Template talk:Languages of India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconIndia Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconLanguages Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Manipuri[edit]

shouldnt this language name be changed to Meitei-lon, per the articles correct name, even if this is one of the common names for the language? if i dont get a response here, ill take this concern to a project page. i know enough not to just change a template, even an apparently routine change. ive never edited a template, and dont want to cause trouble.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that in the official list [1], it is called Manipuri. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok, that helps. i wont worry about it, and will let others more directly involved or knowledgeable take up any issues here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meitei is the preferred name even though not a government name. – ishwar  (speak) 19:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Aryan[edit]

I recommend that this template somehow denote which languages are Indo-Aryan and which are not.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But all articles with this template will already have {{Indo-Aryan languages}}, etc. If we're going to have two sets of templates: one by state and another by family, then I think it makes sense to let them complement each other rather than overlap. One of them is organised along genetic subgroups, the other – according to state/region or official status. – Uanfala (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Solomonfromfinland, I don't think it is necessary to highlight which languages are Indo-Aryan here in this template. It is about the "Official status" of the languages. Other similar templates like Template:Languages of Finland, Template:Languages of Russia, Template:Languages of Sweden, etc do not differentiate between Indo-European, Finno-Ugric and Altaic languages. Secondly, this kind of Indo-Aryan specific formatting might offend non-Indo-Aryan speakers. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, bolding adds undue prominence and it also interferes with the way the template displays the name of the article it's transcluded on in bold. – Uanfala (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: I believe we should restore it to the old version. What do you say? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, done. – Uanfala (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: Nice. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]