Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Infobox Ethnic group is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Ethnonyms

Like mikka, I would also suggest that one extra field be inserted that reads either Autonym (i.e. the groups own name for itself) or alternatively Other names (i.e. other than the common modern politically-correct English name for the group). This addition would be analogous with the structure of the Language or Country infoboxes, which feature not only the predominant script of the language and country in question but also the English transliteration of the native name. //Big Adamsky 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to this. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, a people's self-designation is very important in my opinion. --Khoikhoi 00:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. Thirded? --Chris S. 04:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Thirded. --Yenemus 16:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related ethnic groups?

What is the "related ethnic groups" cell for? Currently is seems to be used for something that looks suspiciously like original research - classifying ethnic groups by the majority language spoken. Such classifications are purely linguistic and I'm sure there is no reliable source to claim, for example, that the Greeks are related to "other Indo-European ethnic groups". Is there such a thing as a group of "Indo-European ethnic groups"? --Latinus 15:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wiktionary.org/ ¦ Reisio 03:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I am going to have to agree with you. It's kind of hard to define and people misunderstand what "related ethnic groups" mean. There was a whole (for now) revert war involving me and other people at Filipino people concerning this. --Chris S. 04:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

For some groups it is very clear. For example, the Ashkenazi are a subgroup of the Jews; the various Slavs are generally related to one another; the Transylvanian Saxons are related to the German people more generally. For others it is not so clear and the section should probably not be used. Probably we should turn it into an optional section. - Jmabel | Talk 01:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In a few articles this infox is used for linguistic groups. There is some points which I want to ask: Is it ok to use Images in the infobox used for linguistic groups? some linguistic groups include several dozens ethnic groups: It seems that the images (which are limited in number) do not represent all of those mentioned people and there is discrimination which may be offensive to some of them (My oponion is to remove images from them. Secondly for the linguistic groups the last section is definitely problematic for example in the article Iranian peoples in the last section it is claimed that related ethnic groups to the linguistic group of Iranian peoples are Indo-European, Indo-Iranian, Nuristani, Dardic and Indo-Aryans! This section is wrong because the correct term is related linguistic group. Do we need a new infobox? or there is already another one for linguistic groups? Diyako Talk + 18:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
In general, for a merely linguistic group, my gut would be that the only reasonable pictures would be things like a map of geographic distribution, an image of calligraphy, or an image associated with a particularly notable work written in the language (I could imagine a piece of Muslim religious calligraphy for Arabic, for example). Yes, for a broad linguistic group that is not particularly ethnic, pictures of people seem like a poor choice. That last seems to be the key here: the Iranic languages do not really correspond to an ethnic group, any more than English does. As far as I can think, none of the other aspects of ethnicity are even near-constant across the linguistic group. But I'm not expert on this, and would be interested if someone thinks I'm wrong.
In any case, {{Infobox Language family}} might be a lot more appropriate there. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Images and POV

Hi, Many Images are used for this infobox, among them images of politicians, rulers etc.. I want ask you that isn't it better to not use the images of politicians but instead use images of other ordinary people? The world of politics is the world of POV and most of political images used in the infoboxes have a POV. Diyako Talk + 22:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly consider it a problem if a present-day ruler were included, or someone closely tied to a present day political party. I think that when those politicians are strongly associated with the ethnicity, that is fine. This makes sense in the case of ethnicities strongly connected to a nation state or empire (past or present) or an ethnically rooted rebellion/ uprising that is not too recent and where pretty much everyone of that ethnicity today would identify with it.
For example, for Romanians, the only politician or ruler out of four images is Vlad III Dracula: certainly not a well-loved figure, but probably the most famous Romanian in history. Similarly, Serbs has two political figures out of six: Stefan Dušan, the ruler of Serbia at the height of its late medieval power, and Karadjordje, a key figure in the rise of Serbian nationalism against the Ottoman Empire. Both of these seem appropriate. Germans also have one politician out of four: Otto von Bismarck, probably the key figure in the creation of a German nation state.
Do you consider these cases objectionable? And if not, could you indicate the cases you find objectionable? - Jmabel | Talk 23:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for information. Diyako Talk + 18:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for my revert

