Template talk:Anthroposophy series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Are two templates for anthroposophy needed? The Template:Anthroposophy header and this one have certain overlaps; the additional info this provides (a list of anthroposophists) is redundant with Category:Anthroposophists.

Should they merge? If they were to merge, what should be brought over? hgilbert (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

List of anthroposophists[edit]

I'm still not sure about the second list of people; it seems very arbitrary, and if everyone is included at the level of importance/centrality of those already there, it will include hundreds of people. I think it could be dropped; Category:Anthroposophists is more complete and appropriate. The first list, founders, seems adequate for central personalities. hgilbert (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary selection[edit]

I still have questions about this template; too many of the sections seem to include wholly arbitrary selections of a much larger group. The anthroposophists, supporters, and texts sections certainly suffer from this problem; the institutions and publications section as well.

I tend to think that the texts section is redundant (see article anthroposophy), the anthroposophists section redundant (see Category:Anthroposophy and the supporters section unsupported (citations would need to be included) and partly redundant (see article anthroposophy). hgilbert (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of templates such as this one is to bring a number of related articles on a broad subject area together, so the issue is not just that some of these items or the category Anthroposophy mention these articles or link them all together, but that all of these articles are combined together by the template, by type. A number of individual articles such as Waldorf schools have been tagged as orphans. Presence in a category apparently doesn't count as a reference but apparently presence in a template does. As regards selection, I think more effort can be put into selecting the most important texts, supporters etc. especially based on whether there is an article about them. This would involve some discussion and a gradual process of refinement. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


I have removed the text list as most of these are unlinked and have no article, and their choice is extremely arbitrary. Finally, they are really Steiner texts, not generally drawn from anthroposophical thinkers, and to broaden the selection to fit the title would make this entirely unwieldy. If another adequate solution can be found, I'm open to it,however. HGilbert (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)