Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is ADJECTIVE (people) going to be the standardized title for ethnic groups like Armenians, Greeks and Turks that have a country with the same name? Just asking because I wanted to link to a potential article on the Greek people from the godbox at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology. Tuf-Kat 20:49, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

I think the issue is more one of having a language of the same name than having a country (/state) of the same name. Typically, the people and the language have the same name, the country is slightly different. Thus we have Armenia (country/state), Armenian language, and Armenian (people). On the other hand, we simply use Tuareg, not "Tuareg (people)", because the associated language (or in this case language family) has an entirely different name and is covered in Tamasheq languages. I'm not sure we have consensus on this, but I can't see any problem with it. -- Jmabel 21:31, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sounds logical (just to be safe though, since not everyone knows when an ethnic group shares a name with a language, Tuareg (people) should probably redirect). Tuf-Kat 22:13, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

I would disagree with forcing "adj. (people)" (or "adj. people") everywhere. For groups that don't have any other option, it's fine, but not for others, that would be contrary to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --Joy [shallot] 03:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

About "Adjective people" form — the following bits are copied from User talk:Neutrality/Archive 20#nationalities, User talk:Joy#X_--.3E_X_people:

What is the reason for moving Greeks, Magyars, Albanians, ... to $1 people? I'm reverting this due to a rather obvious lack of an obvious reason (witnessing how nobody is complaining, and Special:Whatlinkshere output for the pages). --Joy [shallot] 03:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Many ethnic groups also are the names of languages (English people/English language), for example; doing what I'm doing helps unify all the ethnic group articles (see Category:Ethnic groups of Europe). It's the same principle with language articles: the standard is naming them "Fooish language" instead of "Fooish," even when "Fooish" is not itself ambiguous. Regards --Neutrality^talk 03:37, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: I'm a bit offended that you've started to revert without telling me. Neutrality^talk 03:40, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Er, offended without telling you? How do you interpret the above I'm reverting this [...] other than me telling you? :) --Joy [shallot] 03:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, you moved Albanian people, Magyar people, and Greek people before posting on my talk. And "I'm reverting this" is not a particularly friendly way of opening dialogue. But that's besides the point. I think, to use your example of Italians, that Italian people is a better title because it implies the Italian ethnic group (more so than "nationals or residents of Italy, which would be dealt with in demographics of Italy. "Italians," even though it is not a language, still is somewhat ambiguous. Italian people is the better name. --Neutrality^talk 03:52, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I was in the process of examining and moving while writing to you.

I disagree that the nationality/ethnicity/residence distinction is worth having several different articles and disambiguation. When someone says "Italians", they by and large mean one single thing and we don't need to bother them with various marginal meanings (such as naturalized Italians or autochthonous Slovenes in Italy) just because they exist. Perhaps with Template:Otheruses, but even that is pushing it. --Joy [shallot] 03:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should bring it up at Wikipedia:Requested moves and get some outside input. --Neutrality^talk 03:58, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Right now, I believe the articles are tending towards titles like (to use a non-existent example) Elbonian people or Elbonians, both pretty common. For example, I see that Armenian people was recently moved to Armenians; Serbs seems clear, since Serbian people suggests citizens of Serbia rather than ethnic Serbs; conversely, German people is probably better than Germans: in that case the connotations may be the other way around; this can be tricky stuff. Some, like Anglo-Norman, don't follow either pattern. If someone wants to do a survey (and perhaps do a bit of analysis looking for patterns: does it vary with whether the group has an associated nation state, does it vary between past and present, etc.) it might give us some guidance toward a standard. In particular, if neolithic cultures are handled differently from those more likely to have members who are active in Wikipedia, that would really be worth knowing, and perhaps addressing. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

There is currently a debate in Talk:Ethnic Swedes on whether that subject merits an article of its own.

Around the Baltic Sea, which is one of my areas of interest, there are for instance the following notable and historically relevant groups of people (the list is copied from User talk:Jmabel:

• Livonian people
• Ingrians and Votes
• Karelians
• Finnic, Finnish, Ethnic Finns, Sweden-Finns, Finns
• Sami
• Norwegian
• Swedes, Ethnic Swedes, Finland-Swedes
• Dane, Ethnic Danish
• Germans, Ethnic German, Auslandsdeutsche, Volksdeutsche–Reichsdeutsche, Baltic German, Volga German
• Sorbs
• Slavic peoples
• Poles (and Russians, forgotten in the origianl list)
• Latvians

It's most of all an issue of whether creating many relatively similar articles or "centralizing" them. A problem arises when a particular issue is edited away from such a centralized article. For instance: If now Ethnic Swedes is centralized to the article on Swedes, and then the (somewhat controversial) content on Ethnic Swedes for one or another reason is diminished or erased, then it's likely that someone again will start on an article on Ethnic Swedes. Why then not keep a minimal article at Ethnic Swedes, not much more than a notion of the (very) limited use of the term and a reference to the article on Swedes. But on the other hand: many articles with subjects closely interrelated enhances the inherent danger of contradictions between Wikipedia articles.

Input would be welcome.
--Ruhrjung 06:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I've moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups to the Inactive section of the WikiProject page, as it hasn't been edited since Nov 1st; I wanted to let you all know, and ask if you're still working on it. If so, feel free to move it back up into the active section. JesseW 07:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is systematically working on it as a project, but I believe several people, myself included, are using it for guidelines on how to write about these topics. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:43, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I am trying to help sort out the article on Assyrian (see also Assyrian/Revision). If anyone could lend a hand with this contoversial article, I would be most grateful. Does the Ethnic Groups infobox exist on the template namespace? I can only find it as a raw chunk of HTML. If it hasn't already been done, may I convert it to pipe syntax and set up a template page for it? Gareth Hughes 16:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. Yes, an update to use technical features introduced in the last year would be very welcome. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:30, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see how it goes and post a report here. I think the infobox might have to loose a bit of flexibility at first, but I'm sure a couple of sub-templates would set it up alright. Gareth Hughes 23:26, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You can always add a new version instead of replacing. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:29, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the old template converted to pipe syntax (have a look at the wikitext), with template parameters plugged in. It could have some subtemplates to help fill in the bulkier parameters. Any thoughts? Gareth Hughes 23:57, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've set up the template to run. It can be found at template:ethnic group, and instructions are on its talk page. I'll modify the Armenian (people) article with the template, so that it's clear how it works. The result will not lead to any change in policy, and is really just a technical upgrade. Gareth Hughes 18:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)