Mainly because it made many of the templates on articles look a lot wider, such as on Turkish people and Sinhalese people. I'm not sure what the changes by David were for, if there were any problems with certain articles then I guess it's a valid reason. However, is there a way to do it so the templates don't have to be so wide? --Khoikhoi 04:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding, Khoikhoi; I was trying to fix the layout in some other articles when viewed at lower resolution and/or with bookmarks or other such sidebars open. I've now tried removing the colons again and making a single change to the phrasing; I hope this compromise works for Turkish people, Sinhalese people, etc at your end. Thanks also to CJLL Wright for restoring the interwiki link. Best wishes, David Kernow 17:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Another thought: looking again at Turkish people, I'm wondering if the "Regions with significant populations" might work better as a horizontal rather than vertical entry...? David Kernow 18:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It looks fine on those articles. No, I think vertical is best because it is consistent with the other entries. Anyways, I appreciate it. --Khoikhoi 19:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC) --Khoikhoi 19:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

How about this (needs simpler way to switch off borders within "Regions with significant populations", align column to right and set font-size for a column):

Turks
Total population c. 66.7 million
Regions with significant populations
Turkey 58.7 million
Germany 2.1 to 2.7 million [1]
Bulgaria 0.8 to 1.2 million [2] [3]
Syria 1 million [4]
France 0.4 million [5]
Netherlands 0.35 million [6]
United Kingdom 0.3 million [7]
Austria 0.25 million [8]
Cyprus 0.23 million [9]
Uzbekistan 0.2 million
USA 0.12 to 0.22 million [10] [11]
Belgium 0.12 million [12]
Saudi Arabia 0.12 million [13]
Russia 96,000 [14]
Greece 90,000 [15]
Macedonia 80,000 [16]
Switzerland 80,000 [17]
Romania 60,000 [18]
Australia 55,000 to 120,000 [19] [20]
Azerbaijan 50,000 [21]
Kosovo 20,000 to 50,000 [22] [23]
Denmark 35,000 to 50,000 [24] [25]
Sweden 35,000 [26]
Canada 25,000 to 50,000 [27] [28]
Language Turkish
Religion
Predominantly Muslim or nominally Muslim.
Small numbers of adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy and Judaism. Many atheistic or agnostic beliefs.
Related ethnic groups Other Turkic peoples
Oghuz Turks


...?  Seems a waste not to use all the space within the "Regions with significant populations" box in the current layout. Regards, David Kernow 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That looks really good!! I like it. Should we change it for all pages? --Khoikhoi 02:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the fast feedback!  I think we need to hear some more opinions / find a consensus; if other people keen, then we need to find someone who knows more about setting up tables (unless you know how to achieve what I've fudged for the time being...?)  Thanks, David Kernow 02:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. One of the people that used to help me with templates is CBDunkerson. Some other template guys are AzaToth, Locke Cole, and Netoholic. --Khoikhoi 02:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Related ethnic groups" again

Is there a technical way of making that "related ethnic groups" entry optional instead of obligatory in the template? As Latinus said earlier, this line is often awkward, and in many cases it leads to silly ideological conflicts about what groups are "related" (which almost invariably leads to WP:OR arguments, as such notions usually have little basis in the scholarly literature.) See current problems at Greeks, earlier ones at Arvanites, and I'm sure in many other articles too. Would be nice if we could just silently drop it in those cases. Anybody code-savvy enough to make that change, or will I have to try and work it out on my own? Lukas (T.|@) 13:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've given it a try at User:LukasPietsch/TemplateTest and User:LukasPietsch/TemplateTest2. Comments? Lukas (T.|@) 15:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I've made the change now, as nobody has objected so far. Lukas (T.|@) 20:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Native names

Greeks
(Έλληνες)
Albanians
(Shqiptarë)
Germans
(Deutschen)

