Template talk:Infobox ethnic group/Archive 2

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.

Empty template


Turkish people


Li people


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.

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.  Tom e rtalk  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  just before the text you long to align-left, then   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)

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 and  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)

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: 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)
 * 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.


 * 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)

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 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)

How to add more regions?
I recently added a 31st region,, 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)

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)

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)


 * Per my last comment; asking for unprotection to provide a variable. Timneu22 (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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)

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, 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 request
Editprotected This template is currently not labelled as being protected; could an administrator kindly add the or  template? Cheers, -Panser Born-   (talk)  17:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Though I actually used instead. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"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-youth pléigh 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-youth pléigh 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)

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)

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)

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)

Religion
I want to add religion in singular, for Template:Infobox Jews 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)

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)

Requested edit: Related ethnic groups
editprotected Currently the code seems to cause formatting problems (causing preformatted text blocks), when  is populated but   is not; see Miwok for an example of the problem. The relevant section of code currently reads:

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

would solve the issue. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the spaces, and it seems to have fixed Miwok. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 and subsequent edits. I believe I have explained myself there, with examples, but have some questions that better belong here. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

mother language
I want to add "mother language" section in the page, how can I do this? --Ilhanli (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * mother language(s): Turkish dialects
 * Language(s) (or other languages): official Turkish and official Bulgarian

Edit request
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)
 * ✅ --CapitalR (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Something screwed up
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)


 * ✅ by Rick Block. PeterSymonds (talk)  11:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion again
If you look above, Template_talk:Infobox_Ethnic_group was the reason it was changed to religion(s) was for Template:Infobox Jews. It's 'unsightly' to see religions in plural with only one listed. Can you make just "religion" (vs. religions) an optional field?, that would solve the issue. Epson291 (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC) ✅

Languages
Do second languages belong in the languages section, or only first languages? There is a huge fuss on Maltese people at the moment because someone wants to include Italian in the languages section even though only 36% of Maltese speak it as their second language, and none as their first. Could anyone provide a second opinion?--Yolgnu (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Anthem option needed
editprotected

I am adding the Acadians to the reformed List of national anthems page. List of national anthems no longer re-directs to the restricted List of anthems by country, which is based on the ISO country list, and thus omits scores of recognised national anthems (perhaps most notably the United Kingdom ones: (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland). The new List of national anthems is now hapilly open to all articles with a national anthem.

Acadians uses the Ethnic group info box. They are considered a 'nation without a border', no doubt like many 'cultures' who will use this box. However, they still have an area (formally Acadia) where many of them live, and they clearly have their own culture, language, flag etc - as defines a nation. Most importantly for the 'List of national anthems' article that I am editing, they have a national anthem!

I am requesting that national_anthem is added to the template. It appears as "Anthem:" on all templates, and I believe would be uncontroversial as an actual addition. Any debates that may arise can ensue on the relevant talk pages. If an article doesn't need the anthem option (as I'm many wouldn't), it can be ignored, of course.

It strikes me that any cultural template that has a flag option, should have an anthem option.

Failing this, to proceed I think I would have to find out how to make Acadia's own template, or convert it to the country template - which many 'nations' (or non-ISO countries) do actually use (see England, Wales, Tibet etc). I don't mind attempting that, but the Ethnic box is the one already in use there, and it having the anthem option strikes me as the obvious solution. As many Acadians live outside of the former Acadia, a country box may even be objected to by someone (I don't know), unless I could say they are not classed as an 'ethnic group', but something else(?) (they actually hail from France).

I trust, if adding "Anthem:" is as uncontoversial as I hope, that a laborious process does not have to ensue for it to be done. If no serious objections can be foreseen, I would suggest adding it, in view of removing if any valid objections arise. Please respond, so I can decide which way to proceed. Any advice is welcome.--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with adding the parameter "anthem". Ethnicity does not equal nationality or even lack of nationality.--Matilda talk 05:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Based on Matilda's objection, I don't see a consensus for this.  Feel free to make another request when you two have this hammered out.  Cheers.  --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll offer a response. You may not have realised, but "national_anthem" it's just syntax - the actual wording is "Anthem:" (so nation is not an issue). If you do realise that...

