From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Placement of template in Category:Cults
The template should be placed within Category:Cults. It is highly relevant to the category, and this is a convention done on lots of other types of templates. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree hence by revert of your edit. Category:Cults is for just that - cults. A template is a special page the editors add to pages for which it is relevant. Template:Cults is not a cult - it is a template. Templates are categorised under Category:Wikipedia templates to enable editors to find them. a bare template is of no use to a reader since it would have been encountered in the page that the reader had viewed. We must not forget that we are here as editors to create a resource for readers. We must distinguish between content and maintenance pages and keep them separate. There does not appear to be guidelines on inclusion of templates in categories used for articles but the general convention is to categorise template namespace separate to article namespace. I also disagree that "this is a convention done on lots of other types of templates". I see very few examples of this, and I spend a lot of my time checking categories. See also Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Templates_in_article_space. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes and that is exactly why these sorts of things are sorted with a * symbol, to denote they are integral to the category as an index and not inherently characterized as part of it itself. Cirt (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- The ones that I have see
are have the tau symbol and so they end up at the end rather than the start of the cat listing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Either way is fine, but the start is generally what I have seen with the majority usage. Cirt (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Once again, I disagree. Templates are rarely see in are namespace categories and when they are they are sorted by the tau symbol. Also, in your previous comment you said "denote they are integral to the category as an index and not inherently characterized as part of it itself." On the contrary, the use of * seems to have lost favour and was used for the eponymous article and for lists directly applicable to the category. Can you give examples of where * is used as template sorting? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- At the moment I can't recall specifically, but it does seem like you are pulling "conventions" from your personal opinion. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- (Edit Conflict)Lets stick to facts shall we rather than putting forward opinions on what my personal opinion is perceived to be. If you visit all of the categories where you would expect to find a template (because there is one that is directly applicable) you will very rarely, if ever, find a template. That is what I mean by convention and I edit by convention where it exists.-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yah, whatever, I removed it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────────┘
[1] - Removed it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- Update: Added back the category, per Category:Academy Awards. :) Cheers, Cirt (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