Does anyone think it is a good idea to include the native names of ethnic groups in the infoboxes, just like in languages, like in these examples? --Telex 14:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do indeed. I think it is useful to know how a particular ethnic group calls themselves just as we know what the language is in that language or the country is in that language. For ethnic groups that use a non-Roman script, I think there should be a transliteration. So (Έλληνες / Éllines) for Greeks and (日本人 / Nihonjin) for Japanese, etc. --Chris S. 19:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me, though presumably not applicable to every group, since some (e.g. Jews) are not closely associated with any one language. If you want to add some relevant instructions on the template page, or if you think this merits additional, explicit optional fields, go for it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for my revert (2)

Reporting template damaged problem: Yesterday they were working fine, today all the ethnic info boxes on multiple pages are super wide, like 75% of the entire page wide. They used to be like 25%. So I came here and saw many edits made to it today (that were not discussed on this page). I reverted to last known working version (Revision as of 18:50, 13 December 2006 by Upshine ) trying to get it working the way it used to. Goldenrowley 05:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing, with my apologies for the unintended consequences of my edit. Curiously, I didn't see any oversizing on the handful of pages I tested, but I guess that's down to luck/browser. I'm going to try reinstating the edit with the width:22em parameter enabled – hopefully all will be well. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
...Have now tried (simplified version of) layout suggested above thus. David (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I've just reverted back as well. Template:Japanese ethnicity experienced major layout issues after the latest round of edits. Please do further testing. Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Darn... I think I'll leave this alone for the time being – which is probably what I decided previously!  I have, though, transferred the amendments made to the documentation; hopefully, they're okay. Thanks for re-reverting, David (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am tempted to revert back to the old template which I find more aesthetically pleasing than the new one. The new color arrangement looks like an odd juxtaposition for some templates like Egyptians and Greeks. The caption fonts are also too small. Can this be fixed? — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 20:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I think the color scheme should be consistent for all the templates. For example, orange or green not orange and green, which is what some look like at the moment. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 04:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modified version

Per the comments here, I offer the modified version of this template below. Specifically, it is intended to address these two points:

  1. Some instantiations include lengthy population figures (e.g. Turkish people), while others are much simpler (e.g. Li people). While a template divided into two columns – headers on the left (i.e. "Total population", "Regions with significant populations", etc) and information on the right – may work fine for the latter, simpler cases, the headers become squashed and space is wasted below them in the former, more complex cases. Hence the below dispenses with this two-column division. Instantiations without images are also now handled directly.
  2. The more complex cases, such as Turkish people, offer tabular information re regional populations, usually with references and/or URL links. Hence the provision for and formatted display of up to twenty-five such populations without requiring editors to create tables within the template's parameters.