Having an anthem option does not therefore mean ethnicity = nation. As I've said above, the template is called "national_anthem" but, clearly for reasons of flexibility, it appears as "Anthem:" (so the "national" tag is irrelevant, and merely a form of probably irreversible syntax). And it's only an option anyway, like the flag option. Also, an anthem is basically the musical version of a flag.

Acadia (if the ethicity template fits for it) shows anthem is needed, as clearly the flag option has been needed in the past. Anthems aren't always about nation: Europe has an anthem, as does Africa, and sport supporters have anthems too.

I'm not going to push this (I will try and change the Acadian template to 'country' instead - there is no other solution available to me), but it would be interesting to know if you (or anyone) feels that there would be a real problem in adding anthem to this template - ie. a likely disturbance in the future? Also, I'd appreciate some advice on the Acadian problem - should it be using the ethnicity template? Perhaps there is a more suitable template for it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think anthem is irrelevant to the very great majority of ethnic groups and/or can add confusion where they are a blended group. The flags given easy visual recognition but the use in the Arcadia article is different to the way it is use most often in my experience (as an icon).  I suspect that the use of this template for the Arcadia article is probably not quite right - you could either try using the Country one - or create your own box (it doesn't have to be a template) for the article with similar look and feel but parameters to suit the highlights you want to emphasise. --Matilda talk 22:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll look at creating a new template, but I still see an anthem as a musical version of a flag - and where there's a flag there is usually an anthem! And why the flag option? Not all anthems are "national" anthems - see List of anthems. The African Union has it's own anthem, for example, as does socialism. Anyway, I'll leave it here. Maybe it's not exactly great for the planet for an actual ethnic group to need an anthem. Or even a flag, for that matter. I'll make a new box.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible sig. populations?
Is there any way the "Significant populations" section could be made optionally collapsible? It's kind of out of hand on Roma people (not to mention the main target of random vandalism). Thanks. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Subgroups
I think that "subgroups" and "subgroup of" should get their own section. This might also help with some of the confusion over the "related ethnic groups" bit. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Um... hello? Is anyone going to comment or make any changes? Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 08:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A kind of follow on from above
I believe a section in the template for Racial classification should be included. Views? Mingeyqla (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit request
Since the majority of ethnic groups have a connection with certain territories, I think that we should add a homeland section. What do you think?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus --> proposed new code -->  use editprotected. You're missing the first two steps. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Example and China
The example provided shows "China (PRC)". I request that this example be removed as it could be misleading as to how China is to be handled. Rather than trying explain or argue the nuances and complexities here, I think it is best to simply remove that country from the example and allow it to be discussed elsewhere. Readin (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The doc page is not protected and can be edited by anyone at Template:Infobox Ethnic group/doc. --CapitalR (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Syntax tweaks
editprotected

Requesting sync with the new sandbox for some general cleanup of the code; shouldn't be any change in output at all at this stage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅, with a few changes on top because I found a problem with one of the transclusions that used the multi region options. If you find any more problems, please let me know. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

More style updates
Following on from the previous request, I've made some more significant changes to the template to bring it into line with the defaults of the infobox base class, which makes it more consistent and less distracting on articles. A comparison between the old and new layouts can be found on the new test cases page. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Requesting sync with the sandbox again as there has been no opposition. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Any chance we can get a border that expands up around the "|group=" field? The name of the ethnic group now just kinda hovers, and would look better presented and more consistent with the majority of our other infoboxes (say Template:Infobox Country) if it was squared off in a frame. --Jza84 | Talk  17:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's six and half-a-dozen which one is chosen, though I prefer using the HTML element for the title rather than a big table row because that's what it's designed for. Which one is more broadly used really depends what areticles one visits more often - plenty of infoboxes use the caption-style title as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Royal mess!!
I don't know what the heck you think you're doing with this template, but you've created a royal mess! Take a look at German American and Italian American, for example. The image galleries are messed up, the title is out of the box, the spaces below the headers are too large. They look like crap, IMHO. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.153.66 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 4 June 2009


