Template talk:WikiProject Metropolitan Museum of Art

cat class
, what is your objection for adding these links for ease of access? There is nothing in the documentation that states this as forbidden and I don't see why it would be either. czar 20:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The template is intended for use on category pages; it's not a normal feature of template doc pages - in fact, this is the first time that I've seen it on one. It gives links for four classes (Disambig; Draft; File; Portal) that this WikiProject banner does not use, so their presence is misleading. An accurate list of the links that you require is only one click away, via either of the two "custom class mask" links: there's one in the "This WikiProject banner uses" box before the documentation, and there's one in the "class" row of the documentation. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the Redirect class page--the project classifies those four categories. The point of having the template is being able to access the class categories directly from the banner page. Yes, there are other ways of accessing it, but it's doing no harm and it is handy for us. Please restore it. czar  02:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The presence of those four links does not mean that "the project classifies those four categories". All it means is that the four linked pages exist - nothing more. All four categories have no members, and if you attempt to place a page in one of them by going to a talk page (in any namespace) and adding  with e.g. Disambig, it won't be placed in  but in . If I were to create, it would also get listed, but it doesn't mean that the project uses (or even recognises) that class. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The /class subpage was configured incorrectly—it's fixed now. This is a new, small project, still in early configuration... There are no portals, no major disambig pages, and none planned within scope for the time being, but it makes sense to have them set up just in case. (Future-class would be a different story.) Whether the project wants to categorize those pages will be up to consensus. While I appreciate your help in setting up the documentation pages, unless you intend to participate in the project and want to start a discussion on not using those categories, I ask again that you restore the template you reverted. czar  21:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not here to argue for or against particular categories; I chose Future-class as an example of a classification that is infrequently used, yet is recognised by the template. I still have not been able to find any WikiProject banner templates that use  on their doc pages. In fact, I'll go further than that, and state that there are no uses if that template on the doc pages of any WikiProject banners; I am willing to be corrected on that. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, if the only argument against it is standardization then we'll be the first. If no one ends up using it, we can remove it at that time. Either way, I think we can agree it should be left up to the editors using the template czar  01:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)