[edit] Code

{|class="infobox" style="width:22em; background:#fff6d9; text-align:center; font-size:95%;" cellpadding="3"
<!----------Heading---------->
!style="text-align:center; font-size:larger; background:#b08261; color:#fee8ab;"| {{{group}}}
|-
<!----------Image---------->
{{#if:{{{image|}}}|<!--then:-->
{{!}}style="text-align:center; padding:0px; border:none;"{{!}} {{{image|}}}</tr>
{{!}}style="text-align:center; padding:0px; border:none;"{{!}} {{{caption|}}}</tr>
}}<!--end #if-->
<!----------Total population---------->
!style="background:#fee8ab;"| Total population</tr>
| <!--carriage-return to aid line-spacing:-->
{{{poptime|}}}{{{pop|}}}</tr>
<!----------Regions---------->
!style="background:#fee8ab;"| Regions with significant populations</tr>
{{#if:{{{popplace|}}}{{{regions|}}}|<!--then:--> {{!}}
{{{popplace|}}}{{{regions|}}}</tr>}}
<!-----(table)----->
{{#if:{{{region1|}}}|<!--then: at least one region specified, so construct table:-->
{{!}}
{{{!}} align="center" style="background:transparent; font-size:95%;"
{{#if:{{{tablehdr|}}}|<!--then:--> {{!}}colspan="3" style="font-size:105%;"{{!}} {{{tablehdr}}}</tr>}}
<!--! Region !! Population !! </tr>-->
{{!}} {{{region1|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop1|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref1|}}}</tr>
{{#if:{{{region2|}}}| {{!}} {{{region2|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop2|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref2|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region3|}}}| {{!}} {{{region3|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop3|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref3|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region4|}}}| {{!}} {{{region4|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop4|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref4|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region5|}}}| {{!}} {{{region5|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop5|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref5|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region6|}}}| {{!}} {{{region6|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop6|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref6|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region7|}}}| {{!}} {{{region7|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop7|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref7|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region8|}}}| {{!}} {{{region8|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop8|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref8|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region9|}}}| {{!}} {{{region9|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop9|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref9|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region10|}}}| {{!}} {{{region10|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop10|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref10|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region11|}}}| {{!}} {{{region11|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop11|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref11|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region12|}}}| {{!}} {{{region12|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop12|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref12|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region13|}}}| {{!}} {{{region13|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop13|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref13|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region14|}}}| {{!}} {{{region14|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop14|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref14|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region15|}}}| {{!}} {{{region15|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop15|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref15|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region16|}}}| {{!}} {{{region16|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop16|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref16|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region17|}}}| {{!}} {{{region17|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop17|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref17|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region18|}}}| {{!}} {{{region18|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop18|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref18|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region19|}}}| {{!}} {{{region19|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop19|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref19|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region20|}}}| {{!}} {{{region20|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop20|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref20|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region21|}}}| {{!}} {{{region21|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop21|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref21|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region22|}}}| {{!}} {{{region22|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop22|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref22|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region23|}}}| {{!}} {{{region23|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop23|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref23|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region24|}}}| {{!}} {{{region24|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop24|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref24|}}}</tr>}}
{{#if:{{{region25|}}}| {{!}} {{{region25|}}} {{!!}}align="right"{{!}} {{{pop25|}}} {{!!}} {{{ref25|}}}</tr>}}
{{!}}}
}}<!--end #if--></tr>
<!----------Language---------->
!style="background:#fee8ab;"| Language</tr>
|
{{{langs|}}}{{{language|}}}</tr>
<!----------Religion---------->
!style="background:#fee8ab;"| Religion</tr>
|
{{{rels|}}}{{{religion|}}}</tr>
<!----------Related groups---------->
{{#if:{{{related|}}}|<!--then:-->
!style="background:#fee8ab;"{{!}} Related ethnic groups</tr>
{{!}}
{{{related}}}</tr>
}}<!--end #if-->

|}<noinclude>{{clear}}


<!--{{Infobox Ethnic group/doc}}-->

<!--[[Category:Infobox templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]-->
</noinclude>

[edit] Empty template


Template:Infobox Ethnic group/redesign

[edit] Turkish people


Template:Infobox Ethnic group/redesign

[edit] Li people


Template:Infobox Ethnic group/redesign


If folk approve of these modifications, I'll update the documentation accordingly as well as the template itself. Thanks in advance for feedback, David Kernow (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - looks great. Khoikhoi 00:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - nice improvement. Rex 17:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - better than the previous version.--Rudjek 16:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the above; have now implemented the modification. Hopefully all instances of the template unaffected; please repair and/or report any you find that are now broken. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    PS I'll be starting to search for and use the region/pop/refN parameters for those articles providing regional breakdowns soon.

[edit] Centre?

