Template talk:Neopaganism

message: why was this removed? The topic is of rather higher notability than the "Reclaiming" or "Discrimination" articles, which remain linked in plain view apparently without anyone objecting. Due to recent developments of the scope at Neo-fascism and paganism, we could however remove Neopaganism and the New Right, which is at present merely a redirect to a section which has as its main article Neo-fascism and paganism (discussion in progress at Talk:Neo-fascism and paganism). dab (𒁳) 15:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a link to this should be kept, as long as it related specifically to Neo-Paganism, which at the moment I'm not so sure that this article does. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Neopaganism and fascism]]

message: Several templates have recently been produced and added to pages within this general area, namely:
*
*
*
*
*
I'm a bit concerned that this profusion has taken place without much discussion from editors who work on these articles. Some articles could conceivably be tagged with 3 or 4 of these templates: indeed, Wicca already has three. I mean no criticism of the creators of the templates - but I suggest that this should be discussed centrally so that there is a degree of uniformity in articles within the same family. If you would like to join this discussion, please do not reply here, but go instead to the talk page I have set up for this purpose. Many thanks! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page for all templates relating to this topic 

message: Natib Qadish is missing. Maybe it is not considered very important, because very few people belong to that faith, but hey! very few people belong to pagan faiths. At least consider including it. Thank you Alejandro 04:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Natib Qadish

message: This template has links to a number of articles that don't say much (if anything) about Neopaganism. The concepts may possibly be relevant, but the articles don't explain this relevance, and I submit that they should not appear in the template; if they're important concepts then they should be explained in the Neopaganism article, and that is sufficient. Otherwise the template ceases being merely a navigation aid, and becomes an "explanation" of neopaganism. In much the same way as weasel words, these links serve to associate neopaganism with certain ideas in a way that gives absolutely no accountability: the reader sees "Universalism" on the list, for instance, and implies from this that either Uniterian Universalism is a variety of neopaganism, or that neopaganism is an important element of Unitarianism. It turns out that some minority of unitarians are also neopagans, but I think the real reason this was added to the list is because some editor thought "Neopaganism tends to be very universalist in its approach, accommodating diverse religious views and philosophies; I'll indicate that by putting Universalism to the template." The template is not the appropriate place to make such assertions, and if they aren't covered in a neopaganism-related article then they shouldn't be in the template.
Other links like Virtue are so off-the-wall, it's flabbergasting. Why not link to Faith, Ethics, Humanity, Love, Nature, Pantheon, Spirit, Community, Season and Cosmology as well? By judicious choice of the right links, we could paint a fabulous picture of what Neopaganism's all about, and not even need an article at all!
The links I'm removing are:
:Mythology (pipes to Religion and mythology)
:Ritualism (article about Anglican ritual)
:Virtue (doesn't mention neopaganism or paganism)
:Ethnocentrism (anthropology article; nothing about neopaganism or paganism)
:Neotribalism (political ideology; no reference to paganism)
:New Age (only mentions Neopaganism once, as an "influence")
:Universalism (pipes to Unitarian Universalism; discussed above)
:Integralism (pipes to Traditionalist School: no reference to paganism)
I also suggest removing Magic (paranormal) and Occult#occultism, since these make hardly any mention of neopaganism. Anyone following these links would be hard pressed to find much information on neopaganism. Fuzzypeg★ 23:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent suggestions...I support all. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links needing pruning 

message: OK, it's been ages since I was last editing here so maybe this slipped in after I started my Wikibreak. But I can't see that this is of equivalent importance to the other articles with which it shares the template. Unless anyone objects seriously, I will remove it shortly. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Federation of Damanhur]]

