This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Norse history and culture, aWikiProject related to all activities of theNorthGermanic peoples, both inScandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of theKalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit theproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to thediscussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture
This template was considered fordeletion on2020 March 28. The result ofthe discussion was "no consensus".
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment Since this is a template rather than an article and effectively a descriptive title, even when only one word, shouldn'tWP:NDESC be applied meaning we should avoid "judgemental" terms like "Viking"?MegaSloth (talk)13:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be honest I'm no expert, I just am aware that that is some sort of "thing", and it might be relevant. I think it's because "Viking" technically only refers to the Norse raiders most of the rest of the world had most of their interactions with. Some will argue this gives a false negative impression of Norse culture and perhaps more typical domestic Norse activities. Also "viking" carries a lot of inaccurate baggage accumulated over the years, like horned helmets for instance. I'm not personally opposd to it, I'm not really informed enough, I was just aware it was a "thing" that perhaps ouight to be aired in this context, perhaps if only for it to be discounted.MegaSloth (talk)00:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a{{Norse people}} template which gives a full map of the culture. But this template under disccussion is about Vikings, a definable and historically recognized subset of Norse people. Removing some items might be a good discussion, although important topics overlap (such as language, etc.). I haven't read much of the Viking page, but the mistakes in popular culture, such as the horned helmets, probably should be mentioned in the pages lede [EDIT: they are covered in the lede, although they could be higher in the text so more readers will get to them].Randy Kryn (talk)01:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I get the point fromChicbyaccident in the initial nom that some of the entries are not actually specific to Vikings, but the Norse in general, but I think that this seems such a poorly conceived navbox from the outset (see sections below) that the best option is toWP:TNT the thing andDELETE.--woodensuperman14:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why just there, and why has just this project page been notified with all these RM's? Frankly, you seem to be coming very late to this party, which most people have already had enough of.Johnbod (talk)22:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems that the nominator has created a different but related tempatevatTemplate:Norse people, meaning that the move request as currently proposed is technically malformed since the request is proposing to move this template to the title of another existing template, not a redirect.Steel1943 (talk)19:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on thistalk page or in amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
@Power~enwiki: For the record, I did not createTemplate:Norse people, nor did I recommend merging this template there straight away, as seen in the prematuraly closed discussion above that was just about to find a solution. As seen in the now improved interwiki links collection, English language is the only one that says "Vikings" and not "Viking Age".Chicbyaccident (talk)22:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything needs to be included, but related articles can. As far as I can tell, these are two of the only articles in the linked category that are directly to the depictions of Vikings themselves, rather than just theage of Vikings, which is what you've given. Is the template titled "Viking Age"? It is not. --AlexTW12:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe not everything, but any selection is subjective, which is not acceptable in a navbox. Maybe the documentary works are acceptable, but one TV drama series has no more place here than any other Viking work.--woodensuperman12:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the problem arises that you have to make a subjective decision. You include one, the case can be made to include others, and the navbox gets out of hand. Do you then start includingchildren's TV series orDoctor Who serials? Anything with a non-definite inclusion criteria isn't ideal in a navbox.--woodensuperman12:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated, included articles should be directly to the depictions of Vikings themselves, rather than just theage of Vikings, and they should be entire works, not singular productions. Neither of what you linked conforms with that. --AlexTW12:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But who draws the line? This is the problem. And there are hundreds of works which will meet your criteria, so more suited for a category than a navbox. As it stands, the section needs to be removed as it is currently placingWP:UNDUE importance of certain series over other works.--woodensuperman13:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. YourWP:BOLD edit was reverted. PerWP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, theWP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a neededWP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it.WP:UNDUE is your personal opinion, and that's what you need to gain a consensus for. --AlexTW13:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not.WP:UNDUE is policy, which easily trumpsWP:BRD. At the moment, what we are saying is "these are the only two works about Vikings that are important enough for inclusion in this navbox", which is incontrovertibly unacceptable.--woodensuperman13:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good discussion, and the few suggested films would make nice additions. The two items both seemed appropriate to the topic, which is why they were added.Randy Kryn (talk)13:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is Randy that without defined inclusion criteria, anything that is added is subjective, and thus falls foul ofWP:UNDUE as it is seen as being more important than any other work. We need to revert your additions, so that the inclusion criteria can be decided.