 * Those image montages can easily be tweaked to look right again. Infoboxes should be not jammed full of images in the first place - it invites problems with minor changes to the template metrics, as happened here. I've tweaked the Italian American one to better use the available space; further work should be trivial. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * +1, take a look at French people or various large groups. Why did you need to change it like that, it was pretty well organized as it was. Please revert this mess. - Wikigi | talk to me | 14:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Mess" is not a sufficient description of the problem to resolve this. French people looks fine to me. A better description of the problem and the expected outcome would be greatly helpful. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong is that each section now floats in a sea of light gray when they where previously nicely separated. The title is off the infobox, image caption keeps a yellowish background color from the previous model. I wish I had a screenshot of the box as it was for you to compare. - Wikigi | talk to me | 17:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Those changes were deliberate, proposed, and in line with the vast majority of the other infoboxes in the project. However, I've made a change to the sandbox which gives this result. Is that acceptable? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been following this exchange. The proposed changes in the sandbox are much better - the background color of the headers now sets them off and makes them easier to see and follow. It would be even better if you could apply the background color to the overall title of the infobox ("Ethnic American"). -- Sift  &amp;  Winnow  22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I agree with Sift&Winnow, it would be much better with the newer proposed change. - Wikigi | talk to me | 07:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Chris, no-one comes here unless they observe a change in the template...


 * So be it. Requesting re-sync with the sandbox, minor change to add a background colour to the header fields for clarity considering the level of detail in these infobox instances. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Can anything be done about those messy image galleries? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ideally, editors would be admonished not to include them in the first place. I'm not sure where the practice began, but it's rampant on these infoboxes. However, an alternative approach (which would prevent people randomly tacking on new images all the time) would be to create single-image montages for each infobox. I'm not sure where to raise that suggestion centrally. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the montages would be best going forwards; this makes them more stable and more futureproof against changes to the infobox. I think the changes Chris has proposed and made, with these new adjustments, looks good. :) --Jza84 | Talk  14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked a few ethnic American articles. They seem to be updated, except for Norwegian American. Is there a time lag in updating? Also, I didn't see the infobox titles with a background color to match the headers within the box. I still think that would improve readability. As it is now, the lack of a background color makes the title look as if it's floating in space... -- Sift &amp;  Winnow  17:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a time lag: see Help:Job queue. Articles can be updated manually by purging the server cache. The title floating is deliberate; it uses the HTML  attribute, which is more semantically valuable than using a header row in the table itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "semantically valuable", but it's harder to read, which I think makes it less semantically valuable. -- Sift  &amp;  Winnow  13:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Regions with significant populations
If there's no data in this section, could the title be suppressed? For example, Template:African American ethnicity shows nothing because we've reached consensus that the overwhelming number of African Americans live, by definition, in the United States. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the ethnic-American articles define region as a region of the United States, not as a worldwide region, so they use terminology such as "Midwest" or "Northeast", or list particular states with heavy concentrations of the group. -- Sift  &amp;  Winnow  17:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz 18:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Make "regions" caption not appear if there are no regions
Currently, the "Regions with significant populations" caption appears even no region data is provided. To fix this, please replace...

with...

That way the caption will only appear if there is also info associated with it. Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've incorporated this, along with some other fixes (making the "total population" header conditional too) into the sandbox - just needs synced. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, please check and confirm all is OK --Stephen 10:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fork of this template?
I'm a little concerned about Template:Infobox Ethnic group2 and its use on the Serbs article. Can anybody elaborate? I'm thinking this is a fork created to circumvent WP:MOSFLAG, but of course, I am required to assume good faith. Comments? --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  21:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Even assuming good faith, I think your suspicion is correct. Maybe it should be nominated for deletion. — Malik Shabazz 21:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedied T3. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"image" parameter
can we get some consensus on how to and how not to use this slot? The example,

|image        = |image_caption = Zulu warriors (late nineteenth century)

suggests a single image of a "typical" folkloristic scene. Unfortunately, we have a trend of doing 'collages of famous members'. This may work in some cases, but predictably this gets out of hand. We get articles graced with huge "galleries" of thumbnailed mugshots that with literally zero informational value. Even worse, the crowd of ethnic essentialist editors pretty much any ethnic group article will attract will include mugshots of "ancient" members of the group (pharaohs, Iron Age kings, Roman era saints and what have you), obviously not from life but from museum pieces, coins, statues, etc. Now this is about as far from the innocent "ZuluWarriors.jpg" type of image as possible, and in my opinion this defeats any useful application the "image" slot can possibly have.

