Template talk:Indian

From Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Where should Template:Indian point to?

Ash, I was just wondering the reasoning for switching the Indian templates, to keep coninuity I think Template:Indian should point to Indian Surnames (and Template:IN should point to Category:Indians), or the other 34 heritage surname subcategories will have to have their Templates switched to 2 letters. --jon.jaques 05:48, 10 August 2007 (PDT)

Jon, first of all, I'm sorry to have created a dilemma by changing something that was set by Geni Team members; eventhough it wasn't the intent. But after it has been done, I don't think it will be a real problem; Indians don't really follow the Family Name concept anyway. You may notice names which appear to be family names, but in most cases they are caste/clan names which are used by thousands of families. So we can't rely on family names to locate a long-lost tree. The varied naming convention is why I haven't chosen to link my own profile to a 'Wilson' family name and added it the Category:Indian Surnames - Wilson is my father's name; and he uses his father's name as the surname.
I guess this is still not a reason to break continuity; but I still have another reason for doing this, which is the original reason for my actions as well (the one above was an afterthought). Usage of the word Indian has a personal touch to it - to say "I am an Indian" has meanings and passion beyond the words; and to limit it to pointing to surnames would be a shame. Same goes for the way the people of our state call ourselves, Malayali.
Also, if you were to stick to the original scheme of naming, you may have trouble finding similar words (as Indian for Indian Surnames) for all the countries of the world. But if you use the two-letter (or three-letter) country codes, you won't have such a problem because they are already defined and universally accepted. At the same time, users who are passionate about calling themselves the nationally accepted way of referring to themeselves will appreciate it if you left those untouched.
--Ashley 07:35, 10 August 2007 (PDT)
I'd like to hear other GeniWiki users thoughts on this before the templates move to your method. I have no problem with your method, but I guess I see no problem with the current method, as to change them, for pride and a few countries non-use of a continuous traceable family name. --jon.jaques 09:21, 10 August 2007 (PDT)

Ah, an excellent conversion and something I have been mulling for the article in Terminology#Names. Ash, I would like you to add the thoughts above to the 'Surname' definition. I would like to add some challenges to the use of surnames. The further back individuals go in their tree they will find that families did not have surnames. Even today there are regions that do not use them. In many parts of the world people are known by the region from which they come, their position or rank, their job, or characteristic. This might be considered a family name or otherwise which brings rise to a question about the categories as they are presently established. Are these political boundaries, ethnic categorizations, or languages? Someone considering a name "German" can very well offend the name holder if they are Bohemian, Austrian, etc. -- Detlev 14:02, 10 August 2007

Detlev, I have added some topics and a link to a very detailed Wikipedia article in the India page. My state is Kerala in India, and I have added a little more detailed analysis in that page which is relevant to our state alone. (It has been linked to from the Localization page). However, to list all variations in a single page is folly; the number of names for kinships are in the dozens for each language in India, for example. Listing them alone will make the article cluttered. A separate page for localized kinship names might be necessary. The names I mentioned in my post above (Indian and Malayali) are for the political boundaries of my country and state; respectively.
(P.S: Remember to sign your posts in talk pages. Just click the second-last button in the toolbar or add "--~~~~" manually at the end of the post.) --Ashley 02:23, 11 August 2007 (PDT)

The other problem your method presents Ash, is one with Religious surnames. Ilya, a mod here has many Jewish surnames listed, there is no country code for Judaism, mainly because its not a country. And while you may say you can just enter {{IL}} for Israel, this may be offensive to the remaining 24% non-Jewish Israelis. --jon.jaques 08:44, 13 August 2007 (PDT)

It seems the country-code method isn't foolproof. But the conflict of choosing where to point a template that uses the same naming for two or more categories will exist nevertheless. Its just a matter of which category is created first, in this case the category for Indian Surnames wins. But what should be the guidelines for future usage? I wish more people would comment on this, but it seems the wiki doesn't have enough users yet for a good discussion. For now, should I revert the changes or should we let it be as it is? --Ashley 09:58, 13 August 2007 (PDT)
(On second thought) The situation you presented needn't involve a conflict; Jewish people could use {{jew}} for Category:Jew and use {{jewish}} for Category:Jewish Surnames. No such option exists for Indians (both 'Indian Surname' and 'Indian User' could be guessed from {{indian}}). --Ashley 10:05, 13 August 2007 (PDT)
Ash, in response to your first thought, why don't we leave everything as is for now and once the wiki swings into full public release, get more users active in the discussion, and resolve it from there. --jon.jaques 10:22, 13 August 2007 (PDT)
Okay, we'll wait. --Ashley 10:26, 13 August 2007 (PDT)
Is it politically correct to use "indian" as a main sub-set? I know in NJ it's not politically correct (either for referring to native americans to to middle easterns, etc). --ScotHibb 09:06, 15 August 2007 (PDT)
Native americans are called red-indians here; I doubt whether acutal native americans will prefer to call themselves indians as it is a misnomer (A historical mistake, as I understand - To refer to them as indians is logically incorrect, as they aren't from India). --Ashley 22:48, 15 August 2007 (PDT)
Personal tools