Template talk:Anarcho-capitalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Group structuring[edit]

Sardanaphalus (talk · contribs) added the group name "Overview" for the first list, to complement "Features" for the second. I removed the name, arguing that it did not accurately describe the first list and was superfluous. Sardanaphalus then posted the following to my talkpage:

"Fair enough; as you probably guessed, I did simply invent the description in order to provide a groupname to complement "Features". Perhaps, then, "Features" may as well be removed too -- it otherwise seems to draw too much attention..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)"
The issue here for me is that the first list is a list of the main (i.e. most relevant and important) articles we have on anarcho-capitalism, whereas the second list contains articles on aspects or features of an anarcho-capitalist society (in other words, anarcho-capitalist theory). Taking a cue from music band templates where the members are listed without description as members (i.e. {{Rage Against the Machine}}), followed by other articles related to the band in named groups (i.e. Albums, Tours, Videos), I thought leaving the main articles undescribed while describing the "aspects of anarcho-capitalist society" as Features (of "Anarcho-capitalism", by implication). Is this appropriate, should there be two named groups, or none? the skomorokh 13:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Apart from doing nothing (if that's the consensus) I imagine there's a few possibilities, e.g. rather than sitting on the lefthand side, the "Features" label might sit above the list that follows. I guess, though, the discussion first is whether or not to include "Features" and/or a label for the first list. Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


We don't get to choose symbols in this way - maybe it is appropriate, but I can't find evidence. I do know that cuneiform experts don't say it means freedom, that's a political interpretation. I'm happy to be shown that I'm wrong about it not being a well known symbol in the movement, but it needs to be demonstrated. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for whether the cuneiform symbol was appropriate, but in the meantime I've replaced it with the yellow and black AnCap flag. We can agree that that's an appropriate symbol, surely? — SolarStarSpire (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Decorative images do not add informative value and Wikipedia navboxes and sidebars no longer feature them. Regarding coloring, see WP:Deviations. —Omnipaedista (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)