Template talk:Paganism (contemporary)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Neopaganism (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Neopaganism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neopaganism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Do we need this?[edit]

Hey all. I was wondering, is this template really necessary? I know I was its creator, and at the time thought it necessary to aid navigation between the somewhat poorly formatted pages, but i'm not so sure it is needed, particularly considering that there is already a bottom-of-the-page template on this topic? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC))

Hello Midnightblueowl! I like the template; it was a really nice addition to the New Age article. The two templates complement each other well since only one may be used in the whitespace or the other at the bottom, depending on the needs of various articles. Take care. ~ All is One ~ (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't like it very much, especially not right up top on some of the articles it's been placed on; it's visually dominating the page. I prefer the collapsible one at the bottom of most pages; this just duplicates that one. Not needed, and in some cases undue weight. - Kathryn NicDhàna 19:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
It's cumbersome in small articles where the bottom-template is easily seeable, but it becomes very very useful in long articles, making the connection between articles of the same category very quick. The templates should be used interchangeably. --Schwert von Feuer (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Herr von Feuer, On this template "Contemporary Pagan" is used as synonym for "Neopagan". It's not appropriate to put this on articles about traditional, Indigenous religions. They are not in the same category as, and don't want to be lumped in with, Wiccans and such. - Kathryn NicDhàna 22:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually such a distinction between "Contemporary Paganism" and "Neopaganism" doesn't exist, as you said they're synonymous. They encompass both syncretic religions such as Wicca, reconstructed European religions, and reinvented indigenous European religions such as the Mari or the Chuvash religions which base on unbroken tradition. As you can find, the term "Neopagan" is used by many of the sources which describe the revival of these religions (for example Shnirelman's Christians Go Home! A Revival of Neo-Paganism between the Baltic Sea and Transcaucasia). --Schwert von Feuer (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Cross-in-circle image[edit]

Coa Illustration Cross Crossed circle.svg I've again removed this image from the template as I don't believe it's a widely accepted symbol for paganism in general. I'd appreciated it if anyone wanting to restoe the image would discuss this here first, please? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I restored the sun cross symbol since it's the only one which can be considered universal in traditional Pagan cultures. --Schwert von Feuer (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I suggested above that maybe we could discuss the symbol here before it wwas re-inserted but as you've boldly added it I'll revert and then we can discuss, per WP:BRD. I don't accept your assertion above that "it's the only one which can be considered universal in traditional Pagan cultures" and even if I did we're not talking about traditional pagan cultures here. We're talking about NEOpaganism, and the cross-in-circle is definitely not a universally accepted neopagan symbol. If you consider that it is, I'll need to see a citation to a reliable source to back you up!! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The universality of that symbol is a true fact which does not need to be verified through sources. Do you need sources to assert that the Latin cross is used by Christians? No. The sun-cross is not only traditional Reconstructionist but it is used by neo-Pagans and Wiccans as well as a symbol of the wheel of the year, time, the four seasons and the four cardinal directions. So, what's the actual problem with that symbol? --Schwert von Feuer (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
'True facts' that don't need verification have a hard time here on Wikipedia. What's self-evident to you and beyond the need for proof may not be so to others. My own view is that there is no single universally agreed symbol for modern paganism and therefore that the sidebar should avoid any symbol (rather than having one disputed one, or many competing ones, as other templates have tried.) I'm not arguing for the pentacle; I'm arguing for no symbol at all. I know this isn't the only place you've tried to insert the cross-in-circle and I can see that you've met opposition to this edit as well. The fact that you're getting resistance from other editors may suggest that consensus is not with you at the moment - I think you need to make a better case (including some evidence and verification) before fellow editors come round to your view. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I see you've moved the discussion here which I'm sure is the right place for it. Ignore my reply above, let's talk at the project page! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Colour change[edit]

User:Thumperward recently edited the template. I fully support bringing any sub-par article, template, etc. up to Wikipedia standards. However, in addition to the clean up, the colours were removed.

