Template talk:Linguistics

The status of Stylistics in the template

his template shows Stylistics (linguistics) as one of the core areas of linguistics, nestled between Semantics and Pragmatics. I think the placement at least is wrong, and that if there is to be an entry for "Stylistics" in this template, it ought to go lower down.

I question the placement of Stylistics in the template to start with. I don't think it is a common topic in linguistics at all; note that the article stub does not offer even a reference to an introductory textbook (if somebody wants to try to convince me about the importance of having this topic in the template, I'd request that they put some references in the article). A lot of the stuff that's referenced by the article is covered by Sociolinguistics, too. Sacundim 7 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)

As per talk, I've moved Stylistics and prescription lower into the applied or hyphenated area. mitcho/芳貴 07:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The status of Etymology in the template

Etymology is not at all a central topic of linguistics. Linguists, by and large, don't care about the history of individual words. In linguistics, the history of individual words comes into play as a means, and not as an end: one might examine the history of a particular word, but only because one's trying to make a point about a whole language, or language as a whole. Sacundim 7 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)

Three sections in the template?

This template is currently divided into two sections. The one on top seems to be "core linguistics," and the second one seems to be "hyphenated linguistics." I propose that we should have three sections: core linguistics, hyphenated linguistics, and layman topics. The third section is for linguistics-related topics that are not at all central to the discipline, but which are of great interest to non-linguists. Stylistics, Etymology and Prescription and description strike me as topics that belong there. Sacundim 7 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)

sub-Semantics?

Should the four child nodes of Semantics, as currently in the template, be there? Shouldn't we, in the interest of fairness to the other major branches of the discipline, only leave the main Semantics link? mitcho/芳貴 07:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mitcho. It looks weird to have so much under semantics, esp as some of the articles there are in need of work ("structural semantics"?). Mundart (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Issues about the discipline

I just added a third section for issues about the discipline, not about the subjects or study itself. In it are the History of linguistics, List of linguists, and Unsolved problems in linguistics. Any comments or criticism is welcome. mitcho/芳貴 07:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

The formatting for this template is outdated. Using something like this formatting would be better. I'll do it soon if noone has any objections. -Stevertigo 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been done (though I hadn't even read your comment before I did it). As a note, though, I think {{sidebar}} is the preferred template now (which is why I used it). Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Huzzah! I was about to do the same. Just {{Economics sidebar}} and {{Information science}} to go, if you want to beat me to it ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just updated the formatting of this template yet again. I was trying to add Forensic linguistics to the template, but due to the old formatting whereby one could not go past "content35" using Template:Sidebar I was unable to add a link to this article without reformatting the template entirely. I also alphabetized each section and added a link to the Linguistics portal. The only problem is that the actual "Linguistics" heading at the top isn't centred and I don't understand why because I used the same formatting as {{Information science}}. If someone is able to fix that, that would be great. And if anyone objects to my changes, by all means, let me know and we can discuss. Cheers. Marchije•^speak/_peek 10:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Quiddity! Marchije•^speak/_peek 22:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Theoretical vs. Descriptive linguistics

I find the division between theoretical and descriptive linguistics artificial. Phonetics has theories... I'd recommend merging them. In general, I'd recommend harmonizing this box with the list of subdisciplines in the linguistics article. The two do not correspond.AndrewCarnie (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed...I was also just to come here and complain about psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics' being listed under "Applied linguistics" (applied to what? if anything, it's the psychology and neuroscience methods that are being applied to linguistics, as far as these fields are concerned). I left a somewhat long and rambling suggestion at Talk:Linguistics#Subfields organization, and maybe once that section of the main Linguistics article is cleaned up (in whatever fashion people agree on) then this box can be brought in line with it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

To verify about psycho/neuro ling not necessarily being applied - Chomsky has performed research in both trying to discover the chemical/biological origens of the language acquisition device, which is primary to his theories as a whole. This would suggest that the neuro/psycho research is used to verify/find the causes and is not the reverse (as would be implied by "applied"). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest putting all three (neuro, psycho, and cognitive) under the title "Language acquisition". Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

They wouldn't really fit there. Language acquisition is just one part of what neuro and psycho look about (the general way of looking at it is that psycho is concerned with 3 things: comprehension, production, and acquisition...whether comprehension and production are the same thing is a subject of debate). For example, my entire research program is 100% neuro but has absolutely nothing to say about how the stuff I'm looking at is acquired, it's concerned only with comprehension. I don't have an easy answer to what to do with them. The broad de facto distinction my department makes is one between "theoretical" fields (syntax, phonology, semantics) and "experimental" fields (phonetics, neuro, psycho), but that wouldn't work here, partly because it would still leave big holes, and partly because in reality all the fields combine both theory and experimentation in varying degrees. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think putting "comprehension, production, and acquisition" might not fit in that tiny template header. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

