Template talk:Infobox language/genetic

Comment (genetic)

This is a parameter array, similar to {{language/familycolor}}. Please see that article's talk page for more details. Where that array returns colours, this array returns link text to articles represented by each category. --Gareth Hughes 19:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just given this template semi-protection. It cannot be edited by new or unregistered users. This is to reduce the chance of vandalism or excessive server load due to frequent editing. --Gareth Hughes 19:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment (genetic2)

This is a replacement for Template:Infobox Language/genetic. It uses m:ParserFunctions.

Merge

'Genetic' was no longer used, so I deleted it and moved 'genetic2' to its location. — kwami (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"constructed language" link color messed up

Please see the discussion at Template talk:Infobox language/language family color table#"constructed language" link color messed up and discuss it there. —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

?

Any particular reason for the question mark that lies after Nilo-Saharan? Can someone with editing privileges fix it? It is visible on all pages where this template pops up (a lot of them). Isingness (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Ask Editor Kwamikagami who added the '?' with this edit.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The question marks also appear in Template:Language families, FWIW. Perhaps it has some meaning in the linguistic community. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It's just that Nilo-Saharan is not a demonstrated language family, though people keep trying, so it gets similar treatment to e.g. Altaic. I didn't want to simply claim any of these languages are Nilo-Saharan. There are other languages where we have question marks in the classification. This one's just systematic. We could have just the NS color for the box and list what's now fam2 as the primary family, as we do for most Altaic languages (or maybe fam3 in the case of East Sudanic, which also isn't demonstrated), but I thought that might be disorientating given that most of these families aren't widely known, unlike Turkic, Mongolic etc. — kwami (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami, Isingness, Trappist the monk, and Jonesey95: I think it's confusing. It makes it look as though what's uncertain is whether the language in question belongs to the Nilo-Saharan family or to some other family instead. But that's not the question -- the question is whether the Nilo-Saharan family exists. I say we should remove the question mark. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the question mark should be changed to some other character and either linked to a footnote or tool-tipped. Clearly there is a meaning though that meaning is not made clear to readers or editors when it should be.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that is the meaning. If they don't belong to the NS family, they belong to some other family. In this case, very possibly the family we have listed under fam2. — kwami (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)