convert to a proper {{sidebar}}

Proper sidebars may have custom colours. Template:Hinduism is an example of this. So, what's the community's opinion? Are the greens justified for a Paganism sidebar or should it stay grey now?
Sowlos (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The new codebase makes it vastly easier to include custom colours through use of headingstyle et cetera: these can easily be re-added to the template as desired. It's fortuitous that you brought up {{Hinduism}}, which (barring disruption by an IP) went through precisely this conversion earlier this year and has heavy customisation (though I intend to strip that down significantly). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Good to know. Then I'll re-add them. They've been present for some time and probably should be treated as the default.
Discussion from others is obviously still welcome.
Sowlos (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. ...sort of. The only way I know to colour all content links in Template:Sidebar is extremely inelegant and difficult to maintain. The best option seemed to be modifying the colour scheme.
The sidebar now uses a more conservative scheme which more easily implemented with Template:sidebar and compliment with WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color. However, my last edit can be reverted to fully restore the old scheme. I committed the changes need for the old scheme in that previous edit. Also, the edit before that uses the old colour scheme with standard blue/purple links in the content boxes; the sidebar can be reverted to the old colour scheme minus the complications of the grey links if people think that's acceptable.
I've made it as easy as I can. We can either leave it with the current scheme, move it back one to the old colours we know, or move it back two to the old scheme slightly modified. Thoughts?
Sowlos (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I much prefer the template as it was before User:Thumperward edited it. The "green-on-green" color scheme was distinctive and easily identifiable, as well as visually appealing. The new format looks overly minimalist, drab, and uncharacteristic. If this modification is due to updating the code format then I suggest it be modified to more closely approximate the colors and layout it had before. If that is not the case, then I suggest we revert back to the version prior to the edit. ~Autumnal Monk~ talk 11:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. the new version is easier to read. my only suggestion would be to remove the content border. Frietjes (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
As I said, Autumnal Monk, I edited the sidebar to the original colours before giving it the minimal colour scheme. A simple reversion to that edit will restore the old colours under the new code. However, it takes an extraneous amount of code to colour each and every wikilink in the template. Wikipedia has its reasons for doing it that way. That's why I then coloured the template in a more conventional way and left the question up to everyone else. I can't unilaterally make that decision for everyone and as you can see some people (like Frietjes) actually find the less customized look more readable.
Sowlos (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I am the user who made the green-coloured pattern. I've tried a new compromise restoring the first coloured version proposed by Sowlos with the green scheme and the default blue/purple wikilinks, also recovering the Palatino Linotype font of the title and the width parameter. Let me know what you think. --Schwert von Feuer (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
this is horrible, we should revert the change immediately. Frietjes (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And, I see you have.

partial revert per WP:BRD
— User:Frietjes 21:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Before this turns into an edit war, can you elaborate? What about it - specifically - is horrible? Do you have any ideas on how to modify the green scheme into something more agreeable or do you prefer the simplified look over more colours?
Sowlos (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the new minimalist, bland, plain, uncolored template is "horrible" and that we should "revert the change immediately". In fact, I have done exactly that. The emerging consensus seems to be that the older color scheme of green-on-green is preferable. ~Autumnal Monk~ talk 22:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

it appears that we have two editors removing the background colouring, and two editors adding the background colouring. I would not say that is an emerging consensus. I thought the version we had was the compromise. my problem with the new format is simple, I cannot read it. perhaps you can, but there is not enough contrast for me to read it. I will see if any other editors who watch wp:accessibility are interested in commenting. Frietjes (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I support Frietjes' version for reason of both aesthetics an accessibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, they both are compromises. The contrast issue was the reason I implemented the second, minimalist, compromise. I knew people would still want colour after the code switch. My hope was that if enough people still wanted heavy colouring, they would agree slightly modified green scheme is usable and revert to it or use it as a reference for something with more contrast.
This current situation is untenable. We have two groups of people reverting between two disparate colour schemes and not trying to find a middle ground.
Sowlos (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I changed the background on the content sections to white, which should make the content section have sufficient contrast. I don't know if there are still problems with the rest. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've fixed the list markup: the blank lines that were inserted not only broke the markup but resulted in a significantly worse appearance on mobile view. I've also removed the width override, which was another arbitrary override that resulted in this template not stacking fluidly with infoboxes (such as at Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans). Other than that, I don't particularly mind what colour scheme is chosen so long as the links are clearly visible and the thing is basically readable: to that end I've reapplied the light green background that Autumnal Monk had in his revert as the white background hid the list dots. All in all this results in a total addition of three lines to the (ahem) "overly minimalist, drab, and uncharacteristic" default styling, which I hope indicates quite how easy and powerful the {{sidebar}} syntax is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

