Template talk:Democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm curious. With the advent of categories, what is the purpose of this template? -- Stevietheman 14:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe in the use of templates as a possibility to place an article in the right context. If one is interested in elections, one can find directly all kinds of related articles, without first searching categories and sub-categories. It is an extra dimension to Wikipedia. --Gangulf 15:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You should probably consider creating a WikiReader for this topic. The outline that you have would make a good start. However, it doesn't make a good template for inclusion in all of the pages you've included it in. -- RobLa 04:05, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This template is so huge that it is no longer useful. Break it into smaller interlinked templates or delete it. --Jiang 00:48, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This template is ridiculous. john k 01:50, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This template is no longer necessary as it contains only one link. Overview democracy should be renamed List of democracy-related topics to sound less Canadian and linked directly? --Jiang 06:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You might be right (the title has changed allready in List of democracy and elections-related topics, but it will take some time to make in every related article a direct link. Wiht this existing category, it is done in one step. --Gangulf 06:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of democracy articles

I added a link to List of democracy articles to the template. This is material that was originally incorporated in the democracy (disambiguation) page. Note that I don't necessarily support giving "List of " type articles this much prominence, but until Democracy (varieties) can be improved, and some better organizing chart can be created for these articles, I don't this this is an unacceptable stopgap. - David Oberst 18:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Significance?

I was not sure how the type of democracies were picked for the template since there is no "purpose" listed on this talk page. I added Social democracy to the template because it seems to be one of the major types. If it clashes with the purpose of the template, feel free to revert.--207.230.48.5 03:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect some of the entries (such as anticipatory democracy got added hodge-podge after the template was created. Figuring out a useful format for this is on my to-do list, but I haven't got around to it. - David Oberst 03:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I see you are facing similar problems as the political ideologies where me needed criteria for inclusion. What we did there was combine a criterion that selected ideologies parties actually have (in this case types of democracy a lot of a countries actually use) with a criterion that selected ideologies that play an important role in the contemporary debate in political philosophy (in this case types of democracy that play an important role in the academic debate about democratization). This way all significant types of democracy, either empirically or theoretically are included. For the exact criteria, take a look a the ideology template talk. C mon 07:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] religious democracy

Please do not put red links like religious democracy in a template! C mon 21:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It was made up. I deleted it.--Patchouli 14:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed religious democracy from the template, which was added again recently. The current article is essentially an essay at present. - David Oberst 08:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why have you removed religious democracy from the template, David Oberst and C mon? Would you explain? Farhoudk 10:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the article about half a year ago, because it was a red link (i.e. there was no article. since it was created in january 2006). Now I don't care either way although I think there are too much insignificant forms of democracy on the template. C mon 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link to the current article because it reads like an essay, not an encyclopedia entry. It might be more useful to take any further discussion to the Talk page there. - David Oberst 16:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)