Template talk:PulitzerPrize History

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


I am thinking of reformatting this template. I stumbled upon Template:PulitzerPrize Drama and its subtemplates when doing work on some theatre templates. I have created several sets of templates for other Pulitzer Prize awards (Template:PulitzerPrize Poetry, Template:PulitzerPrize Fiction, Template:PulitzerPrize GeneralNon-Fiction, Template:PulitzerPrize BiographyorAutobiography and Template:PulitzerPrize Music). I have tried to make all the templates synchronous (ending with each quarter century) with the Drama template that I first noticed. In about half of the cases for the new templates I created, the author only was included because too many of the subjects had redlinks. I would like to reformat this template in two ways: 1) make it synchronous with all other Pulitzer templates; 2) remove the works because so many of them are redlinks. I don't think templates of redlinks are good for the readers. However, this template is used only for the works. It is not currently transcluded on the authors' pages. Feedback appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Losing the redlinks isn't too bad as Pulitzer Prize for History still has them linked. But removing the works themselves and replacing them with authors gives the impression that the author has won the prize when technically it is given to the book. Your new template {{PulitzerPrize BiographyorAutobiography}} has this problem. Would you consider a new template Pulitzer Prize for History by author (this being Pulitzer Prize for History by work)? Perhaps then author templates can be linked from author pages and this template from the works themselves. Just my two cents. Tassedethe (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I think having Authors in the name makes it clearer. I agree that templates that have insufficient blue links aren't desirable; they can detract from the pages they are transcluded into. Thanks for all your efforts. Tassedethe (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me first say that I love what you have done with the other templates. This whole area needed a lot of work and Tony has done a great job to help clean up this area. As for the current template, I would have to disagree with your recommendation to remove the works because most of the works are redlinked. I think that the redlinks encourage people to create the articles in question (which I think everyone would agree should be created). Therefore, I think redlinks help push people into creating content and I favor them when the refer to articles that should be created. Remember (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If I haven't lost track, I have created all of the templates outlined above and implemented 5 of the 6. As for the works. I have done a lot of templates in other areas and generally templates don't get created until the vast majority of the links are blue. I personally like redlinks too, but at WP:GAC, WP:FAC, WP:FLC and WP:PR, it seems that they are discouraged. Only in instances where it is extremely likely that an article will be forthcoming are they encouraged. Most editors shy away from creating templates where too many redlinks exist. Wikipedia is at a pretty highly developed stage and a topic where the majority of links are redlinks is one of questionable notability. I am not saying that Pulitzer Prize winning poems are not notable, it is just that for some reason editors have not been interested in compiling the content and sources. I think that when at topic gets about 75% full, the remaining redlinks may seem like omissions and editors might be likely to stub them out. When 90% are redlinks editors will think, this topic just isn't that notable and it may be a while before the article is created. Redlinks are not really appropriate when we don't expect an article soon. Thus in keeping with the other areas where I have been involved in developing templates I am not producing templates for highly redlinked areas.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this template is overwhelming in the information it presents, however I might've suggested the authors be removed. Other than that I don't have any noteworthy comments on the format. —Mrwojo (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


This template uses a yellowish (hexidecimal color #EEDD82). While I copied the grey (#C0C0C0;) color used by Template:PulitzerPrize DramaAuthors to all the other templates that I created. Which should Pulitzer Prize use?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally I don't like any template that uses a yellow stripe, it always makes me think I've got a message! Otherwise I have no other preference. Tassedethe (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
For anyone wondering what I did with colors look at the bottom of Chorus Line. I have changed the Pulitzer Prize, Drama Desk and Olivier Awards colors so that they are all different shades from the Tony Awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
As the original creator of this template, I am fine with whatever looks best. Remember (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)