Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neopaganism/Templates

Too many templates?

Several templates have recently been produced and added to pages within this project, namely:

I'm a bit concerned that this profusion has taken place without much discussion from the project members. Some articles could conceivably be tagged with 3 or 4 of these templates: indeed, Wicca already has three. I mean no criticism of the creators of the templates - particularly Midnightblueowl who has done far more with the markup than I ever could! But I think it would be useful to discuss some questions, such as:

What are these templates for?
Do we need so many? Could some be merged?
Do they need to appear on every page within the project?
How do we negotiate their appearance on pages that overlap with other projects?
Would the articles and the project be better or worse if we decided against using any templates at all?

I will post an invitation to discuss this on the relevant template pages and the talk pages of some active editors whom I know of. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing these up, Kim. Yeah, I've been frustrated with these, with both the seemingly arbitrary articles included, as well as their proliferation without consensus or discussion. I tried to improve some of them, but really don't think we need all of these. Not sure we need them at all, really, as on the articles on which they are really relevant, all this stuff is usually already covered in the See also section or wikified throughout. Maybe on something with a bit more uniformity, like Wicca, but on Paganism and Neopaganism there's been some very odd choices, and linkage to stuff that isn't really appropriate. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously expressed my thoughts at Template talk:Wicca#Template still not ready to use. To summarise my thoughts regarding a Wicca template:

Articles should probably only be included in a Wicca template if they are primarily relevant to Wicca; the pentagram article for instance only briefly touches on Wicca, therefore it should not be included. Same goes with duotheism, and so on.
If we don't have a large enough articles primarily relating to Wicca to flesh out a decent Wicca template, then we don't have any need for a Wicca template. Have a look at Template:Judaism: that template exists because they actually have a lot of articles specifically relevant to Judaism. They've probably left a fair few off the list, even. We just don't have that many articles yet, and until we do, wikilinks may well suffice. The question really is, does the template improve the reader's ability to quickly identify what they need to read and where they need to go to understand Wicca better? In most cases wikilinks work fine for this.

This is not to say a template is definitely unwanted, just, it should only contain rich and appropriate information directly relevant to Wicca.

I would say the same regarding witchcraft and paganism templates. And I'm really not convinced we need three templates in the Wicca article. Fuzzypeg ☻ 05:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I emphatically agree that while it may be useful to keep various templates with various foci, only one such template should appear on any single article. Choose whichever is most appropriate, but don't pile up these templates just because they exist. dab (𒁳) 07:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange copied from User talk:Midnightblueowl

I would encourage those than know a lot about these subjects to add to the templates instead of deleting them :) Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does assume that they are desirable and necessary in the first place: I can envisage situations in which the most comprehensive template would still be an unnecessary and distracting addition to an article. That's why this discussion about their desirability in principle is overdue, and should precede technical discussions about how they could be improved. I will copy this exchange here so we can add it to the discussion of templates in general in these articles. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation templates are very useful on Wikipedia, as they draw readers from one topic to the next, and may provide links not present in any given article but that are still relevant to an understanding of the topic. But what we have here is a glut of, perhaps, bloated and un-organised templates that can function better if they are all brought into line. In principle, these things are good to have; in actual implementation, they are faltering a bit and just need some help. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game plan

It does seem ridiculous that there are so many templates that overlap in their usefulness. That isn't to say the existing ones are not useful, but that maybe they should be reformulated to better focus on what is needed. So, here's a bit of a progressional chart as to what needs to be done and in what order:

Determine what is needed. What topics should be covered? How far should each topic be divided? Do we actually need separate templates for Paganism and Neopaganism? Could everything be potentially tossed into one or more supertemplates, placing multiple collapsed tables together and only un-collapsing those that are desired for a particular article? For the time being, don't consider difficulty of implementation, only what would be ideal for our purposes.
Determine range of template distribution. We need to figure out what articles are appropriate for inclusion of any given template once the core topics are determined. This step indirectly influences the next one. Obviously we don't want to include the template just anywhere as that would lead to overkill and potential warring as to placement. A balance of coverage must be sought.
Determine the template contents. A lot of people want to do this too early, but it really should be the last step to a well thought out navigational aid. How broad of coverage, what kind of internal subtopics are desired, display of material, etc. This is the longest step, but once done, everything but clean up and implementation is finished.

Anything else that needs to be considered? As others can attest, my understanding of these things is only beginning (which is one reason I enjoy working amongst you knowledgeable folk) and I'm more an organiser and cleaner. But, working together I think we can hammer out some good material. Remember though that time isn't a factor, so there is no need nor want of rush. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A useful plan Huntster, thanks. I agree with Kathryn above that there may be doubt as to whether templates are even necessary, given sufficient wikilinking and a 'see also' section in veery article. However, a template does bring all the links into one small space, allowing a thorough run through a topic by using the template links and the browser 'back' button. I'd support a judicious use of discrete templates. Of course this is easier if your subject is something which has an exhaustive and exclusive list. For example, there is a template here which I contributed to, for a class of submarines. The links from it comprise each sub of the class and there's no argument about the content of the template. If it's an Odin class sub, it's there. If it's not - it's not!