The French people article is particularly bad, but at least it starts out with Joan of Arc (and not Vercingetorix or Dagobert I), who can actually be argued to date to a period of the development of a proto-French national identity. But is a ... thing like File:French people - mosaic.PNG really what this "image" parameter was intended for? --dab (𒁳) 06:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At British people, a GA, we debated for many an hour but did manage to agree on a criteria for inclusion for the collage. It discludes people that pre-date the United Kingdom for example. --<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;border:2px solid #A9A9A9;padding:1px;">Jza84 | Talk  15:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. This discussion takes place at each "ethnic" article in parallel, and is a huge time-sink. Some well-meaning soul equipped this template with an "image" parameter, but it isn't specified what the parameter is supposed to be for exactly. We should have this discussion here, once and for all, and then specify guidelines on how to use the parameter. Of course there can still be case-by-case discussions, but they will then be at least informed by the previous discussions on usage guidelines.
 * as far as I am concerned, this parameter appears to be intended for small ethnic groups who retain a "traditional" or "tribal" identity separate from modernity or globalization.
 * for example, we don't appear to have a problem with featuring File:Dogon12.jpg at Dogon people, even though I presume there are plenty of Dogons walking around in suits in Bamako. But what would be the point of showing a bunch of portaits of urban Dogons wearing suits in the infobox?
 * the image parameter is not suited for large nationalities numbering several million. There can never be an adequate and useful "collage of famous members" in the space alloted. I mean, the image corresponding to File:Dogon12.jpg for use at English people would be something like File:Whitby 06 02.jpg. Would it make sense to exhibit imagery of ethnic nostalgia at the top of articles on multi-million, industrialized, westernized nationalities? I doubt it. Your typical Englishman is just a guy dressed in a suit, or maybe in football colours, but not a Morris dancer.
 * one guideline could be, for example:
 * use scenes showing typical garb or folkloristic context for small, tribal groups
 * for nationalities or ethnic groups which currently have a constitutional nation state, either show a "typical scene" photo, or a small collection (ideally 4-8, not more than 10-12) of portraits of famous contemporary members, ideally not including images that predate the formation of the current nation state. If non-photographic portraits are included, only such as are drawn from life are acceptable. Paintings predating the 16th century cannot be considered as being drawn from life (for reasons of the development of realistic portraits in the history of painting).
 * this would generally comply with the status quo at British people except for the "not more than 10-12 portraits" part, because frankly, I think it is completely pointless to show 21 tiny, stamp-sized portraits. This is an exercise taylored for the enjoyment of the editors exclusively, and it doesn't do anything for the reader. We need to remember that we are supposed to optimize our articles for the perusal by readers and not as a game or an "art for the sake of art" for the benefit of our editors. --dab (𒁳) 10:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Related Ethnic groups?
What are the general guidelines for determining which ethnic groups are related? In articles about Native American tribes, generally people have picked tribes that are linguistically-related, but some members of the same language families are separated by thousands years and miles, so it would be difficult to argue that they are culturally or blood-related. Any information would be greatly appreciated! Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

