Template talk:Germanic paganism2

Gods listing
Nice work with the template! Still, I believe the section regarding the gods is problematic as it shows a heavy focus on the latter Norse period. I am currently working on a complete list of gods and goddesses in Germanic paganism that we can link here intead. I think this will solve this problem. bloodofox: (talk) 03:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * After working with a lot of our other templates in this area, I think this template is actually pretty pointless. There's no real need for it, it will result in confusion, and it would need to be largely reworked for it to be useful. I'm going to remove it from most of the articles it appears on now until it is reworked into something useful. bloodofox: (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

please decide if this template wants to summarize Viking Age Norse paganism, or "Germanic paganism". At the moment, it has a very heavy Old Norse perspective. Also, why on earth is it in pink?

Please do not perpetuate the pop culture meme that "Thor's Hammer" is a "symbol of Germanic paganism" by automated slapping of clip-art on articles. These hammers represent a very brief and geographically very limited subset. Say, North Sea, 10th century. The "Germanic paganism" topic is orders of magnitude wider. The use of clip-art in such templates is a clear sign that people did not actually have any content worth adding. --dab (𒁳) 08:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * now acting on the above suggestion. I would also much prefer if the atrocious lilac could be avoided, but that is just a matter of taste, not one of substance. Still, if I was asked to pick the colour I would find most jarring to associate with "Germanic paganism", it would probably be something rather close to ddcef2. Perhaps a little more pinkish could conceivably even be worse, but I don't see why we should try and make Wikipedia look as awful as possible. --dab (𒁳) 11:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Not being used at all?
I've noticed that the template isn't on many pages that it's associated with. Why is this the case? The Verified Cactus 100% 04:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I'll add them to the articles, and if I'm doing something wrong, let me know. The Verified Cactus 100% 00:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This template isn't being used because it's useless in its current form. First, it's misinformed. The Vanir, for example, are only attested in North Germanic sources. Second, it causes problems for lead image formatting. Finally, it's entirely redundant due to the presence of other, better templates. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, okay. Is there anything that can be done to improve it and then put it out there again? The Verified Cactus 100% 18:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I can surmise — to be accurate and format-friendly, it would need to be totally rewritten, and even then it seems redundant. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I reformatted the template, mainly because the "Part of a series of articles on" was misaligned. I was going to rewrite it thoroughly but that is quite a job in itself and the articles it links to are also in need of a lot of attention. I think the template should be recreated when/if the related articles are worth reading. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , you mention that "the articles it links to are also in need of a lot of attention" — can you give me some examples? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the main article of the template—previously "Germanic paganism", now Germanic religion (aboriginal)—is a stub. The regional sub-divisions of the religion are also either stub/start class or in need of rewrites. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

2?
Why is this titled "Template:Germanic paganism2" when "Template:Germanic paganism" is a redirect to this template? Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)