The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 May 26. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 20:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 May 26. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 20:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 20:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This is quite a treat. It's used as a navbox, but instead of presenting the links in a neat list, it spreads them across a huge tree diagram (with Indians as the root, and Indo-Aryans, Dards, and the like as the intermediate groups), and with each final branch also listing the native name (in the native scirpt), and the range of religious identifications. Now, the template has left behind some of its worst oddities (like subgroups for "Mongoloids" or "Tribals"), but its whole organising principle is dubious – categories like "Dravidian" or "Iranic" make sense only for languages, not for ethnic groups.
The only way is for the template to be torn down and built anew. But then what are the inclusion criteria going to be like? I would happily defer to someone with good understanding of the ethnic landscape of the subcontinent, but from the little I know, it seems arbitrary to have entries for ethnolinguistic groups like
Dogras and the
Nicobarese but not for the
Jats or the
Nair. Any reasonable inclusion criterion will entail the template listing most of the articles from
the category, and that's hundreds upon hundreds of them. That's too much for a single navbox. Maybe it will make sense to have individual navboxes for each state of India, but it's not going to work for the whole country. –
Uanfala (talk)
01:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 May 26. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 19:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 02:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Template was not updated since 2011, test appears done a LONG time ago. I also do not think this template has a good use either. A a s i m 02:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 May 26. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 20:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 May 26. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 20:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 20:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This is quite a treat. It's used as a navbox, but instead of presenting the links in a neat list, it spreads them across a huge tree diagram (with Indians as the root, and Indo-Aryans, Dards, and the like as the intermediate groups), and with each final branch also listing the native name (in the native scirpt), and the range of religious identifications. Now, the template has left behind some of its worst oddities (like subgroups for "Mongoloids" or "Tribals"), but its whole organising principle is dubious – categories like "Dravidian" or "Iranic" make sense only for languages, not for ethnic groups.
The only way is for the template to be torn down and built anew. But then what are the inclusion criteria going to be like? I would happily defer to someone with good understanding of the ethnic landscape of the subcontinent, but from the little I know, it seems arbitrary to have entries for ethnolinguistic groups like
Dogras and the
Nicobarese but not for the
Jats or the
Nair. Any reasonable inclusion criterion will entail the template listing most of the articles from
the category, and that's hundreds upon hundreds of them. That's too much for a single navbox. Maybe it will make sense to have individual navboxes for each state of India, but it's not going to work for the whole country. –
Uanfala (talk)
01:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was relisted on 2020 May 26. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 19:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) TheTVExpert ( talk) 02:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Template was not updated since 2011, test appears done a LONG time ago. I also do not think this template has a good use either. A a s i m 02:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)