the "related" parameter is a perpetual source of annoyance and it might be better to simply get rid of it. Yes, the idea is usually to list a few other groups of the vicinity that are linguistically related. Obviously, the groups listed should be contemporary and not separated by "thousands of years". As for "thousands of miles", this might occasionally not be withstanding close relationship, due to large-scale population movements such as the Turkic migrations. --dab (𒁳) 08:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Images
Should we prefer infoboxes "built up" from a series of images rather then a collage? I think we should. While a collage is more convenient, a built up image box allows editors to more easily debate and change images in the box. A built up image box also allows for mouse over identification of specific images. It also seems to produce sharper pictures. A simple example can be seen on the following articles: Built up image box vs collage. Needless to say, if the collage exists there should be no requirement to "create" the built up image. But if both are available, which should we prefer? I'd prefer not to get into individual edit wars on specific articles over such a minor issue. I think this group is best equipped to weight in on the isues.--Work permit (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Collages should be preferred:
 * Making them more difficult to edit is actually slightly advantageous here, as it prevents people from swapping images on a whim. The images used for these boxes should be carefully chosen to be representative of the subject as a whole, while frequently you find people adding whoever happened to be in the new most often last week.
 * Because collages are derivate works, we can guarantee that they're freely licensed. Occasionally fair use pictures find their way into these things right now.
 * On a purely practical note, it guarantees that the image will be rectangular and in a constant aspect for every reader.
 * Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Collages should be shunned. Not for practical reasons but because they are inherently unencyclopedic. They are one of the most appalling "traditions" on Wikipedia. Please see my comment of September 2009 above. If in doubt, the infobox should show no image at all.
 * also, what do I do if I disagree with the inclusion of a single image in the collage? Just remove the entire thing, or am I expected to redo the entire collage? People "swapping images on a whim" can be reverted. How about people compiling crappy collages on a whim?
 * at the very least we should have a consensus that if there is any dispute surrounding a collage, the default move should be to remove the collage until the dispute is resolved.
 * the original purpose of the "image" parameter was to provide a "typical scene" if there was one along the lines of File:Maasai women and children.jpg displayed at Maasai. If there is no single suitable image, or no consensus on which image to use, the default should be to show no image. I have never heard even a shadow of a rationale in what way these collages are supposed to contribute any encyclopedic value for the benefit of the reader. Just because something has been left lying around on Wikipedia for years doesn't mean it should be kept, or that it does anything for the project.
 * --dab (𒁳) 15:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Avoid flag icons in infoboxes
As per Manual of Style (icons), Should we not remove the flags from the example on this template - Seems a bit contradictory to have the "flag icons" used as an example, if our over all policy is to try and avoid there use in this type of templates.Moxy (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this template is the one producing the flags - they are passed as parameters to the template. Thus by changing

|region1   = 🇦🇫 Afghanistan
 * to

|region1   = Afghanistan
 * you have removed the flag. So you could update the documentation yourself, if you wish. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

alt
Hi

Is there an alt= parameter? If not, what happens at GA or FA when they ask for one and why there is not one. Do screen readers bypass reading the filename in an infobox?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 June 2012
I propose the complete removal of the religion line from the template for several reasons. Firstly, i dont believe wikipedia should assign a religious group to anybody. Some people belong to minority religions and they might feel disheartened to see that their religion is disassociated from their ethnnic group. Secondly, there is another problem for non-religious people. You can't add "atheist" or "agnostic" to the infobox, because neither are religions. So theres the problem that if a majority of an ethnic group is atheist or agnostic, they might misleadingly refer to that ethnic group as "Catholic" or something else. Pass a Method  talk  04:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Pass a Method  talk  04:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Without comment on the request, I've declined the edit request for now until there is consensus on proposal. -- RA (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reopened the edit request. I completely agree with the above rationales, particularly with the one about agnosticism and atheism. --Eleassar my talk 11:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ❌. This needs broader consensus. Please consider also that the religion field is an optional parameter. So if you don't like attributing religious affiliations to a certain group in the template, just leave them away. De728631 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Use Template:Infobox
Replace the contents of Template:Infobox ethnic group with my latest version of Template:Infobox ethnic group/sandbox. This makes this template use Template:Infobox, as is proposed to be done on its doc page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Thank you for doing this. I've added hCard microformat markup, and a pair of native_name/ native_name_lang parameters, and tested them in the sandbox. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Suppressing regions header
How do we hide the “Regions with significant populations” header? Sometimes it is pointless.

Example: in Aboriginal peoples in Canada, someone has listed every province and territory of Canada, which is silly. May as well enter “Canada”, which would be merely redundant. The article's title already makes this self-evident, so the header shouldn't be shown.

Can this be made contingent on including content in the related fields? —Michael Z. 2008-06-27 23:56 z