User talk:Anthon.Eff/Cultures in standard cross-cultural sample

Purpose
What is the point of this template and why is it being added to articles? What are the criteria for groups included? -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * See Standard cross-cultural sample. — kwami (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, am looking through that now. Instead of adding this template to the ethnic groups listing, a better idea might be cleaning up this orphan: List of cultures in the standard cross cultural sample. -Uyvsdi (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * Maybe. I don't know if anyone would use the template to navigate between articles. It might be useful. If so, the orphan should be deleted. — kwami (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've noticed Usyvidi's removal of it from various BC-FN pages. One thing I didn't like about the way it was being added was it was put above the "nation template" in many cases, e.g. Kwakwaka'wakw or Nuu-chah-nulth, which is anti-protocolic, sort of, as if what anthropologists classify these people as is more important than the people themselves.  Another is that it was being added to many subarticles - Senakw is a Skwxwu7mesh village-site, for example, I see no reason why this template should be anywhere but on the main ethno/people page for each one; in that case not on Squamish Nation, the government page, but on Skwxwu7mesh, the ethno page.Skookum1 (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Bit confused
Um, I'm a bit confused about the links in this NavTemplate. Why Algonquin, Anishinaabe and Saulteaux (Ojibwa)? They are all Anishinaabe. While Algonquin specifies the eastern-most Anishinaabe and the Saulteaux as the western-most Anishinaabe, the term Anishinaabe leaves a large question to as if one is speaking of Oji-Cree in the far north, Potawatomi in the far south, or Odaawaa, Nipissing, Ojibwa (that are not Saulteaux, mainly in Canada), Ojibwa (that are not Saulteaux, more commonly called Chippewa, mainly in the US and southern Ontario)... too much vagueness. One can also say the same thing over the Cree and Innu, as Innu are Cree, but Cree is such a broad term, it introduces that vagueness as well. If the NavTemplate is to be useful, it should refer to the specific group in the study and not to the wide general terms that encompass a swath of peoples. CJLippert (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the current Algonquin is "Algonquin peoples" instead of "Algonquin people". Is the template trying to really say the easter-most Anishinaabe peoples, or is the template trying to say "Algonquian peoples"... which encompasses even larger swath of peoples. CJLippert (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the citation, it appears the what the source material calls "Northern Saulteaux", here in Wikipedia calls Oji-cree ; what the source material calls "Bungi or Plains Ojibwa" is what Wikipedia is calling Saulteaux. What the source material calls under the blanket term "Ojibwa", here in Wikipedia is also called Ojibwe, and it is quite evident that the source material is not counting the Potawatomi, Odaawaa, Nipissing and Algonquin in the mix, so the heading under "Anishinaabe" in the template is misleading. In addition, when the source material says "Algonkin", they area referring to Algonquian peoples and not Algonquin people. CJLippert (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Error on my part. What the source calls "Northern Saulteaux", in Wikipedia, they are also called Saulteaux, but more specifically as "Ontario Saulteaux" and even more specifically, Berens River Ontario Saulteaux (which there is no ethnographic article, but they are the northern segment of the Ontario Saulteaux, and there is the Berens River Ojibwe language article.) I have edited the template to reflect this. CJLippert (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please check out Templates_for_discussion. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi


 * Please, guys, I know you all are well meaning, but any more of this and the template will become unusable. The names used were assigned by George Murdock and Douglas R. White back in the 1960s--they may not be the preferred terms today, but they are the names in the database, and anyone using the SCCS will be looking for those names here on WP. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are linking to articles so presumably the real names used by real people would matter, not just some mid-century sociologists' names for them. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi
 * I'm not arguing that WP should use different names for its articles. I'm saying that the SCCS uses the names it uses, and a list of the societies in the SCCS should also use those names. Otherwise, what's the use of the template?--someone shows up looking for the Nama Hottentot, and the name has been replaced with Khoikhoi--what's the chance that they'll find what they're looking for? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)