Why is the content of the table aligned to the centre? I think it looks messy; couldn't it be aligned to the left (except for the ethnic groups' names' section of couse).--Rudjek 23:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If/when a few more folk agree, let's do so; otherwise I reckon a centered alignment as default seems reasonable per the names section and the default centered alignment used for images/captions. Yours, David Kernow (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
OK.--Rudjek 16:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks awful. It seems far more reasonable to have the default be left aligned and have the name section be the exception. Tomertalk 23:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tomer. - Jmabel | Talk 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we do something at least to align the (usually bulleted) list of related groups to the left? - Jmabel | Talk 07:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE? I'm out of my depth here, or I'd do it myself, but this really should be done. - Jmabel | Talk 18:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Try placing <div style="text-align:left;"> just before the text you long to align-left, then </div> just after it. If any problems then occur, point me to the affected infobox. Regards, David (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that worked (at Romaniotes). Per Tomer's remark above, though, this is pretty common. Can't we add a Boolean argument that allows someone to justify left by setting a variable, instead of needing to put abstruse HTML on the page? - Jmabel | Talk 07:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

What does everyone think of the idea of including flags in the infoboxes (e.g. at Roma people)? Of course making that a convention wouldn't require altering the template in any way, but it made me think that as most ethnic groups have a flag, couldn't there be an extra parameter (a cell the top or the bottom of the template) for that? I think it would be more useful that the current "pictures of famous members of this ethnic group".--Rudjek 00:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure... Some ethnic flags might not represent the majority of their people/s if they've been adopted by secession, nationalist or other political groups... I don't have specific examples in mind; it was just a thought that occurred while reading your suggestion!  Anyone else...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of having an optional cell for recognizable flags, such as the Ikurriña for the Basques, or the flag currently in the infobox at Flemish people could have it's own cell making room for images of well known Flemings.--Rudjek 11:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Have tried implementing {{{flag}}} and {{{flag_caption}}} parameters; see documentation and Basque people. Hope nothing broken elsewhere, David (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this is very contentious and not terribly informative. In the rare case where an ethnic group really has a flag, then it can be placed somewhere other than the infobox. Otherwise, this is just an invitation to ugly disputes: is the flag of Israel the flag of the Jews? Is the flag of Germany the flag of Germans elsewhere, or the flag of France the flag of the ethnic French? Is the former flag of Biafra the flag of the Igbo? All invitations to ugly fights over nationalism that I don't think we need. Indeed, in the very example given (the Basques): does this exclude the Navarrese from being Basque? I don't like this at all. I see that David Kernow had some similar, if less specific, concerns. - Jmabel | Talk 20:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Further remark: this project was started largely to counter a tendency to conflate various European countries with their respective dominant ethnic groups. This seems to threaten to move back the other way. - Jmabel | Talk 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait guidelines

There has been a growing trend for portrait galleries of prominent ethnic group members. These can be unsatisfactory in my view when they're (1) too big, (2) too unbalanced (often all-male) or (3) idiosyncratic (such as highlighting young starlets). In working out the process at Talk:Jew#Smaller collage, I think I have some ideas for general guidelines:

  • There should be four portraits, no more.
  • The figures should be historically prominent and representative, but not the "four greatest".
  • The persons should be gender balanced, and diverse in occupation, sub-cultural affiliation and geography.

Of course one could say the whole idea is silly, but if we're to have these portraits (and they seem quite popular), then I think some guideline would be helpful.--Pharos 07:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably worth taking up, though I think that any guideline should be loose. In many cases, where there are many people of the ethnicity in question active in Wikipedia, I would generally expect them to do a better job of forming appropriate consensus than would be formed by "outsiders". Discussion of this, on a broad basis, should probably be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups rather than in the discussion for this particular template. - Jmabel | Talk 07:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Another question. Should the portraits be of people of that ethnic background, or of people who are from the country or countries where that ethnicity arises? For example, should the montage on the Ukrainians page be comprised only of people born in the Ukraine, or could it also include people of Ukrainian ancestry worldwide? Could we have former Governor-General Ray Hnatyshyn, astronaut Roberta Bondar, or actor Jack Palance (to give three notable non-Ukrainian-born people of Ukrainian ancestry) in the montage? --Charlene 07:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
My opinion would be that diasporic people should not be excluded, but that one should only highlight people who were significantly a part of the ethnic community. To a certain extent also, I think it would depend on the history of the ethnic group, how much it was centered in the "homeland", and how much in the diaspora. We should not necessarily highlight Jack Palance just because he's a famous Hollywood actor.--Pharos 16:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Pharos. If Palance had (for example) played a few major roles in Unkrainian-langauge films, it would be another matter. - Jmabel | Talk 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Applicability

