Linguistics: Etymology / Phonetics / Theoretical Linguistics / Applied Linguistics / Systemic Functional Linguistics Template‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
The formatting for this template is outdated.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. - Ste vertigo 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 have restored the older and more detailed map of world language groups per the discussion here. μηδείς ( talk) 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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 sandbox for preview.)
Thank you, 213.246.95.212 ( talk) 11:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
Linguistics: Etymology / Phonetics / Theoretical Linguistics / Applied Linguistics / Systemic Functional Linguistics Template‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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. - Ste vertigo 05:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 have restored the older and more detailed map of world language groups per the discussion here. μηδείς ( talk) 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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 sandbox for preview.)
Thank you, 213.246.95.212 ( talk) 11:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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 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)