Template talk:Living things in culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Tree of Life (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


It seems entirely helpful to pipe links where article names repeat phrases such as "in culture", when all readers need to know is the name of a taxon such as an animal species so as to navigate to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You JUST now added back some section links with your last edit, have you taken even five minutes to read the navebox instructions? Why do I still have to explain stuff like this senior editors? "Helpful" is utterly irrelevant, this is a navigation template they exists to link full articles, not redirects and not sections.★Trekker (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm SO SO SO SO tired of having to point this out to people who should know better. Navigation templates exist to be a tool to link existing articles, not be an instruction manual for readers.★Trekker (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
@★Trekker: Please use WP:CIVIL language, and take care not to give the impression of bullying or attempting to intimidate other editors. Such behaviour is unacceptable everywhere on Wikipedia.
To reply: yes, I am familiar with the policies. The "navebox instructions" you cite are actually just an "unofficial guidance essay" and are only opinions. The actual policy, the official guideline, does not mandate the changes you made, and indeed it does not even require links to be live – it just asks that the red and blue for live and dead links not be changed for other colours.
To return to the current template, I have made a compromise between what I would suggest, which is that we usefully link direct to the relevant sections of major articles like Ant to assist readers with navigation, which after all is the purpose of the template. Linking to the whole article may actually leave readers bemused, and they'll then have to notice that there is an "In human culture" (or similar) section in the table of contents. The official guideline permits direct linking. The guideline also (a fortiori) permits linking to articles, again like Ant, which include (lengthy) sections on culture but are not wholly about it. There is no requirement to remove such links as you seem to believe, and indeed if the guideline said so, it would be wholly counter to the needs of the encyclopedia. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I know of all of that but any person trying to work a navebox in any other way than the essay are setting up everything for a confusing failure. The nr 1 rule of that official list is that All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject which I don't se every single animal article which happens to have a small section on their cultural relevance having, pretty much every animal has cultural significance. I'm not going to get myself blocked by edit warring becuse you want to do it this way but I still think this is terrible.★Trekker (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll think about it for a week or two, there's no hurry, and I agree we should aim to comply with the essay as far as possible. What I'll do now is simply restore links to the whole articles, leaving out the #section parts that were recently removed (I think there were only 5), so that they're consistent with the rest of the template. In the long term the best solution will be to create articles on the cultural aspects of the major animals listed; in many cases (such as Ant) there's already easily enough material to do that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


For the avoidance of doubt, given the breadth of this term, "Culture" as used here is defined exactly as in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article Culture, and summarized in the context section of Living things in culture, that is to say, whatever is transmitted by social learning. This is explained in detail in the Culture article, and cited both there and in the Living things in culture article. Similar definitions can be found in any scholarly (e.g. anthropological) account of human culture and (for example) any sociology textbook. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The title, after the move, displays as "Human uses of living things", the image is … improvable. cygnis insignis 05:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to change the name of the template to match the new title. As you well know, the change of title was driven by the difficulty other editors had with the (well-defined) concept of Culture (as in that article,), most probably by confusion between 'high culture' (the arts) and the more general meaning of the term. The title 'human uses of' is circumlocutory but correctly descriptive. Happy to consider other images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)