The Jews are themselves genetically diverse, and whether the term Jews defines a race, nation, ethnic group or religion is up for debate. I disagree on using this template on that article altogether. Khoikhoi 05:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The use of this template does not specifically imply an ethnic group in the narrow sense. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups. You will see that it is broadly defined (ethnic groups, subgroups, nations, tribes, etc.) The distinctions among these concepts doubtless have validity, but it is almost impossible to draw clean borders between them, and it would seem (to me at least) that they all raise pretty much the same issues for an encyclopedia, and should be handled in a parallel manner. - Jmabel | Talk 07:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to add more regions?

I recently added a 31st region, [29], but I see it still do not appear at Roma people. Are there necessary other edits to make visible more regions? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 17:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Was just a small oversight, easy to make. I wonder, though, if thirty-one regions with significant populations may be a few too many...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fork

FYI there's a fork of this template here.--Domitius 16:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted it, since it was unused and only a direct copy of this existing one. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extra White Space

This template add an extra line of blank space wherever it's put, unlike other templates. Can you guys fix it? Please let me know on my talk page, thanks.100110100 17:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the line at the top, bottom or somewhere else...?  If at the top, the reason may be the first one or two lines of the code. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Top. The "margin-top:0.75em;" needs to go (try changing 0.75em to 7.5 em or 100px and see what happens). Sohelpme 04:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The "margin-top:0.75em" is an attempt to prevent any long disambiguation/redirection statements at the start of the article from clashing with the top of the infobox. I guess said statements should carry a margin-bottom instead, but for now... Regards, David (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
A) I haven't seen that used on other infoboxes in that are typically placed top-right, B) It would be better to handle any specific articles that have such a conflict within the problematic article, instead of forcing extra white space into all articles that use the template, and C) wouldn't adding a CSS "clear: both" be a less invasive way to avoid conflicts? Sohelpme 20:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
A) It's arisen with {{Infobox Country}}, perhaps elsewhere;
B) I think this was tried (perhaps mainly with Infobox Country) and another problem arose, although I can't recall what – perhaps, therefore, worth a try here;
C) Again, I think this was tried but another problem was caused (probably some kind of vertical misalignment between disambiguation/redirection statement, infobox and start of article text). Again, perhaps worth revisiting here.
Apologies for haziness; 'twas some time ago. Yours, David (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This issue still occurs; I see by this discussion that it was not addressed. This is a problem and therefore this infobox is inconsistent with other WP infoboxes. Can't we at least allow the top margin to be a parameter passed in to the infobox? I found this bug looking at the Japanese people article. There is no excuse for that extra whitespace on an otherwise excellent template. Timneu22 (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Per my last comment; asking for unprotection to provide a variable. Timneu22 (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Y Done I've removed the top margin - all the other infoboxes seem to survive without one, or even a variable for it. Happy‑melon 14:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scrap this infobox

It's becoming clear to me that this infobox does more harm than good to the X people articles. Most of the discussion on their talk pages is focused on how best to 'improve' the infobox, whilst the actual articles themselves are left to rot.

Ethnicities are not concrete entities, but this infobox presents them as such. Pretty much all the information contained in them is a matter of opinion. If it's not original research (as the 'total population' figure almost always is) then it's oversimplified or downright ridiculous. For example, the 884 Turkish people in Liechtenstein. Often, citizenship data and self-identification freely mingle together, despite measuring quite different things.

The 'related' box is a particular source of friction and original theorising, since it attempts to distill a whole batch of differing opinions into a binary of 'related' or not. I am not aware of any systematic, non-contentious definition of 'relatedness', so again we have more original research and oversimplification.

