Template talk:Infobox ethnic group/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Infobox formatting possibly incompatible with new change?

I noticed that there's a recent issue with the way the notable people gallery displays in articles like Han Chinese and Persian people. The galleries are prefaced by an extra [[File: and concluded by an extra |frameless]]. Is it possible that it is because the formatting I used is incompatible with the new standardized changes in the infobox template? To display the notable people pictures, I'm using this format:

{{(!}} border="0" align="center" style="text-align: center;"
{{!}}-
{{!}}row1item1.jpg
{{!}}row1item2.jpg
{{!}}-
{{!}}row2item1.jpg
{{!}}row2item2.jpg
{{!}}
{{!}}-

{{!)}}

If this style is now deprecated, how can I fix it to be compatible with the new template? or otherwise what can I do to prevent those extra words from appearing?

Bonus questions: what does the

{{!}}

mean exactly? (is it a standard MediaWiki thing?) Also, do you have any resources for a newbie for understanding how templates are implemented. I tried to grok the template source, but don't know what lines like

{{#invoke:InfoboxImage|InfoboxImage|image={{{flag|}}} }}

mean.

Thanks. →ozhu量 (talk·contribs) 17:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Make these changes. @Ozhu: Once this change is made, change image= to rawimage= in your code and it will be fixed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes

The styling of the Footnotes header is just like the data for the section above it (e.g. Religion), making it appear that it (and the following footnotes) are part of that section. This appears to be because of the line:

|data49 = {{#if:{{{footnotes|}}}|Footnotes}}

which should, instead, be:

|header49 = {{#if:{{{footnotes|}}}|Footnotes}}

Was this styling intentional, or can I change it? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Usage of {{Plain list}}

Documentation of the template suggests using the template {{Plain list}} to separate more than one native names, but when using this template, the names are displayed outside the textbox. Cumbril (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cumbril: can you provide an example? Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Frietjes: sure, here's an example: User:Cumbril/sandbox. Cumbril (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cumbril: I moved the native name just inside the box, which appears to fix it, but perhaps Pigsonthewing has a better idea. Frietjes (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Frietjes: on the example page it still appears outside the infobox. Cumbril (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cumbril: you have to refresh the cache of the page to see the change. Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, now I see it. The change puts native names inside the infobox if there are more than one of them. I think it would be better if names were on top of the box, similar to the case with just one native name. But at least they are not in a totally wrong place now. I would still avoid using the {{Plain list}} template and just separate the names by <br />-tag. Cumbril (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cumbril: unfortunately, due to technical issues, we cannot currently use {{plainlist}} in the top table caption (problems with <caption>...</caption> and list markup). if you want the names to be all at the top, you can always just use <br />-tags as you indicated. I will start a thread at template talk:infobox to see if there is a more robust solution. Frietjes (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

@Frietjes: I don't have the need to use multiple names with the template right now. I am adopting the template to Estonian wikipedia and noticed that it does not work as advertised. Thank you for the work! Cumbril (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

What are "related groups" ?

What are "related groups"? Are they genetic-related as I think most people think, obviously wrongly?! or is it "related" genetically and also culturally, "genetic partly", "neighborhood", or any other connection, etc, too?! This "Related groups" should be defined exactly, not to make many unnecessary edits.-Raayen (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. People disagree over which groups should be included because a precise definition is lacking. --JorisvS (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Opinions?

I requested an RFC for a dispute. It is linked here. I'm posting it here, as it concerns a confusion regarding the infobox. Additional opinions would be greatly appreciated! Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 19:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic group and national group

There is a broad confusion over the use of "ethnic group" template, and thus it is often utilized for national groups (Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Syrians, Iraqis or even religion-classified groups (neither ethnic nor national). In some cases the template is utilized for Lebanese people (nationals), Maronites (ethno-religious group) and even the sectarian Shia Islam in Lebanon (neither national, neither specifically ethnic). I propose to create another template named "Infobox national group" to resolve this issue.GreyShark (dibra) 19:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't - it's hard to imagine there would be sufficient different parameters needed. I've instead set up {{Infobox national group}} - and {{Infobox nationality}} - as a redirect, which can be used on relevant articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Minor Population

This template has the section for "Significant Population", but would it be possible to add another tier for Smaller or Minor Population? When you're talking a couple dozen people in one country, versus 1 million in the main country, it's quite different.... What do you think? Thanks so much! Wikimandia (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Format and layout suggestions

1. The other infoboxes with which I'm familiar all include everything inside the borders of the box, while this infobox places the "group" parameter above the box. For the sake of consistency and (my opinion) aesthetics, the field should be inside the box borders.
2. Many of the fields default to a two-line minimum display format - one for the field name, and at least one for the field contents. This wastes screen real estate, and does not (my opinion) improve readability. Examples of this behavior are the fields "total population", "languages" and "religion".
3. All the fields seem to be center-justified. This makes sense to me for field "group", but (my opinion) the other fields should be left-justified for ltr languages.

