Template talk:Vikings

Requested move 22 November 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED - as noted by Steel1943 this move is now impossible due to a new template at the target name; consensus opposes the move in any event. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Viking → Template:Norse people – Scope (more encompassing the sections provided), accuracy. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisted. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: How so, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This n-gram is pretty persuasive although 'Norse people' make an appearance between 1900 and 1908. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: Alright. Do you promote reproduction of a misconception because of quantity of reproducers? Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVNAME would keep Vikings, as would the n-gram linked above. Judgemental? In what way? Randy Kryn (talk) 17:07, 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]
@Randy Kryn: Would you please explain what you mean by "subset"? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: No confrontation intended. I'd be open to good arguments. Would you mind laying out your stance/objections on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Norse_history_and_culture#"Viking"_naming? Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:22, 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]
Sorry, I might have missed out on that. In that case, any help would be welcome to better understand why I may be mistaken. Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See, for example, Talk:Norsemen/Archive 1#Requested_move_14_July_2018 and Talk:North_Germanic_peoples#Requested_move_1_September_2018, but there are others. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems that the nominator has created a different but related tempatevat Template: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 a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@Power~enwiki: For the record, I did not create Template: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]

[edit]

This section needs to be removed from the navbox. The two entries are selectively included and thus place WP:UNDUE importance of these over other works. If these are included in the navbox, then everything from Category:Viking Age in popular culture also needs to be included, which is clearly not practical. --woodensuperman 12:04, 6 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 the age of Vikings, which is what you've given. Is the template titled "Viking Age"? It is not. -- AlexTW 12:10, 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. --woodensuperman 12:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give examples of other Vikings works? -- AlexTW 12:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, how about Tale of Ragnar Lodbrok and Tale of Ragnar's Sons? Or The Viking (1928 film) and The Vikings (1958 film)? --woodensuperman 12:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could see the inclusion of those. -- AlexTW 12:44, 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 including children's TV series or Doctor Who serials? Anything with a non-definite inclusion criteria isn't ideal in a navbox. --woodensuperman 12:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated, included articles should be directly to the depictions of Vikings themselves, rather than just the age of Vikings, and they should be entire works, not singular productions. Neither of what you linked conforms with that. -- AlexTW 12:59, 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 placing WP:UNDUE importance of certain series over other works. --woodensuperman 13:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But who draws the line? WP:CONSENSUS is who. If you would like to hold an RFC to gain a consensus for your stance, by all means. -- AlexTW 13:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so the section has to go until there is consensus for a clearly-defined inclusion criteria. As it stands WP:UNDUE applies, so it must be removed. --woodensuperman 13:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Your WP:BOLD edit was reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. WP:UNDUE is your personal opinion, and that's what you need to gain a consensus for. -- AlexTW 13:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. WP:UNDUE is policy, which easily trumps WP: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. --woodensuperman 13:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And while that is your personal opinion, WP:EDITCONSENSUS states that it may remain while you gain a WP:CONSENSUS that claims otherwise. -- AlexTW 13:30, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And do you really think that the status quo doesn't fall foul of WP:UNDUE? --woodensuperman 13:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and actually, the status quo is without these additions anyway, as they were boldly added two weeks ago. --woodensuperman 13:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is Randy that without defined inclusion criteria, anything that is added is subjective, and thus falls foul of WP: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. --woodensuperman 13:57, 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. --woodensuperman 14:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing WP:CONSENSUS more for the inclusion than against now. If you believe it to be "open" or "without defined inclusion criteria", then open an RFC. -- AlexTW 23:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. These WP:UNDUE issues need to be addressed, and the topic is much better navigated by category. This navbox is a complete shitshow - see also the section below. --woodensuperman 13:56, 7 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 insignis 14:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps renaming this template to Template:Viking Age could mean at least a bit of a solution, as proposed as an alternative new name in the section above. Chicbyaccident (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:TNT is our best option here. --woodensuperman 13:56, 7 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. --woodensuperman 14:37, 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]
We cannot be selective, as this is against the Wikipedia policy WP:UNDUE as it gives the impression that some articles' subjects are more important than others. And incomplete templates also do not fully populate your "map". What would be acceptable in a template would be to link to list articles on the topics - List of works about Vikings, List of battles featuring Vikings, List of Vikings, etc, etc, which can be fully sourced. --woodensuperman 14:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical figures" and "Battles" sections inclusion criteria

[edit]

And on a similar topic to the above, the "Historical figures" section is also problematic with only three entries. What is the inclusion criteria here? Having been born in 1179, Snorri Sturluson couldn't really be considered a Viking! There are multiple categories for this (Category:Viking explorers, Category:Viking warriors, Category:Viking rulers, etc.), so this section should probably be excised too. --woodensuperman 14:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the "Battles" section also seems selective and subjective too. There are a lot more entries in Category:Battles involving the Vikings . I'm really close to nominating this for deletion. --woodensuperman 14:44, 6 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 to Template:Viking Age, I'm not sure even that would be a good solution. I would suggestion tring to merge information in a cautious way with Template: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]

Now that Template:Norse people footer has been created, chunks of this template could be moved there, to restrict it to "Vikings"-related stuff. PPEMES (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 December 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved: no input has been received since the relist and I think ample time has been given for input. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Viking → Template:Viking Age – Per discussion(s) above, upon prematured close. As seen in all other interwiki links. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. SITH (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as previous closer - I don't believe anybody other than Chicbyaccident suggested or supported a rename to "Viking Age". power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, none seemed to have time to consider that alternative before it was closed. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@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 the Category: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 century Viking 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]
@Randy Kryn: So what topic does "Viking" refer to, please? I'm trying to understand. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was just the idea of renaming from "Viking" to "Viking age", for the evidence of the scope, but I am resting my case. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 9 April 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See general agreement below to rename this template. All old transclusions of {{Vikings}} (the redirect) have been changed to {{Vikings (2013 TV series)}}. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  01:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Viking → Template:Vikings – Either way, this should be uncontroversial, in accordance with what the current header says. PPEMES (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, aye, Vikings! (could have just moved it). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom. Johnbod (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
I for one have never heard of that entity. Would you mind considering WP:GLOBAL? PPEMES (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{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]
  • I don't think many people (normal readers) arrive at any template through a search - how would that happen? Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Follow-up

[edit]

Now that Template:Norse people footer has been created, some of the contents in this template should obivously be relocated there. PPEMES (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not how it works. Adding items is fine, but please leave them here as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What has religion to do with Norse piracy here? PPEMES (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The Vikings portal was recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Norsemen

[edit]

This is really Donald Duck science. The entire template is about Norsemen, not piraycy. How can Wikipedia be abused like this? Dan Koehl (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Vikings&oldid=1238420575"