Template talk:WikiProject Ancient Germanic studies

Message moved from John Carter's talk page:

Hello! I noticed your good contributions to the AGS WikiProject and the subgroup Runic studies task force. I like the expandable assessment comments area very much, for example. However, I think you have worked a bit excessively some places, i.e adding an importancy scale, in particlar to the Runic studies work group. Runic studies being a task force, it is there mainly to focus the work on areas within the scope of the mother project. Thus there is no need for a separate importancy scale, in my opinion. If the Runic studies are parted from the AGS project, and established as an own project, that is another case. I do not think that we are in need of an importancy scale for the AGS project either, really. I believe the members are well-oriented in these topics (or should be), and will know the importancy of these articles by themselves. If the scope was much bigger, it would have been helpful (as with the Norse project), but with AGS the low importance rated articles might become under-prioritized, which is counter-productive. In addition, many are sloppy with assessing articles, and it's very likely that one may end up with 80% of the articles unassessed. Best regards, –Holt T•C 20:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No objections. I think I was still recovering in August from the blows to the head, so that might explain why I didn't do it earlier. I do however think that it might be valuable to have an importance rating for the parent project. It won't be immediately obvious to all parties which articles the project has decided to put the bulk of the given content on a specific subject in. Those articles would be, effectively, the "top" importance articles for the project, and listing them as such might be beneficial to drawing other members of the group to those articles. Similarly, if there were to be a second navigation box on a subtopic, spinning off from the first, those articles would probably be "high", and so on down the line. For those reasons, I might consider leaving the importance for the parent in place. However, the decision is ultimately yours. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I figured you were recovering, so I waited until I saw that you had removed the notice. I see the benefits of importance ranking, but right now I am not completely comfortable with having it in the AGS WP. As a compromise, one could easily have an updated list of important articles on the main page of the project – not as user friendly, but at least it draws focus off the inaccurate importance rating of any given article. I'll see if I can get a third (and a fourth) opinion on this, it'd be nice to hear what others think about importance ratings in any case. –Holt (T•C) 19:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally I think that the importancy field is pretty pointless when it comes to fairly small Wikiprojects, which I think this Wikiproject is unfortunately goingto be given the subject matter (there is only so much material to write on). bloodofox: (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I doubt that the division of articles into importance categories is compliant with WP:NPOV.--Berig (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Template:WPAGS" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WPAGS&redirect=no Template:WPAGS] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Estopedist1 (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate banners resulting from merge
I realise the merge has created duplicate banners. Once all the merges are finished, I was planning to request a bot task to resolve this, as recommended in WikiProject_Council/Guide/Task_forces (point 3). In the mean time, are duplicates really such a problem? Blanking is not a very good solution because now none of the pages formerly tagged with WPAGS (but not WP History) are in a tracking category. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, if it is going to be fixed, then that is fine. Could the bot task be requested now? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are five projects to be merged, so I was planning to wait to do all at once. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When you finish merging a project just send the template to TfD. This makes sure that nothing is missed as it has extra template editors eyes there. Gonnym (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * These template merges don't need to be discussed, because the merges of the WikiProjects have already been discussed and agreed upon. What would be the point of an additional TfD? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some technical discussion about how to merge the templates, rather than whether to merge them &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You redirect one to the other and remove the duplicates... that's it. Seriously guys, this is well trodden ground, we've already discussed it way more than is necessary. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That actually isn't how a merge is done. That is a redirect, which I'm not against, but you claimed this was a merge. Gonnym (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't really care what we call it... –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which is why you seem to be having a hard time understanding why this process is needed. Gonnym (talk) 07:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I know full well why it's happening, at least. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, a page I've never edited nor cared about I have ownership feelings to. Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)