Thanks for the cool template. —Boruch Baum (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Population display issue

I've noticed that of late, there is a problem with the display of population data in infoboxes. See Yemenis in the United Kingdom for an example. Does anyone know why the population heading and a closing bracket are missing? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I managed to fix it here by changing "poptime" to "population", but presumably the former should work as it is used in lots of articles? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a thought, but is this anything to do with your change to the template, PanchoS? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Cordless Larry, thanks for pinging me. True, that problem on Yemenis in the United Kingdom (and elsewhere) is due to my recent edit. I checked it though and it seems to work as intended. I just didn't come up with the (IMHO rather absurd) idea that people could have used the {{{poptime}}} parameter for the actual population figure.
Now while we usually accomodate legacy params for a while, I'm instead adding a tracking category to see how many transclusions need to be updated. PanchoS (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

3.117 pages are way too much to update manually, so I added a stopgap restoring the population heading. I actually consider the brackets a good thing, as they indicate to editors that a template parameter may have been misused, so over time, all transclusions will be updated. Are you okay with that? --PanchoS (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, PanchoS. Actually, the bracket issue isn't quite as I initially thought - somehow I missed the closing bracket and thought it was missing entirely. It is a bit odd to have brackets around the population figure, but I'm happy to go with your instinct. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. Consequently, I will open the RfC process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal.

Everybody is welcome to their view here. Hahun (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Following the outcome of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups (not that I agree with it), should the parameters |image= and |image_caption= be removed from this template? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that the RfC concerned montages, not all images per se, I think it is best to keep it. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Flag, Notable people headers

• I think an admin should add the header (like Related, Religion) of "Notable people" where a collage with the headshots and names of individuals of the ethnic group. Isn't it a good idea to also add the flag of the ethnic group as it is the flag that represents the people (Ethnic flag). It would make it look even better / Ajdebre (talk)

This section was added with this edit back in April 2010. The IP editor signed it with the signature of a later indeffed editor. It was also marked with the {{time}} template, causing it to escape archiving. I have deleted the template so that the section will be archived by the bot in due time. --T*U (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Map image

Should this infobox also have a support for map of ethnic group distribution? --Milan.j (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Extending the number of regions

The infobox in Japanese people lists 36 regions, but only the first 31 are shown. Wouldn't be possible to extend the number of regions a little bit more, say to 40? Carlotm (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. The expansion would be easy, and a limit of 40 would seem reasonable. Later perhaps more than 40 groups could be added. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done. As requested, no objections for 3 days, I have added groups 33-40 to expand Template:Infobox ethnic group" at 21:31 4 June 2016, and re-tested with pages "Japanese people" and "Overseas Chinese" as testcases up to region36, pop36 and ref36. Because the update was reasonable, with no objections during the prior 3 days, then the 30% increase seemed like a safe course of action, as tested. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I fixed your numbering error. Frietjes (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Has the philosophies parameter been deprecated?

The renderer says it's unknown, populating this field does not seem to affect the infobox, and it's not listed under Parameters. A field like this is necessary because many cultures do not compartmentalise or institutionalise values, beliefs, etc. as religion. —Ringbang (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

One more parameter

Wouldn't be possible to add one optional parameter in regions section?

| region1 = <!-- first region (country)'s name / {{flagcountry|name}} -->

| pop1 = <!-- population in first region -->

| ref1 = <!-- <ref>erence/s supporting pop1 data -->

|percent1 = <!-- approx. percentage in relation to total population (one decimal)-->

The section title could be changed to something like:

Regions with significant populations
(approx. percentages to the total population)

Thanks. Carlotm (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Deprecated params...

Just wanted to clarify something. I see that {{{poptime}}} has been deprecated. Is this in favor of just using {{{population}}}?? I would like to start cleaning out Category:Articles using Template:Infobox ethnic group with deprecated parameters but want to make sure I'm doing it right. @PanchoS: it looks like you were the one who added this tracking category. Can you shed some light/add some clarity? Thanks!! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we should be using {{{population}}} rather than {{{poptime}}}. The latter results in the inclusion of unnecessary brackets, as discussed at Template talk:Infobox ethnic group/Archive 3#Population display issue. I went through some articles replacing one with the other some time ago, but since then have only been replacing the parameter as and when I spot instances of {{{poptime}}}. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: perfect! Thanks for the clarification! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Country Flag <> Ethnic Group Flag

I am concerned about the prominent use of a flag parameter in this template. The flag of a country does not represent an ethnic group and their use here, particularly so prominently is misleading and very likely to cause disputes.

