![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
I changed the template to include only groups that have their own sourced articles to show why they're an ethnic group. Saimdusan Talk| Contribs 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope BloodMerchant or someone would reverse the edit made by Balthazarduju. The Template is unorganized and messy right now, before there would be categories but now categories like Wu-speaking peoples mash with linguistic groups together ( shanghainese people). I'd say the new format is perfect and with further fix on dialect grouping pages, it would be organized and easily understandable. Undo plZ or make an consensus~ -- Lennlin ( talk) 17:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
How does it create an impression based on rankings? The old template was too ambiguous and confusing as to tell which regional groups are closely related by language. I fear that I could rouse an edit war. All I made was make things simpler. Bloodmerchant ( talk) 19:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I stated I don't think the format you created is suitable, as it creates the impression that the template is ranked, and is based on how many available articles there are on Wikipedia for these linguistic subgroups. One of the main problems is your categorized format suggest that some have more subgroups in them (Min, Wu) when in fact it is just there are available Wikipedia articles on these subgroups. Furthur, the Mandarin category has only Kwongsai and Chuanqing? So that is all the Mandarin speakers are? As with Gan and Xiang, each only has one link? Yue has Cantonese and Tanka, but I'm sure if you break them down like on Wu speakers, you can probably create an article for various specific regions in the Cantonese area and result in many, many subgroup articles.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
That is why I also seriously think you guys probably shouldn't create so many Han subgroups articles unless there is real notability on them or very thorough research and sources. Many of the articles has very little notability, and it seems like just random articles created for the sake of it. Based on the way how some of these articles are created (i.e. Ningbo, Wuyue, Wenzhou, Putian, etc.), you can probably create literally thousands of Han subgroups articles.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the article should have notability. Not because if there is a regional dialect then you should make a whole article about a subgroup; in that case, you'll have thousands of Han subgroups articles in a very short time, which is simply excessive. Most of these subgroup articles contain very little information, except lists (i.e. famous people). And I'm saying you shouldn't create articles like Beijing people, Taishan people, Tianjin people...... etc. If the template's format was based on your categorized version, then people might create more of these articles carelessly, simply by following the regions and dialects, break them down through cities, counties and townships.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
If you've already created the articles, that's fine, I'm not proposing deletion, but before you create another subgroups article, consider if there is actual notability on them.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
PROPOSE Outline:
Mandarin: Beijing, Northeast (東北人),southwest (西南人), Jilu ,Jiaoliao ,zhongyuan (河南人) , jiang hua, lan yin (西北) Wu: Shanghai + Taihu (change to Jiangnanese or Taihu 人)?/Wenzhou/xuancheng/chuqu/wuzhou Yue : Change Cantonese to Yue or Cantonese Speaking People Add YueHai/Guinan/Taishan/Tanka under Cantonese/Yue-speaking People Min: Min Bei + Min Dong (Fuzhou)??, Min Nan (hokkien),Puxian · Hainanese · hoklo · Teochew ,Leizhou Xiang : Changsha , Loushao, Jixu Other: Hakka (change to Hakka Speaking People ) Gan (Gan Speaking People), Jin ,Huizhou Propose for Deletion: Jianngnanese, Ningbo |
I don't know the articles right now are messy and the proposal is crazy but idk......seriously we need more people opinion on this so it's better to keep it frozen? --
Lennlin (
talk)
23:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
New Format:
Ursidae ->
Ailuropoda ->
Giant Panda |
or
Ursidae ->
Ursus - >
Polar bear |
Old Format:
Ailuropoda · Giant Panda · Polar bear · Ursidae · Ursus |
I ask which one would be organize? and which one is simpler? It doesn't create any impression base on ranking. I will reverse back tommorow or soon if no one oppose, if someone still object to the new format. We can discuss here.-- Lennlin ( talk) 20:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
What about Jin peoples?-- Kaiyr ( talk) 18:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
