Do we have consensus on deleting this? --mnenyver 01:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Although it's true that listing of templates can be accomplished by listing all pages in the Template: name space, it doesn't really go away as an issue until all the Templates are otherwise categorized, right? Which probably has some merit. I'm guessing you (Mnenyver) created the page because we inherited some templates (do we even use them all?) which were in that category. In any case, I don't have an emotional investment in it, but at the very least the templates need to be taken out of the category page; until that happens it's not really a candidate for deletion. (I don't think.) ⚙Zarchne 10:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I can't remember if it was me or not. I don't mind removing the category from the templates, by the way. --mnenyver 00:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
How should we categorize templates? Edit
OK, what are useful categories for templates? Some suggestions:
- Decoration (e.g., the boxes for the new front page)
- InfoBox (e.g., Character)
- Table Helper (e.g., CastByPage)
- Link Helper (e.g., GG_link)
- Standard Text (e.g., Reflist)
- Message (e.g., Delete)
Is that a reasonable categorization? What is missing? Argadi 15:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I know I've been using Special: All Pages to access the templates simply because not all of them are found here on this page. This page, however, is more easily and conventionally accessible than that alternative, which is both a good thing and a bad thing.
- Having something as critical to the appearance of the site a little bit 'out of the way' prevents casual or accidental meddling, but on the other hand, is a barrier to new editors coming on board with the editing of the site.
- A Templates category page, in a way, strikes a nice balance, whereas fully categorizing the templates, as if they were regular wiki articles, might just be going a bit too far. I don't consider myself an expert, though, on what should be done here; it makes more sense to look around a few other wikis and see what they're doing.
- But here's why I have my doubts: what next; are we going to fully categorize the MediaWiki namespace? (if category entries could even be safely placed in the pages there, as they're in CSS, not WikiMarkup...) --Quadibloc 16:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Heroes doesn't categorize their templates, but Watchmen has most templates in the Templates category, and some in an Image wiki template category, I've found after a brief check.
- Buffyverse uses Templates as a category, and has Utility templates as an alternative.
- The Flash has "Main" under General wiki templates, "Stub" under Article management templates.
- So, in my brief search of a few wikis bigger and more popular than ours, one does not categorize templates, but the others do categorize them into subcategories as you are planning. Thus, it is not a bad idea to do so, as I was worried it might be. --Quadibloc 16:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- And the Green Lantern wiki categorizes some templates, and leaves a lot of others - the infobox type - uncategorized. --Quadibloc 05:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds like you think the delete tag should be removed from this category. I started this recent conversation as a step toward following the suggestion and deleting this category. Argadi 08:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Needs a Licensing helper category
- It would help in getting those templates out of the way. They usually have name easily confused with other functions.
- Which templates are you referring to, exactly? — m (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- All the templates that help with licensing uploads. "No licence" is one, Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0 is another. There seems to be a whole menagerie of these. So the way to proceed would be to set up a License Helper subcategory and then plunk the menagerie into it as they are identified. --Rej¿¤¤? 18:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Changing template catagories Edit
Hmm. Does not seem easily doable. Are things locked down for a reason? Who has the key?
Link helpers deserve to contain Otwit and TV Tropes those are now in main category. I tried doing that myself but found that the category could not be altered. What is the story? --Rej¿¤¤? 19:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Figured out how to fix them. Now fixed. --Rej 02:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)