Template talk:Y-DNA

Groups
A - Khoisan people, including the Bushmen, san man - Hadzabe

BR -

B - pygmy bayaka

CR -

C - Indigenous Australians

h - Kalash

Template with pictures
Is this anything wrong ind making a template with pictures of people rated to each haplogroups?


 * I think that will make the template more difficult to understand. — Reinyday, 16:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, also too biased/stereotyped. Those people pictured may not even be of the haplogroup, so technically they aren't really related subject matter. It would be near impossible to get the type of ethnicity with the most common haplogroup and individual person confirmed of that haplogroup to be pictured; and regardless, phenotypal appearance has no relation to haplogroup. Templates by their very nature shouldn't be picture intensive anyway. Nagelfar (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional proto-macro haplogroupings
Since we have BR, CR & CF added to the template, I consider how GR & LR would fit at Talk:Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups. Nagelfar (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

IJ now goes under "K" IJ now goes under IJK and alongside K
Haplogroup IJ is now be found to share two SNPs in common with K and therefore is under it in the Y-tree. Nagelfar (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * IJK is apparently under and separate from K. This will make it interesting. Nagelfar (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My eyes deceived me for whatever reason; IJK is of course above K & IJ, logically. Nagelfar (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the template should branch K into just IJK & LT?
Then all of L through T could be placed in the LT haplogroup (as is given in the Y-Haplogroup Wikipedia page currently) and IJK could have K* & IJ below it. Nagelfar (talk) 18:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

latest revision with "lines" coming down from all HGs, not just MRCA.
Though I think it is clearer to reference visually now, I don't think it retains the concise template feel of the old version. Maybe the whole template could be downsized (smaller font, etc.). Any opinions? Nagelfar (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In the name of science
In the name of science this tree needs to be connected to the evolutionary phylogenic tree Erasmus Darwin Fan (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC).
 * Not immediately clear what you mean by this? Please explain.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Would this be a nicer style?
I could expand the tree (and take out some of the detailed branches) like the one I put recently in IJK:. Would that not be neater?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is something like this (I'll play a bit here):-

-I think Andrew that your tree could be in the Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup article, but I believe that a template should be as small as possible and like this:

Fine by me. Actually I was thinking it is a handy to have "on file" anyway because it can be adapted for various uses.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

where do we draw the line on adding sub-clades?
The latest edit to this template brings up a subject which was inevitably coming. Do we include any sub-clades beyond the ones with single letters? R1 was included at a time when it was one of the few such clades with its own article. It also includes a big part of European descended men who possibly dominate the editing of this Wikipedia. But eventually we have to decide where this template is going.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Mate, when i saw the grandson clades, son clades of R, O were there then i asked R2a which is the grandson of R and was missing to be added, but you have solved the issue by rightly giving only the main clades there evolutionary positions rather than adding their subclades and making it complex, so have a good time.Nirjhara (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)