message: An IP editor has been adding new elements to the template which I feel give an undue emphasis to one small area. The diff for my reversion is here. the IP has since immediately reinstated the material, when I was hoping for a bit of discussion per WP:BRD. Could we please have this discussion here? Having two separate links to subsections of the same atricle seems unnecessary. I'm not even certain one link is needed and certainly I don't think the image is. The 'pentacross' does not have the same wide use and recognition as the pentagram or Thor's hammer. Anyone have comments? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, great. I also removed the Philippine link as that's clearly a traditional, not a neopagan belief system - hope that's OK. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to constantly revert well-meaning edits, but I don't think the  is of equivalent importance to the others already displayed here, namely    . I think it's an example of giving undue emphasis to a small area out of proportion to its importance to the topic as a whole. It's clearly appropriate at Christianity and Neopaganism because it's relevant to the entire article. Anyone else have a view? I'm afraid the revision to the template still gives far too much emphasis as well - there are now two separate links which take you to two parts of the same article, five lines apart. Unnecessary extra links like this make the others on the template harder to read as each one is added. I strongly suggest we limit thje links to keep the template useful. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Kim's analysis here. I'd also point out there's yet another link to the same article in the "Approaches to Paganism" group called "Christo". We only need one link to the article in the template. If you truly feel that Christopaganismm and Christian Wicca are separate enough topics, they should be developed into two separate articles first, and then we can separate out the links. As it stands, four links in the present revision to one article is purely overkill, (as far as I can see, there is only one link per linked page of all the others in the template.) As to the image, (even though I hate to invoke a "slippery slope" argument,) if we were to include a logo of every neopagan variation out there the template would clearly take up the whole screen at my current 1680 x 1050 screen resolution -- RoninBK  T C   21:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK a minor bit of self correction, currently Judeo-Paganism is redirecting to Semitic Neopaganism so there are currently two links to Semitic Neopaganism presently. But let's treat this exception as proving the rule, that we should only have one link per linked article, (and perhaps we should clean up the links to Semitic Neopaganism?) -- RoninBK  T C   22:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Have removed all duplicated links for the time being. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the Christo link in the second section, the one I was talking about that also linked to the article. -- RoninBK  T C   00:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Roninbk - missed that one. The IP has now re-inserted the pentacross image - third time they have reverted in <24 hours. I could block them immediately but I feel involved and won't do it myself. I'm also not going to revert their latest addition of the image as I don't want to get into WP:3RR territory myself. Have asked the IP to come here and discuss the image. Their last edit summary referred to establishing equality of representation. My own view is that Christopaganism, Christian Wicca or other subgroups are so small that the symbol does not merit equal prominence with the triskele, pentagram etc. Would welcome the IP or others discussing this here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks for joining the discussion! Your point above is understood, but it doesn't address my objection and that of Roninbk above. There are over 20 links on the template itself. Should we have separate symbol for each link? Or is it better to have the images which are most significant and representative such as the pentacle for witchcraft, the Awen for Druidry and so on. The 'pentacross' is clearly relevant to Christopaganism but are you arguing that Christopaganism is just as significant and numerous a path as Druidry? Because if you are, you really need to cite some sources. If you are not, then the image needs to go, IMHO. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also point out that the best way to do your faith right and represent it here on Wikipedia isn't to focus so much on these templates, (just one link will do,) but spend your time expanding and sourcing the Christianity and Neopaganism article. Trust me, if you manage to build this article up to Featured Article status, it would be infinitely better at adding to the Neopagan culture than adding yet another mere image in a template would... -- RoninBK  T C   08:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion needed on new elements of template 

message: As the creator of the template all those years ago back in 2007, I can see now that it definately could do with some alterations. Firstly I'm unsure whether these pictures at the right hand side of the template are at all necessary (images are not found on most templates of this nature). Secondly, I believe that the colouring of this article is perhaps not the best choice: green would be more in keeping with the idea of Neopaganism as "nature" or earth religion, and would, I believe, be visually more attractive than plain blue. I'll go ahead and change the colour myself, but I'll leave the removal of the images for discussion.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi MBO, as you'll see from my contributions above I have a bit of an issue with the images too. The problem is that if you go even with one, which one? And if one why not two? Or three? And all of a sudden everyone wants their trademark image up there. I'd be fine with removing them all, on the basis that even the most generic (arguably the pentagram) is not relevant across the whole of neopaganism. So let's save the arguments and have no symbols here, save them for the relevant articles. Good idea about the colour change btw, have no problem with that. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just had a proper look at the template again - on second thoughts I think the green is a little too bold and solid now. Could I suggest a less saturated tone, perhaps in keeping with the blue which is the background for the syncretic/eclectic subheadings? I'm going to paste in an alternative and see what people think. Perhaps a colour more like #e2fcda? Here goes! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and I shall remove the images.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Visual changes

message: I'm invoking WP:BRD after some changes Bhlegkorbh has made here. I don't see the invention of a new term 'Neowitchcraft' (which in fact redirects to an article of a different name) is helpful. I'd also still regard Wicca etc as syncretic so it makes no sense to move them out of that part of the template. Please note - I don't think the existing template is anything like perfect! I just think these changes were a step backwards, not forwards. Anyone else have an opinion? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: Please see Template talk:Paganism#Merge?—Sowlos (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger