Template talk:Demographics of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject United States (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Of specific states[edit]

I've made a template, Template:Demographics of US, to link together the Demographics of California article with Demographics of New York, etc. I don't know if these templates, both titled "Demographics of the United States" should be merged, or linked together somehow.--Patrick «» 02:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction of Break[edit]

I still don't see how it improves the template at all. There's no break really in the sense of the words so why should there be in the layout? Is this due to some standard layout rule I am not aware of? Munci (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to edits such as this one: [1]? If so, the break's purpose is to correct this: "Christian Americans (". IOW, to keep the open parenthesis from appearing at the end of the line, detached from the content it encloses. Compare this no-break version with the with-break version. SamEV (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Aha! I think we're using different browsers or something like that because, for me, the bracket in that part of the template is nowhere near the end of the line at all. Is there no easier way to stop that happening? Is there no a way to use Template:Nowrap for this or anything like that? If not, might be an idea to another break elsewhere: I see Black Americans ( at the end of its line. Munci (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I think "<br/>" is plenty easy, and results in no substantive change to the content, and only improves the presentation. But if you think a different method is better, give it a try. Good luck. SamEV (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Organization of template[edit]

I tried to break this into sections, but it will need more work and maybe adding child navboxes to sort it out better. Funandtrvl (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

American diaspora[edit]

Should a link to the article whose scope are Americans abroad, be included in this template?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Asian Americans[edit]

The link to Asia does not link to the continent but to Asian Americans, @The Human Trumpet Solo:, why revert my edits which made it clear which ethnicities were considered Asian Americans and which are not. The reversion does not make sense to me, nor does it align with the way that the template Template:Asian Americans functions. We do not include non-Asian Americans in that template, if we are to include non-Asian Americans under an Asia heading which links directly to Asian Americans, IMHO there should be a clear delineation, so there isn't some confusion as to racial categorization in the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The template was organized according to geographical origin, not by race. I'm not against re-shuffling the template so that it better reflects US racial delineations. But if we're going by continent, it would make no sense to place Middle Easterners/North Africans under the European umbrella.
A separate Middle Eastern/Central Asian/North African umbrella would most likely solve that problem.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@The Human Trumpet Solo: It might, but USCB rejected that ethnic classification. Therefore those that would be classified as MENA ethnicity are currently just considered White Americans and not Asian Americans.
Therefore, I attempted to modify the template so that those classified as Asian Americans are within their own grouping, those that would be classified under the MENA ethnicity that was proposed, are within their own grouping. And for better or for worse the Romani which I do not fall into either grouping are left on their own.
If there is a better solution I am open to it.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks fine to me.The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Reporting of “female householder with no husband present”[edit]

I propose that reporting of this demographic is sexist. In order to get with the times I propose that simply listing “single homeowner” as a better demographic if it needs to be reported at all. Juliekagy (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS & WP:NOTADVOCACY.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)