Template talk:genre

Deletion debate
Just too vague. I have no real idea what this is supposed to refer to. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you check special:whatlinkshere/template:genre? It's used to add the word genre to context tags and categorize in Category:Genres. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 17:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But that's not a good thing is it? Unless genre has another meaning I'm not aware of, it would be just like Category:Types, Category:Styles or Category:Methods. Doesn't mean anything. If it's a parent category, it should contain things like Category:Video game genres (which I would support) but not mythology, which isn't a genre, if so, of what? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It looks useful to clarify the items that follow in the context tags. It would be nicer if it were followed by a ":" (colon) instead of a "," (comma). I have noted that Usually does not have a comma after it in context tags. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 19:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's used as too. &#x200b;— msh210 ℠ 19:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You do realise that that categorizes in and  separately? AFAICT you'd then want it not to categorize, at which point you can delete it any it changes nothing, a bit like  which has no advantage apart from brevity over  as by extension doesn't categorize. It would be simple enough to turn it into a non-categorizing template, but then if I delete it, it makes no difference whatsoever. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to update it per discussion. FWIW if Category:Genres contained genres (which it doesn't right now), I would support that. User:Cyberskull created it, so I think for him genre is synonymous with video game genre, which clearly for the rest of us, it isn't. But I don't advocating deleting the category, just having genres in the category:Genres. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved some of the contents to Category:Video game genres which is what I *think* he was trying to do, but it didn't work. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone objects, please say so. Otherwise the resulting empty categories need deleting. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks like it might be the core of a good idea for managing a set of related templates and categories. Unfortunately, I don't have good template foo. I would like this kind of thing if typing caused the entry to be placed in  and  and caused (film, photography) to be displayed. The general structure might be useful for many things. Do we already have context-type templates that work that way for any language or purpose? DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 15:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's what the author was going for. But I don't like having :genre: like that, for (or cinema? move?) I'd say yes, that should go in, but not just things like mythology, which is a genre of something, no doubt, but not just a "genre" with no other explanation. genre backs me up on this. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If it could generate the better category names, that would be better. Maybe this could go to cleanup for a while in hopes that someone could fix it? DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 16:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have an ingenious solution. Just write the categories out by hand Mglovesfun (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That fails to help us automagically identify the specific sense. It will also lead to less categorization. Why make people work when the computer can do it. We already don't let the machine do all that much of the formatting work. DCDuring TALK 01:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually fixed this quite a while ago. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Improved, so kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion debate (2)
Not a restricted-use label. Was used to supplement or replace definition text, orphaned by me. —Michael Z. 2010-04-14 20:05 z 
 * I essentially neutralized it by having it not categorize in any way, so it's like . AfAICT it already was orphaned, as deleting it would just cause to become . Mglovesfun (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you in favour of keeping it or deleting it?


 * Being a label implies some sort of usage (vocabulary used in genre? in genres?), but it was often used just to mean “A genre ...” in the definition. But often you couldn't tell what it meant. “Genre” doesn't clearly mean anything in a grammatical or usage label. (I don't know exactly what by extension is supposed to mean, either.) I orphaned it by removing it from 20-odd entries. —Michael Z. 2010-04-17 00:25 z 

Revise the definitions properly, then delete this template. --EncycloPetey 04:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh delete. I just got outvoted last time. People didn't seem to realise that the template couldn't do what the creator had intended it to. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, I hadn't noticed the previous deletion discussion. Embarrassed, but sticking to my story as to the template's inappropriateness. —Michael Z. 2010-04-17 19:06 z 


 * It's absolutely useless. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)