Template talk:Indo-European topics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

I had the same idea & I did it before I even saw your message :-) but since we're here: does "Vedic civilization" really belong in this template? IE is not specifially about Aryans! If we have this, all other branches should be included, blowing the box out of proportion! Dbachmann 12:06, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Box is Broken[edit]

This box is broken in IE for Max OS X: the way it's formatted now, the Language-Society-Religion list ends up overlapping the specific language subfamililes, so for instance you can't see or click on "Tocharian". I tried to fix this but in ended up breaking the box for other browsers. Could someone who knows more than I do about the WikiMedia syntax for constructing these boxes try and fix it so it works in all browsers? AJD 19:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some of the subtables (ewww) were oddly floated. Because of the way it's all laid out this floating didn't actually have any effect that I could identify in other browsers (tested Safari, Firefox, and IE6/Windows) but triggers float-related bugs in IE5.2/Mac. I've removed the extra float: styles; the template now looks ok to me in IE5.2/Mac, and doesn't look different from before in the other browsers (at least to my eye). --Brion 04:06, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
Looks good; thanks. —AJD 06:25, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


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 () 14:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I had the same idea, just one link in the box to what is now pretty much filling up category EIEC. As for the article itself, an approximate chronological order is probably best. It would just be the linked name and the dates, though it might develop into an overview for IE-related archaeology.

The alternative would be to make an oversize screen-wide box that gets dumped at the bottom, such as you see on certain royalty and nobilitity sites. A small narrow box is best, I think, so as to not overwhelm things. --FourthAve 16:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

yes -- note that the kind of grouping you are now doing via the EIEC category is usually done via templates such as {{catholic}} (accessible via the "What links here" button from the template page. Just a list is not too useful, however, there would need to be some rhyme or reason, like geographical and/or chronological order. For this, we need a full article. dab () 17:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


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)

Either Indo-Aryans and Iranians or Indo-Iranians[edit]

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)

whither this template?[edit]

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)

Redo a bit[edit]

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)

Indo-European archeology: BMAC and Yaz[edit]

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)

Indo-European religions[edit]

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. (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


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 File talk:IE expansion.png. 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)

maybe we should have no navbox at all. Beyond the {{Proto-Indo-European language}} that is. The latter has a well-defined scope, but this one is just a dumping ground. There could be a good navigation template on the Kurgan hypothesis itself, and that could also include the map, but this template is just too ill-defined to accommodate any map or picture. --dab (𒁳) 11:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


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)


@VegaDark: why? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

  • There was a page showing up in Wikipedia:Database_reports/Polluted_categories that had that template, which was causing the user page to show up in mainspace categories. My edits (less the typo which you caught, thanks) made it so that userspace pages won't show up in the category. VegaDark (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
@VegaDark: 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)
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)