Template talk:Ethnic groups in Croatia

Constitution
In Constitution mentions only a few minorities,therefore it is better to be alphabetically sorted. We can not half by the constitution, half by alphabetically. --Sokac121 (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The entire list in the group named after the constitutional grouping (autochthonous minorities) is indeed in the Constitution, in that order - just read it. The rest is in the other group. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The list is reproduced verbatim at Constitution of Croatia, in Croatian that's Izvorišne osnove: [...] Republika Hrvatska ustanovljuje se kao nacionalna država hrvatskoga naroda i država pripadnika nacionalnih manjina: Srba, Čeha, Slovaka, Talijana, Mađara, Židova, Nijemaca, Austrijanaca, Ukrajinaca, Rusina, Bošnjaka, Slovenaca, Crnogoraca, Makedonaca, Rusa, Bugara, Poljaka, Roma, Rumunja, Turaka, Vlaha, Albanaca i drugih, koji su njezini državljani [...]. If the order is good for the constitution, it's good for a navbox. If we didn't have the list in the constitution, I'd support alphabetical too, as that is the most neutral ordering, but in fact we do. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * While I find the very idea of enumerating minorities in the Constitution a bit boneheaded, it apparently serves a purpose, as it separates the "designated" minorities (i.e. those with special rights) from the rest. (I wish Constitution of Croatia actually explained this bit.) So, this list should be used because it: 1) is not arbitrary, being "official", 2) makes a difference in the minority's status, and 3) is actually quite comprehensive. The order itself is not really important, but I'd prefer the order from the constitution. GregorB (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks prettier when sorted alphabetically. What readers think why minorities are not sorted alphabetically? Scattered on all sides.--Sokac121 (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Granted, alphabetical sort is at least self-explanatory. To an uninformed reader, the order from the Constitution might appear arbitrary. I'm not sure if that's really important, though. GregorB (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the order from the Constitution seems pretty arbitrary in the first place since it does not list minorities neither alphabetically nor by their size. IMO we either list them alphabetically and leave it at that, OR list them by some criteria clearly stated in the template itself. Otherwise it just seems confusing. I would be in favour of listing them by size, similar to what has been done in Template:Ethnic groups in Slovenia, but I would replace actual figures with percentages and put subgroups in parenthesis. I don't think readers care in what order the constitution mentions them or whether some encyclopedically significant group is explicitly mentioned in it at all. And I would keep Yugoslavs in the "Others" category since they are not an ethnic group but merely a designation.  Timbouctou  ( talk ) 23:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Ordering by size is also OK generally, but I'd drop the actual percentages. Everybody not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution should be classified under "Others". GregorB (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * We have the example of Kosovo, which mentions the constitution Template:Ethnic groups in Kosovo, interesting division in Lithuania Template:Ethnic groups in Lithuania Largest, Smaller, Other small, Other, In Poland alphabetical order Template:Ethnic groups in Poland... Will the our template be too great if we put and numbers (percentage)?--Sokac121 (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO, alphabetical order makes much more sense because the template is a navigational tool and it is far more convenient for readers (especially casual readers) to use it. Likewise, I think the percentages have no place in the template for the same reason - the navigational tool is supposed to facilitate navigation rather than carry information. On a further note, is there a reason the template uses the word "autochthonous" - does the constitution support such a term, or should it be "listed by the constitution" or something along those lines? I don't mind the term "autochthonous" per se, but I'm concerned if it's OR.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's from an older, 2001 revision: Republika Hrvatska ustanovljuje se kao nacionalna država hrvatskog naroda i država pripadnika autohtonih nacionalnih manjina. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Autochthonous minorities are the ones that have been recorded 1918. All minorities in Croatia have the same rights. I think we should remove the name "autochthonous", maybe now we give wrong information are Albanians and Bosniaks autochthonous minorities?--Sokac121 (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbanasi etc
Arbanasi are already linked indirectly though Albanians of Croatia. Not unlike Istrian Italians who are already linked indirectly through Italians of Croatia. There needs to be consistent criteria for inclusion or exclusion in the list. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Terrible damage, what are in template Arbanasi. The template is already existed in the article Arbanasi I am just gave a link. Istro-Romanians associated with Vlachs and Romanians whether we will delete them. I have nothing against that in the template we have Istrian Italians.--Sokac121 (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)