--woodensuperman13:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alex seems to have summarized reasonable inclusion criteria above. In any case an In popular culture seems fine for the topic, as there are limited but interesting items which would interest readers and add to this Wikipedia map of the subject. Vikings! (my great-great-great something ancestors included Vikings, as yours probably does, and if someone opened up a Viking Cusine restaurant they'd make a killing (literarlly).Randy Kryn (talk)14:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still seems open to interpretation to me. "Should be directly to the depictions of Vikings themselves" does not seem like definite inclusion criteria to me. This is best left for category navigation.--woodensuperman14:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
general comment disputes outside of the arena of citations are always fun, if one has the time. In the absence of critical scrutiny, perhaps the the section could be balanced by "in unpopular culture"?cygnis insignis14:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to destroy a good template, not much of a "best option". What are your main objections? A media section, as discussed above, makes sense, and the existing sections cover the topic well. Chicbyaccident, nice new image of a long-boat added, an interesting graphic.Randy Kryn (talk)14:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the issue surrounding the title, it is clear that the scope of this template was not seriously considered before it was haphazardly thrown together. If all the entries were added to a "media", "people" and "battles" (see below) section were correctly and consistently added, the navbox would be too large to be manageable. In fact, if just one of these groups was fully populated, then we'd have a rather large navbox on our hands. A "media" section is definitely not appropriate, as what constitutes a work about Vikings is subjective and cannot be clearly defined. It would be deleted for this reason as a standalone navbox, so it is not appropriate here. All three of these topics are best left to category navigation.--woodensuperman14:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which is only one of the major reasons why guideline language not allowing links to categories on templates is, to be kind, not thought out. Categories on Wikipedia are not off-site, they are important links which templates have used in the past to guide readers to topic lists. There is not a 'category specific' and 'template specific' place to put something to the exclusion of the other - not every reader looks at both (not to even mention lists, the third leg of the Wikipedia map-tripod). They are separate and important maps, and cross-referencing these within each context (i.e. lists include the template at the end). Adding the key battles in some form is important to the template, and if it must be selective then that is better than not having any appear there. Categories are exiled friends of templates, but harming a template by not allowing key subjects to be linked on it does nothing but restricts access to information for the readers and researchers who use templates as an important topic-map.Randy Kryn (talk)14:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this problem is what party what I tried to addres above. This template looks, at best, like a thematic misconception, with misunderstanding indicated in pretty much all sections of it. While a remote solution would be to rename it toTemplate:Viking Age, I'm not sure even that would be a good solution. I would suggestion tring to merge information in a cautious way withTemplate:Norse people to begin with. Then perhaps we might make a more suitable mirroring in this footer navbox with that sidebox.Chicbyaccident (talk)23:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
@Randy Kryn: Only that the contents don't pertain to vikings but to Viking Age, if anything, right? May I ask why you spell vikings with capital V? Have you considered theCategory:Norse people contemporary geographical, cultural, and ethno-linguistic actual context on the ground (and on the seas) around the notion projected by romantic historians of the 19th centuryViking revival?Chicbyaccident (talk)21:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, those more expert than I have commented on the many Viking pages recently and have kept the name 'Viking' or 'Vikings' consistent on Wikipedia. Vikings is the common name for the topic.Randy Kryn (talk)22:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting note: notwithstandingpower~enwiki's note about the previous requested move and the oppose majority, I think a bit of extra discussion couldn't hurt and it's probably best to settle what seems to be a perennial issue, especially whenChicbyaccident believes the last close was "premature".Chicbyaccident: please can you lay out the alternatives you allude to so anyone who contributes to the discussion can do so knowing what options have been proposed? Many thanks,SITH(talk)21:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on thistalk page or in amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose, with this move, the title of the template starts to become very ambiguous with the Minnesota Vikings template. It’s best to leave it as is so there is less confusion. When people search “Viking”, it’s usually for the original meaning. When people search “Vikings”, it’s often for the NFL football team.
{{Minnesota Vikings}} covers the NFL team. The NFL also contains teams like 'Bears', 'Giants', 'Saints', and many other names which, under the objection criteria, could substitute for similarly-named templates. p.s. edit:{{Giants}} is about the NFL team,{{Saints}} is about saints. There is, surprisingly, no template named{{Bears}}. Bottom line though, it isn't that important what the name of template is, it's the visible name which makes the difference.Randy Kryn (talk)12:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on thistalk page or in amove review. No further edits should be made to this section.