I changed the template to include only groups that have their own sourced articles to show why they're an ethnic group. Saimdusan Talk| Contribs 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope BloodMerchant or someone would reverse the edit made by Balthazarduju. The Template is unorganized and messy right now, before there would be categories but now categories like Wu-speaking peoples mash with linguistic groups together ( shanghainese people). I'd say the new format is perfect and with further fix on dialect grouping pages, it would be organized and easily understandable. Undo plZ or make an consensus~ -- Lennlin ( talk) 17:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
How does it create an impression based on rankings? The old template was too ambiguous and confusing as to tell which regional groups are closely related by language. I fear that I could rouse an edit war. All I made was make things simpler. Bloodmerchant ( talk) 19:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I stated I don't think the format you created is suitable, as it creates the impression that the template is ranked, and is based on how many available articles there are on Wikipedia for these linguistic subgroups. One of the main problems is your categorized format suggest that some have more subgroups in them (Min, Wu) when in fact it is just there are available Wikipedia articles on these subgroups. Furthur, the Mandarin category has only Kwongsai and Chuanqing? So that is all the Mandarin speakers are? As with Gan and Xiang, each only has one link? Yue has Cantonese and Tanka, but I'm sure if you break them down like on Wu speakers, you can probably create an article for various specific regions in the Cantonese area and result in many, many subgroup articles.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
That is why I also seriously think you guys probably shouldn't create so many Han subgroups articles unless there is real notability on them or very thorough research and sources. Many of the articles has very little notability, and it seems like just random articles created for the sake of it. Based on the way how some of these articles are created (i.e. Ningbo, Wuyue, Wenzhou, Putian, etc.), you can probably create literally thousands of Han subgroups articles.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the article should have notability. Not because if there is a regional dialect then you should make a whole article about a subgroup; in that case, you'll have thousands of Han subgroups articles in a very short time, which is simply excessive. Most of these subgroup articles contain very little information, except lists (i.e. famous people). And I'm saying you shouldn't create articles like Beijing people, Taishan people, Tianjin people...... etc. If the template's format was based on your categorized version, then people might create more of these articles carelessly, simply by following the regions and dialects, break them down through cities, counties and townships.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
If you've already created the articles, that's fine, I'm not proposing deletion, but before you create another subgroups article, consider if there is actual notability on them.-- Balthazarduju ( talk) 19:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
PROPOSE Outline:
Mandarin: Beijing, Northeast (東北人),southwest (西南人), Jilu ,Jiaoliao ,zhongyuan (河南人) , jiang hua, lan yin (西北) Wu: Shanghai + Taihu (change to Jiangnanese or Taihu 人)?/Wenzhou/xuancheng/chuqu/wuzhou Yue : Change Cantonese to Yue or Cantonese Speaking People Add YueHai/Guinan/Taishan/Tanka under Cantonese/Yue-speaking People Min: Min Bei + Min Dong (Fuzhou)??, Min Nan (hokkien),Puxian · Hainanese · hoklo · Teochew ,Leizhou Xiang : Changsha , Loushao, Jixu Other: Hakka (change to Hakka Speaking People ) Gan (Gan Speaking People), Jin ,Huizhou Propose for Deletion: Jianngnanese, Ningbo |
I don't know the articles right now are messy and the proposal is crazy but idk......seriously we need more people opinion on this so it's better to keep it frozen? --
Lennlin (
talk)
23:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
New Format:
Ursidae ->
Ailuropoda ->
Giant Panda |
or
Ursidae ->
Ursus - >
Polar bear |
Old Format:
Ailuropoda · Giant Panda · Polar bear · Ursidae · Ursus |
I ask which one would be organize? and which one is simpler? It doesn't create any impression base on ranking. I will reverse back tommorow or soon if no one oppose, if someone still object to the new format. We can discuss here.-- Lennlin ( talk) 20:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
What about Jin peoples?-- Kaiyr ( talk) 18:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)