Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Infobox Ethnic group has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.

Archives 1

[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)

[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
Image:Sezenaksu2.jpg
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

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

[edit] Turkish people

Turks Türkler
Mehmed II · Suleiman the Magnificent Atatürk · Sezen Aksu
Total population
c. 66.7 million
Regions with significant populations
Turkey 58,700,000 [1][2] Germany 2,700,000 [3] Bulgaria 763,000 (2001) [4] France 400,000 [5] Netherlands 357,900 (2005) [6] United Kingdom 300,000 [5] Northern Cyprus 265,000 [7] Uzbekistan 200,000 [8] Austria 183,445 (2001) [9] United States 169,000 ± 51,000[10][11] Belgium 120,000 [5] Brazil 150,000 ± 50,000[5] Russia 96,000 [12] Switzerland 83,312 (2000) [13] Rep. of Macedonia 80,000 [14] Romania 32,596 [15] Australia 87,000 ± 33,000[16][17] Greece 54,000 [18] Kosovo 30,000 ± 20,000[19][20] Azerbaijan 50,000 [21] Sweden 35,000 [5] Canada 38,000 ± 13,000[22][23] Mexico 20,000 [5] Liechtenstein 884 [5]
Language
Turkish
Religion
Muslim or nominally Muslim, predominantly Sunni Islam, followed by Alevis. Small numbers of Eastern Orthodox and Jewish adherents. Many have atheistic or agnostic beliefs.[5]
Related ethnic groups
Other Turkic peoples, Oğuz Turks

[edit] 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.

[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. Tomer^talk 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)

[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)