In an additional change, I've had to remove the outline declaration from the CSS. A pretty "inner border" effect it may achieve, but it results in the template overlapping with adjacent cleanup tags (such as at Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
if you can restore the white background for the content sections, then I am happy. I still cannot read the content sections template. Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
How is this?
Sowlos (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The contrast is much better. Blue links on this very light background; white headers on darker green; both now satisfy the contrast requirements at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color. Dodoïste (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I think this is good; it retains the established character while also seemingly addressing accessibility concerns. ~Autumnal Monk~ talk 23:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I like the latest compromise. However I have made some minor aesthetic changes, among which: solid frame; fixed title character code; green dots. I have also removed "Interpretatio graeca" (It's not a template just for Hellenism or Roman religion), "Thelema", "Vodun", "New Age", and added "Gnosticism". --Schwert von Feuer (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I reverted your changes. WP:BRD. You removed a few items that belong and fixed at least one problem that was already fixed. However, I reapplied the change to the border, removal of Interpretatio graeca, and addition of Gnosticism to the lists.
For future reference, please try to comment all your edits (so we can easily see what you've done) and start new discussion topics in new threads.
Sowlos (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually the problem of the title font was not already fixed, if is that you're making reference to. I also added green color for dots, a very light green background (the current one looks more like a shade of blue to me), made the title larger and on two lines, made the "Part of ... on" the same green as the title with "a series" white. What's the problem with these edits? I also removed this string of which I don't understand the usefulness (since the content sections seem to not have borders): "border: 2px 1px 2px 1px solid #e0ffc0;".
As for content changes: maybe the removal of "Thelema" was a mistake, but I don't think Vodun and New Age (UFO theories, 2012 mayanism, indigo children, etc) to be related with Paganism. --Schwert von Feuer (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
  1. There was a complaint, above, about the list bullets being to light to see. That's why they're black at the moment. I have no problem with colouring them, but - after all this talk about what colours look nice - you also might want to take care of what non-neutral colours you add to the mix. The links are already blue and purple.
  2. Putting green text on a green background is a dubious prospect. As nice as it can look, we really should consider accessibility]. The main title's colouring is already non-compliant with accessibility standards. It already needs to be fixed and I don't think rendering the entire title unreadable to some is a good idea.
Sowlos (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, the dots were dark-green, we could choose an even darker shade, or leave them black. And what about the #e0ffd0 content background? I think it's better than the current one. As for the title, I think that now it's too small. --Schwert von Feuer (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
What do you think about this version? The title is larger and white on green, the sections background is #e0ffd0. --Schwert von Feuer (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Experiment and see what you think looks best if you feel it needs a change; make your suggestion. You can even suggest it by 'boldly' editing it in (see WP:BOLD). That really was a minor point stacked in a series of edits that I felt needed addressing.
As for the background, that's actually very close to the original background colour I tried. Lol.
I dropped it in favour of a lighter shade because I was trying to stay close to Plastikspork's suggested white background, which some liked, without actually using white (others didn't like it). That's a question of what everyone else thinks.
Sowlos (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't see your second reply. I think that title looks better. As for your second content background, I'm fine with it if there are no objections.
Sowlos (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

'Related movements' section[edit]

...maybe the removal of "Thelema" was a mistake, but I don't think Vodun and New Age (UFO theories, 2012 mayanism, indigo children, etc) to be related with Paganism.
— User:Schwert von Feuer

I guess it depends on your definition of 'related.' Biased on what was already listed as related movements, that would be similar in practice or historically related and they are historically related. Thelema had a very noticeable influence on Neopaganism, especially BTW; Vodun has also influenced modern Pagan practice - mostly Witches again - but that one is a bit more iffy; and the New Age movement has a lot of roots in the Neopagan movement.
Sowlos (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Thelema deserves a place in the template. Regarding Vodun and other African or Afro-American religions, I think they have very little relation or no relation at all with Pagan religions, perhaps as you said little groups of witches (recent layers I would think), but surely don't share historical or cultural roots with Wicca or European witchcraft. New Age: it has influences from Paganism as well as from other religions (angels, spiritism, etc), it's more a cultural than a religious phenomenon. --Schwert von Feuer (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree, Vodun's relationship with Paganism may be too dubious. It may be better to leave it out unless the articles make case for it in the future. However, I think New Age should stay. Similar claims of non-religiosity could be made about some of the other movements listed; notwithstanding, the New Age movement is considered a spiritual one.
Sowlos (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Druid[edit]

Why is Neo-Druidism not in the template? Pass a Method talk 18:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point.
It was listed as of 10:43, 2 April 2012. It appears the reason is the list revolves around ethnic movements. Some notable paths that fall within Celtic and Germanic reconstructionism were listed within parentheses for a time, but were removed as clutter by Schwert von Feuer when he overhauled its appearance.
Sowlos (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Revert of recent move to Tl|Neopaganism-sidebar[edit]

On 25 January 2013 at 13:38‎, Dbachmann (talk · contribs) moved this page to {{Neopaganism-sidebar}}, with accusations of a 'hostile takeover' by WP:COI editors. I have reverted this move. As stated in my edit summary, the main article in this series is titled "Contemporary Paganism", not "Neopaganism", and attacks on fellow editors is completely uncalled for.

I moved the page last year per WP:move. "In Wikipedia, a page may be moved to a new title if the previous name is inaccurate, incomplete, misleading or for a host of housekeeping reasons such as that it is not the common name of the topic..." Also, it was not controversial. A decision to move this page and its series back to "Neopaganism" is not something that should be done without proper discussion.
Sowlos 18:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just reverted Dbachmann (talk · contribs)'s controversial move a second time.—Machine Elf 1735 04:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Consider opening a WP:Requested move discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)