Template talk:Sigmund Freud

splitting suggestion
I think a sidebar could be derived from the "Other" section of the present navbox. Freud deserves one like Henry David Thoreau, Clint Eastwood and many others. Apart from the entries in the "Other" row of the present navbox, there are other links as well to be included in the sidebar I suggest. Some may be found categorized under Freud's category (bottom of the main page).Salarabdolmohamadian (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I am uncertain whether the "Family" section entries have also to move to the sidebar or not. Ideally, I'd suggest a separate small family tree template. Ultimately Freud would have 3 templates: works - family tree - sidebar (a list of related lists like bibliography, etc.).Salarabdolmohamadian (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The "Family" and "Other" sections are consistent with hundreds of other templates, although 'Other' should be renamed 'Related' per other templates (done). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Randy Kryn, sure. There is no question about consistency. Mine is a suggestion for expansion, and it is based on the significance of the main topic (i.e. Freud), which is, I guess, no less significant than Avicenna, Thoreau and Eastwood for example, all three of which have sidebars (along with many more).Salarabdolmohamadian (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So you just mean creating a sidebar without removing any of the material from the main Freud template? If I misunderstood it was because of your use of "splitting", which usually means removing material. A sidebar template seems fine, many articles have sidebar templates and they work well. The slavery sidebar is a good example, and is sectioned off well. Please give a link when you get the sidebar in shape, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Randy Kryn, I did mean splitting, i.e. removing links from the present template! It would be a waste to have repetitive links is more than one templates. Sidebars and family trees function differently from normal templates. Family trees facilitate comprehension of familial relations graphically and sidebars list non-oeuvre related links for thinkers of greater-than-average proportions, so to speak! (Thinkers considered to have founded schools of thought . . . with notable concepts to their names or credit . . .)Salarabdolmohamadian (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A normal template is often a list of works, whereas a sidebar is often a list of lists of works. A normal template can list books and films and plays and speeches of sb's, while we could have a sidebar to list his or her bibliography and filmography and discography and timeline and list of plays she has directed, etc. Eastwood, David Lynch, Avicenna, Al-Razi in Persian wikipedia, presidents of the united states, H. D. Thoreau, many medieval saints and poets, modern sinners and playwrights (like Marx and Shakespeare and Coppola!) and many others are cases in point.Salarabdolmohamadian (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then I'd have to disagree, and mention that templates of major historical figures in many fields include family and a populated 'Related' section. As a road-map about the subject's pages on Wikipedia this type of template is common and full. I thought in my latest comment that you meant something like, say, the two John F. Kennedy templates, a complete footer template as well as a concise 'main subjects' sidebar (with family included on the footer, even though there is a Kennedy family-tree template as well). I'm a fan of templates, have done many of the U.S. President templates, and have a couple in mind I want to work on soon. Two of the main templates needed (unless they've been made or I'm not recalling seeing either), which I'll pass on for now because I don't have a good mental-map of either (creating a good template, I'd say, requires making that mental map and knowing the exact relationships and chronological mix of all the subjects), are for Julius Caesar and Napoleon. If someone hasn't made them in time I'll take them on, but that would be a study to get it right. Anyway, I digress... Randy Kryn (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Randy Kryn, I'll give it a thought . . . "complete footer template + additional derivative sidebar and family tree and timeline, etc. with selected relevant links" sounds reasonable enough. Do we have an agreed-upon guideline suggesting this on English Wikipedia? If so, I could learn from it . . . for more work in Persian Wikipedia. And so, you would, for example, merge Template:Clint Eastwood sidebar into Template:Clint Eastwood without deleting either . . . and make the sidebar . . . content-wise unnecessary . . . but functionally and in an ornamental way . . . usable. (I fear derivative sidebars with repetitive-only links might risk being considered superfluous and being deleted by some users' agreement.)Salarabdolmohamadian (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The History of the Psychoanalytic Movement
Currently, this template is misleading (in relation to The History of the Psychoanalytic Movement) in two different ways: (a) it lists The History of the Psychoanalytic Movement (1914) as a "book"; and (b) There is no mention of the book's original source as an article, thus being categorized under "Essays" (the "book" simply being a reprint of the original article). The actual situation is this: Freud wrote an article in German in 1914; the original article was translated into English and published as a book in 1917; and, finally, the original German article was separately reprinted, as a book, in 1924. Thus:
 * Freud, S. (1914), "Zur Geschichte der psychoanalytischen Bewegung", Jahrbuch der Psychoanalyse, Vol.6, pp.207-260.
 * Freud, S. (Brill, A.A. trans.) (1917), Nervous and Mental Disease Monograph Series No.25: The History of the Psychoanalytic Movement, New York, NY: New York Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company.
 * Freud, S. (1924), Zur Geschichte der psychoanalytischen Bewegung, Leipzig: Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag. Obviously, as it stands, the Template is not accurate. At the moment, I have no idea how to rectify this erroneous situation, and I hope that some-one can set the record straight. Lindsay658 (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * user:Randy Kryn, given your history of contributions, I wonder if you have any thoughts on this? Lindsay658 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping . I'd keep it as a book, although that's not based on guidelines. True, it started as an article/essay, but I'm taking it for granted that Freud approved of it being republished as a book, and in two languages. If there is evidence that the book was published without his knowledge or approval I'd go with essay, but until then the present situation seems correct, although maybe it can be listed as: (1914 article, 1917 book). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For even better accuracy, how about just adding the full title and link to both the Books and Essays sections, the essay under (1914) and book labeled (1917). That covers all bases and presents accurate navigational information. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

user:Randy Kryn, Given the Template is for the English language Wikipedia, and given that the 1917 book is in English (as distinct from the German book, dated 1924), I think that your solution, "1914 article, 1917 book" is ideal, Lindsay658 (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that leaves the Essay section without an accurate link to the article. There are many navboxes which list an entry in two places if it fits, and this one seems a twofer I misunderstood and didn't notice that you had made that change, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)