Any ethnic information should be interspersed with detailed discussions of the varying opinions of who counts as an member of group X. The list-like framework of the infobox prevents this. As such, it should be scrapped.--Nydas(Talk) 20:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have continued at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Scrap the infobox, which is probably a better place for it. I will copy your comments there; let's try to keep the discussion thread in one place. - Jmabel | Talk 19:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

{{Editprotected}} This template is currently not labelled as being protected; could an administrator kindly add the {{pp-protected}} or {{pp-protected|small=yes}} template? Cheers, -Panser Born- (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Though I actually used {{pp-template|small=yes}} instead. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Related" entry

(moved here from main doc page)

It has been suggested that the "related=" field in this template has often led to inclusion of dubious information that may constitute "original research" or be unsourced, or has given rise to unnecessary controversy and edit-wars. Please see here for discussion. As a result of this discussion, the display of the "related=" field has been temporarily disabled. In those cases where editors are confident the information in that field is reliable, verified and consensual, please simply edit the page to change the parameter name from "related=" to "related-c" (i.e. "confirmed"). It will then again display just as before. Alternatively, you may want to consider leaving the field out completely, or integrating the information into a discussion in the main text instead if it is in any way disputable or contentious.

In general, this infobox (like others) should only contain information that is uncontentious and verifiable in a straightforward way.

The display of the removal notice in the box itself is temporary and will be removed again at some time. You can also deactivate it on each page by either removing the "related=" field completely or replacing it with "related-c=".

Correction: please note that this action was taken unilaterally by two editors. It is not the "result of a discussion." It does not reflect any WP:CONSENSUS, and should not be assume to be binding in any manner. Ling.Nut 15:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
From what I can see this happed as a result of a discussion between three editors. Two of which supported the action and one who opposed. That it would happen with so little regard for gathering a broad consensus (and did not even respect a consensus between the three editors that were involved) is quite shocking. I absolutely oppose the action, at this time purely with respect to how it came to be. --sony-youthpléigh 00:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
How it came to be does not seem to have any wait on weather it is good or not, I strongly agree with this.--Erkin2008 02:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I woud be afraid of alowing one or two editors to dectate the outcome of discussion without seeking a consensus (they admitted that the "related ehtic groups" box was sometimes controversial and original research, their solution was to remove the box from ALL ethic group pages without consulting anybody else). That's a dangerous prededence. --sony-youthpléigh 11:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The related section was created with no discussion at all, and was mandatory until a year ago. That's an equally dangerous precedent, if not worse.--Nydas(Talk) 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the discussion should be localized to a single Talk. Try discussing on this thread Ling.Nut 02:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

{{editprotected}} I just need a 1 minute deprotect to create a FOotnotes section at the bottom of the infobox, thanks --Andersmusician $ 17:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's yours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
done, thanks --Andersmusician $ 17:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I'll be offline the next hours, you'll need somebody else if you find you want to tinker more with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regions of significant populations

Any chance of making this section a drop-down list because with some articles there is a long list of regions which makes the infobox quite large and intrudes upon the main body of the article. (RexImperium 08:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

  • Could be done, but, in those articles with long lists, perhaps the threshold before a population becomes "significant" might be raised...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Could that be done through code? Say for example it displays populations that above a certain threshold percentage of the source population, the rest being hidden by default. (84.13.244.225 10:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC))
  • Something could be tried, but I suspect it might not be worthwhile as (1) it would further complicate how to use the template; and (2) it could be circumvented by anyone intent on doing so. Amending the template's code so it offers no more than (say) eight specified regions and carries a comment that this number should be sufficient to include all relatively significant regions (in terms of population size) might dissuade folk from adding regions over-enthusiastically. If no-one reading this thread objects, I could try making this amendment and see what if any response/reaction it brings...
    Alternatively, if there's a consensus for including more than eight or so specified regions, I guess the drop-down format is a containing solution. Yours, David (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extinct people

Should this infobox be used on articles about extinct people? If yes, any special notes/requirements? Thanks. Renata 15:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] adding Hungarian version

Could please an admin add hu:Sablon:Népcsoport to the page? Thank you --Teemeah Gül Bahçesi 11:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. By the way, the interwikis are actually on Template:Infobox Ethnic group/doc, which is not protected.--Pharos 01:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