I see that the addition of flags was raised as a concern way back in 2007, and a number of people expressed well reasoned arguments against it, but it appears to have been added anyway.

What are people's thoughts? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I added these flags because it looked nice and neat to have them pop up on the hovercard feature when the ethnic group's page was hovered over, as it does on some others. Otherwise, any random image could come up, including unhelpful ones of food or something. I didn't realise this had already been discussed though, so I apologise for that. I didn't consider the part about the flag of a country not representing an ethnic group. My bad! --- HughMorris15 (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using country flags to represent ethnic groups. In situations where there is a flag associated with an ethnic group, we can use that, but otherwise the use of flags is inappropriate here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the flag from Welsh people, linking to this discussion, but was reverted on the grounds that the discussion apparently does not represent a consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

They should be removed ...they don't even lead to the articles on those groups , but rather the country. Best to have real links over colourful flags that lead to the wrong articles. This is pretty simple stuff....dont link our readers to wrong places....should be linking to Canadians not Canada. -- Moxy (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the last part of your comment, Moxy. The flag in the infobox for Canadians links to National Flag of Canada, not to Canada. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

opps sorry....I am talking about the flag icons in the boxes and there links....even at the Canadian article they link to the wrong pages...as they all link to no info on diaspora. We need to rethink the links being added. And yes the huge country flag has to go even at the Canadian article....not sure how a country flag represents a ethnic group.-- Moxy (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any flag icons at Canadians - just the large flag at the top of the infobox. Should I be looking elsewhere? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the flag parameter should be removed (and possibly the image parameter while we're at it). Kaldari (talk) 05:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Image size parameters?

Shouldn't there be |image_size= and |flag_size= parameters?User-duck (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Fix name markup

{{{group|<includeonly>{{PAGENAMEBASE}}</includeonly>}}}

should be changed to

{{#if:{{{group|}}}|{{{group}}}|<includeonly>{{PAGENAMEBASE}}</includeonly>}}

The name does not show when the parameter is present but blank (it is basically never not present since it's a "suggested" parameter in TemplateData). · • SUM1 • · (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

To editor SUM1:  done – yes, that works much better now, thank you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Parameter for ethnic maps

I would like someone to add a parameter for an ethnic map (with possibility to add captions to the map) below the footnotes parameter, or before the field for Regions with significant populations. I think it is the only thing missing in the template. I added a map to this page without using a parameter, but I find it disorganized. − Allice Hunter ^(Inbox) 21:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

Earlier record mentioned religions = Hinduism (Vaishnavism), Theravada Buddhism, Sunni Islam, Christianity,

which needs to be changed to

religions = Hinduism, Vaishnavism Pdas544 (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Infobox ethnic group}}. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 June 2021

Need to add more parameters e.g. Romani people is using "pop41", "pop42" etc. but the template doesn't currently support this many parameters.--DivermanAU (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC) DivermanAU (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

DivermanAU, is there consensus to add additional parameters - I would have thought that with 30+(!) country entries the infobox would stretch down most of the article. I'm not entirely sure this is desirable ... firefly ( t · c ) 09:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought I'd mention it as at least one article is trying to use that many parameters. Happy to go along with consensus view.--DivermanAU (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've gone ahead and done this as the Romani people article was only a few entries away from rendering and it doesn't seem to take up too much vertical space anyway. User:GKFX^talk 16:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Something about this change resulted in the infobox appearing as empty on pages, so I've reverted it for now, GKFX. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

That is odd. I tested it with the template preview function at Romani people and at the testcases and it worked fine. Now it doesn’t. User:GKFX^talk 20:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the explanation is that I carefully previewed most of my edit, than changed the first line and forgot to preview again. Apologies, and fixed. User:GKFX^talk 20:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 August 2021

Parms for region/pop/ref have been added for '41 to '50, but they need to be added to the "Check for unknown parameters" also. Found this on Romanians. Davemck (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Ugh!! Do we really need 50 in the infobox? They are.long enough as it is. I've been thinking of proposing that the list be cut back to 10. Infoboxes are supposed to be short summaries of a variety of information, not exhaustive lists. BilCat (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Image size

I've attempted to add "image size" to the template, however it seems to not work - see Baka people (Cameroon and Gabon) for the problem. Vsmith (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Worked around it ... Vsmith (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

"Related" parameter- what counts as a related ethnic group?

Is there a Wikipedia-wide standard for what makes one ethnic group "related" to another? Is the primary litmus test cultural/historical/social, or is genetic similarity sufficient? If two ethnic groups shared a great deal of ancestry but not much in the way of shared customs (including language, religion, etc.), are they "related"? What about the converse situation? Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)