With much looser entities than a class of subs however this is much harder. However it does carry a lesson relating to Huntster's first question above: the sub template works because it's a small, limited collection of links that clearly have a great deal in common. I'd argue against a single supertemplate because of the difficulty in agreeing what does and does not belong. Instead I'd argue for templates (in similar styles) linking subjects which have a lot in common - for example a {{Wicca}} template that links only to those articles with something like 'X in Wicca' in the title and which then also has a link upwards to the more general Neopaganism article.

So my principles would be:

Only one template on any article
Minimum links from each template, tightly focused on the topic

Eg {{Wicca}} links to History of Wicca, Gerald Gardner, Dianic Wicca etc

One 'upward' link to a parent article, no 'sideways' links to sister articles

Eg {{Wicca}} links to Neopaganism, but not directly to Neo-druidism, Ásatrú...

Parent article has its own template, adhering to these principles

Thus Neopaganism has a template {{Neopaganism}} linking to Wicca, Ásatrú, Wheel of the year etc and up to Paganism.

No infinite upward regression - suggest we STOP at the {{Paganism}} template, before we go mad! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, only one template from this WikiProject per article, though if the particular subject falls into several broad categories, you have to expect those other groups (such as an article about state law enforcement having a template for both the state as a whole and the countrywide network of state law enforcement agencies). Agreed also with all the bulletpoints laid out above. Perhaps it would be useful to create some kind of tree regarding the different parent topics that these templates would cover? And absolutely agree that we must not go beyond {{Paganism}}, as that is the limit to the scope of this project.

The reason I strongly encourage the use of navboxes is because an article should not provide links to every related article...that would needlessly muddle the prose. "See also" sections should not do this either, as they are for linking to material that immediately pertains to the topic at hand, but that has no place in the article body itself. Also, when I say supertemplate, I do not mean that one template should cover every topic in one huge box. Think of those articles you find that have multiple navboxes on them...how they are all collapsed? What I'm saying is have an overarching Paganism template that has similar collapsed sections, which can individually be forced open per the given article. Something like {{Paganism |section=Wicca}} could be used on Wicca-related articles; the Wicca section would be open and thus prominent, whilst related topics would remain collapsed. If no section is provided, everything will remain collapsed and it is up to the reader to choose which one they are interested in. This works best if there are few sub-topics/sub-templates that need be included. No more difficult to code either. This idea simply provides the maximum amount of available information in the minimum necessary space, it is just a matter of how much data we want to put out there. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to an example of a 'supertemplate' that works in the way you describe? I'm having trouble visualising it from the description! (My ignorance of how wikicode works is a problem here too...) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, as far as I know, none currently exist. Wouldn't be that hard to make an example. When I have some time I'll do so. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 10:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A first step

OK, I've been bold and proposed one of the existing templates for deletion here. It's the Wicca template with the vertical sidebar shape, which was recently pasted into a whole slew of Wicca articles and hastily reverted by a number of editors. I think that, whichever way we go with the sensible suggestions above, this particular template is not going to be the one we would choose as the way forward. If you agree or disagree with me, please go to the discussion page and say so, then we have one fewer existing template to worry about. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar navboxes were popular in the early days of Wikipedia, but have drastically fallen out of favour compared with footer navboxes, partially due to the proliferation of sidebar Infoboxes. Make sure to copy the contents somewhere just as a future reference, but I think it is perfectly safe to get rid of it in light of this attempted reorganisation. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 09:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post as such on the TfD discussion? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 10:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of old template

Part of the series on Wicca
History
History of Wicca
Deities
The God The Goddess
Beliefs and practices
Wheel of the Year Esbat Coven Wiccan Rede Rule of Three Wiccan morality Great Rite
Major figures
Gerald Gardner Alex Sanders Margot Adler List of major figures
Branches of Wicca
Gardnerian Alexandrian Faery Eclectic Dianic Celtic Witta List of traditions
Related
Witchcraft Neo-Paganism Paganism

Pasted here in anticipation of ultimate deletion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nested tree for design of template/s

Paganism

Neopaganism

Draft only! FWIW here are some thoughts thus far. I have tried to exhaustively list ONLY the branch under Wicca. All other branches are incomplete (as shown by empty bullets). Please strike through, amend or delete this text as the tree grows! Within the Wiccan branch, I believe this list is exhaustive. Individual people and traditions are NOT listed, as there would be too many: instead there is a link to the relevant lists/categories. I have not included articles such as Wheel of the year which properly lives at the next level up (Neopaganism) I suggest. I HAVE included Aradia and Charge of the Goddess, because although other, non-Wiccan traditions use or refer to them, I think they are essential to understanding Wicca.Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of this looks good so far, however I am rather diffident about a tree-like supertemplate that collapses in sections. If people want to go up a level and see how Wicca sits in relation to other neopagan traditions, that's only a click away, remember. I suspect some of these templates had their inception with people doing fancy stuff because they could, rather than because it was actually useful; lets not fall into the same trap again.

Lest we forget: the standard ways of navigating provided in Wikipedia (inline wikilinks, "main article" templates and so on) actually work really well in almost all situations. The normal way of finding related articles is to scan through the article looking for the appropriate heading, then find the link within that section; if it's not straightforward to find what you're looking for from the article itself, then that's an indication that the article is not up to shape. Fuzzypeg ☻ 00:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]