{{editprotected}} I want to add religion in singular, for Template:Infobox Jew as a optional field. Epson291 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "Religions" to "Religion(s)." Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Syntax

In a different wiki, using without an opening seems to fail to introduce a new row. Is there any tweaking needed in Mediawiki settings? --Shafei(talk) 18:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested edit: Related ethnic groups

{{editprotected}} Currently the code seems to cause formatting problems (causing preformatted text blocks), when {{{related}}} is populated but {{{related-c}}} is not; see Miwok for an example of the problem. The relevant section of code currently reads:

<!---------------------Related groups---------------------->
{{#if:{{{related|}}}{{{related-c|}}} |<!--then:-->
!style="background:#fee8ab;"{{!}} Related ethnic groups</tr>
{{!}}
{{{related-c|}}} {{#if:{{{related|}}} | {{{related}}}
[[Category:"Related ethnic groups" needing confirmation]]}}</tr>
}}

(I've added the line break before the category) and I think removing the spaces on the penultimate line, to read

{{{related-c|}}}{{#if:{{{related|}}}|{{{related}}}
[[Category:"Related ethnic groups" needing confirmation]]}}</tr>

would solve the issue. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the spaces, and it seems to have fixed Miwok. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about citizenship?

Hello. Please help us resolve this debate: should Latin American-born UK residents who are not UK citizens be included as Britons with Latin American ancestry? Similarly (to give another example), at Chinese Americans, should only US citizens be included? Thank you. SamEV (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regions, significance and the numbers themselves

I am unfamiliar with discussions at this organizational altitude and am a technophobe when the Wikifying becomes templately technical, so if my newbie-ness elicits a ‘dah’ response, please don’t bite. I am here because of this [30] and subsequent edits. I believe I have explained myself there, with examples, but have some questions that better belong here.

  • What is the intended template use of the word ‘region’? Is this intended for use as specific countries, as is generally the case, or was it envisioned as geographic regions with countries included geographically? My read of the intended usage is to regionalize ethnic groups; that seems globally significant for ethnic groups but I am a professional geography-type. I also understand that regions may be taken differently, whether an ethnicity is regional or world-wide. Guidance requested.
  • Please define/guideline ‘significant’ in the template’s use of “Regions with significant populations.” What is significant?- 30%, 10% or 0.2%? I am an inclusionist, but this greatly lengthens some templates, well beyond NPOV into minutia. Guidance requested
  • Can a re-formated section be made with just flag, country and ref for smaller populations, so that two or three countries per-line can be included? This would shorten many templates.
  • Should the population numbers be arranged so that they speak for themselves? I believe they should. The reason why I am here centers on this question and what I perceive as trying to hide/minimize facts in a specific, POV'd arrangement.

Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] mother language

I want to add "mother language" section in the page [31], how can I do this?

  • mother language(s): Turkish dialects
  • Language(s) (or other languages): official Turkish and official Bulgarian

--Ilhanli (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please remove the unsightly brackets around the "s" in the "Language(s)" and "Religion(s)" headings. They're simply not necessary; if there's a list of languages (or religions, or...) with only one member, the implication is that in other instances of the template there could be lists with more than one member. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done --CapitalR (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Generalisations about languages or religions not appropriate - parameters optional?

  • Further to the discussion at Talk:American Australian there are some groups for whom a language or even a few languages and a religion or a few religions is not appropriate. Generalisations are not useful. It is difficult to be exhaustive and not very constructive. Could we please make these parameters optional? Ie if nothing against them then they do not show up in the info box? Thanks --Matilda talk 07:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done: given no objections here - hope my edit did not cause any problems Matilda talk 23:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Something screwed up

{{editprotected}} Last edits of Matilda make text string "LanguagesReligions" pop up all pages which contain this tmplate.

Please revert and experiment on a copy of the template. Mukadderat (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thx. Voodoo. :-) Mukadderat (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Y Done by Rick Block. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)