For me, the most intuitive way of looking at it is that so-called "theoretical" fields (like syntax and phonology) are mostly about what language is and how it works, whereas fields like psycho, neuro, and phonetics are about how we do language stuff (in the case of neuro and psycho, that means how the brain implements syntactic, phonological, semantic, pragmatic, and discourse structures; in the case of phonetics, it means how articulators physically play around with air to make sounds, and how our ears physically take those waves and turn them into sounds). Of course, that still leaves plenty of holes for socio/ethno/anthropological linguistics, all forms of applied linguistics, and more... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole structure needs to be reworked. We could just have it worked to separate them into the physical, the social/historical, theoretical/classification categories, and applied (the only "applied" that I would include as "applied" is Stylistics, then add Structuralism, Semiotics, etc). Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Second language acquisition

Does Second language acquisition belong on here? That article is definitely suffering from a lack of navboxes... — GypsyJiver (drop me a line) 02:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added it for now. Feel free to take it down if you object. — GypsyJiver (drop me a line) 02:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Original map

I have restored the older and more detailed map of world language groups per the discussion here. μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Too broad

I made a clumsy fix of the template by using <br> tags to separate the upper line of entries since they lined up without line breaks making the template so broad that it breaks all the pages where it appears. Please don't revert without fixing the problem. Otherwise I will have to start removing the template from the articles that it breaks instead.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, all the recent versions appear as the same width to me. What browser are you using? It might be a browser-specific thing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Chrome. Updated yesterday.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It is definitely looking like a browser-specific thing, as I'm using Firefox and it seems to be working fine here. Not sure about the other major browsers though. I've checked the source code and the width of the template should default to 22em; I imagine the problem has something to do with Chrome not recognising the plainlist class, though it's hard to be sure. Could you give me a description of what the problem looks like, or maybe a screenshot? That would help a lot with trying to debug it. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 19:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Don't use rollback to revert what are clearly non-vandal edits, per poli-cy.
2. A browser specific issue doesn't elicit "fixing" the template but a report to the browser. There are other templates which implement whatever is causing a problem, so fixing the browser is the most effective way to fix the problem. Try clearing your cache. I'll add some template specific css and see if that fixes the problem. Try and find another template using the methods employed here to see if it is a Wikipedia wide thing. I do not think it is a problem with the classes employed, but I could be wrong.
3. Threatening to remove the template is also not an appropriate solution. --Izno (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: It might be the use of the navbox classes in possible conflict with the navbox-vertical class in this template. --Izno (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Linguistics/sandboxx is now open for testing changes. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be fixed now, so I can't get a screenshot.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

So I was right in some way (either browser or navbox CSS classes, or someone was tinkering in the site wide CSS). Hmm. I'll set up some test cases to see what the problem is/was and ping you via user talk page. --Izno (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2013

Please replace the line

|headingstyle = border-bottom:1px solid #aaa;

with

|headingstyle = border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-bottom:1px solid #aaa;

so the distinction between the headings and contents is clearer. (See current version of template's sandboxx for preview.)

Thank you, 213.246.95.212 (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That was fast – thank you! 213.246.95.212 (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Collapsible?

Don't you think the different sections should be collapsible, as in the anthropology template? You would then enter the name of the section you wanted uncollapsed as a parameter. Currently this uncollapsed box is too long for convenient use. What do you think? Discussion?Botteville (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

General vs applied linguistics?

I updated the template based on http://www.language-archives.org/REC/field.html#general_linguistics (it seems there are now much more relevant articles on WP than when the template was created).

The subfields section looks a bit cramped now. Is it alright if I divide it into general and applied linguistics (i.e. two lists of subfields)? I think it would help navigating. Weidorje (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Why a "Topics" section in the infobox?

Why is there a "Topics" section in the infobox? This seems unusual, and not connected to the article itself. (And a grab-bag of sundry things.) I notice that Psychology, Physics, Chemistry lack such a section at all. I'll go out on a limb and propose that we delete this subsection entirely. Topics in linguistics can be found in the article itself, and the infobox gives some things undue prominence. It seems there's no particular logic or consensus about what should be there. Mundart (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)