinese loan vocabularies. Maybe we should have to add all of the Altaic languages into that template then Template:Altaic languages so as to be inspired on Template:Romance languages. Regards Whlee 07:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Unofficial" is meaningless – nothing is official in science, there are only different degrees of support by the evidence. There is no organization or anything that can declare a hypothesis "official". So I made the lengthy change. David Marjanović 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Uralic
This template should include the Uralic languages. 80.186.223.203 (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Placement
I noticed this template's placement on articles like Uzbek language and Nogai language, describing modern languages from which attempts to insert "Altaic" into their infoboxes are  for portraying a controversial minority view as established fact. Especially considering that the immediate subdivisions of Altaic are Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic, and not their subdivisions, I am removing this template as a start from the articles which are not explicitly mentioned on this template. This means the template will also be left on the Japonic and Korean articles, although their disputed inclusion in an already disputed language family makes this template's inclusion there extra dubious. Quigley (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hypothetical
This template is of questionable utility because it is of a hypothetical combination of five groups. The grouping is controversial and not widely accepted. In language templates throughout Wikipedia we all the parenthetical note "(controversial)" following "Altaic". The same should be true here so as not to imply a greater level of acceptance than there is for this label. --Taivo (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is only a template for navigation. It's at the bottom of the page and makes no implication of certainty, any more than the templates for Australian or Khoisan languages do. "Altaic hypothesis" at the bottom is sufficient note of the uncertainty; no need to clutter up the title. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * But there are readers who will see "Altaic languages" and think that it actually is something other than a label. There is often a presumption of factuality around the label we use.  Perhaps removing the "languages" and simply labeling this template "Altaic hypothesis"?  For someone who quibbles over the length of a hyphen, it seems rather broad-minded of you to not worry about this detail ;)  --Taivo (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it's any different than Khoisan. — kwami (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "Khoisan" should also have a "controversial" tag on it. But WP:OTHERSTUFF still applies ;)  --Taivo (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)