Template talk:Sociology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sociology template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Spring cleanup

I just did a major cleanup of the template. It really got bloated with miscellanea over time, which made it practically useless as a guide to exploring the discipline. Some of the recent changes were good--major subjects were previously missing--but the additions were too many and too disorganized. If you compare the state of the template from right before yesterday's edits [1] with how it looked about a year ago (see below on the right), it is clear that the more minimal version makes for a much better navigation template. This is because specialists in sociology are unlikely to use this template for much--they already know the layout of the field, and can go directly to the specific topics that concern them. On the other hand, an interested reader who is not versed in the discipline could have used the more minimal version of the template to survey the major areas of the discipline and get a summary of its major contributions. While the newer version was far more comprehensive, it was unclear that anyone would have made use of that fact. My guess is that, while still not useful to specialists, it would have been too foreboding and disorganized to be useful for non-specialists. Had non-specialists attempted using it, however, it would have quickly taken them to some topics that are quite esoteric, as well as to others that have no direct connection to sociology at all. I think they would have quickly given up on using this template altogether.

So, my goal in the cleanup was two-fold: first, I wanted to keep the most useful updates from the newer version of the template. These were key topics such as class and mobility that were missing from the older template. But second, I wanted to return the template to its far more usable (and aesthetically appealing) slimmer format. In the process, I (by necessity) made a number calls about what to keep and what to leave out that fell into a gray area. If you think I kept out anything that could qualify as a key sociological subject, then please put it back in. But please, keep in mind that only an a well-organized and minimal template is useful! Let's work together to keep it from being bloated again.

DarwinPeacock (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template style update

I'd like to update this template to use the standard {{Sidebar with heading backgrounds}} template for formatting. It should come out looking almost identical, but with cleaner markup "under the hood". Any objections/suggestions? Thanks. Quiddity (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Tell me if you want a different shape of logo image made to fit the proportions better. DarwinPeacock (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated it, but wasn't sure whether to use the old custom colors, or to use the default ones - I went with the default for simplicity. If anyone particularly desires it, I (or they) can change it to use the old colors (instructions at {{sidebar}}, or request it here and I will do so).
I also added a link to the Outline of sociology.
I'd tentatively suggest re-organizing the content into a purely linear format (1 link per line), which would look something like this:

It's a bit longer, but I think clearer. Up to you. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It looks good. I think I personally prefer it with multiple per line -- the one-per-line is just too long. I just tried to mess with cellpadding/cellspacing to get it to take up a little less room, but it seems like like that's not possible. Do you know if there's a away (like a different class) to get it to be a little tighter? DarwinPeacock (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we take the linebreaks and divs out of the "contentx = " sections, that tightens it all up again. [done]. I do think it is a bit too dense (for myself, and possibly for some other readers who are unfamiliar with the topic), but it's subjective, and the compact layout has its own advantages. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, this is certainly too tight -- I prefer your previous version. The padding I was trying to remove was actually the stuff from between the cells and the main body of the table (like between the light-blue background that "Sociology" is written on and the edge of the whole table) -- in other words, I was trying to affect width, not height. No worries if that isn't possible. DarwinPeacock (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out how to do that either, nor find any examples that do that. However...

The table is only as wide as the widest line. So, in the draft-example on this page, I've made it drastically thinner just by changing the line "Related fields and subfields" to "Fields and subfields" (and by reducing the image from 200px to 150px). I also placed the "Sociology of:" list into a 2-per-line format. Perhaps that alleviates your concerns regarding length?

Or... we could shrink the in-use template in similar ways: more line breaks (the widest line is currently "Social psychology · Medical sociology"), and a thinner image.

Thoughts? :) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Sidebar: Dec 2009

Sociology fr:Modèle:Branches de la sociologie id:Templat:Sosiologi pt:Predefinição:Sociologia

The sidebar, I believe, has been improved significantly since this was last discussed. A number of excellent pages previously missing from the sociology portal let alone the sidebar (Islamic sociology, for example) have now been added, as well as some central terms such as structure or agency and socialisation (I'm not sure we can fit any more than that). The template is already pretty long/wide, however, so please don't enlarge the dimensions any further! The problem is therefore picking what to omit and replace. Please don't replace a significant topic with a lesser one just because you're interested in it!--Tomsega (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody knows how to close the gap between "list of sociologists · Index" and "v·d·e" at the bottom, it's probably unnecessary space. I can't work out how to get rid of it. --Tomsega (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The gap separates the meta-elements (vde) from the template-content itself. If the gap were removed, we'd need a horizontal line or something instead, which would take up the same space. So, I don't think that is a problem. (Also, I can't figure out how to remove it, either. ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. In response to the justified opinion that the bar is getting too long, removing the 'related disciplines' section as this is unnecessary. --Tomsega (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Network Analysis Diagram?

Does the Image have to be an Network Diagram? SNA is just one part of sociology, albeit recent and rising it is very unfair towards all the other approaches - historically and contemporary - to set an SNA-diagram as an idol for sociology. The Image at [2] is far better, as the message it depicts goes back to the ethymology of sociology the latin word: [3] which is the common divisor of sociology in all its flavors. --Axel Kittenberger (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victimology

I added this to the bottom of the topics. Get back to me or state your case here if you think I'm being too bold. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ATTN: New article authors

ATTN: New article authors & editors

If you are creating a new article & using this template, or adding the template to an old article; please complete two additional tasks: 1) add all articles using this template to the hidden category: Category:Sociology index ; and 2) please check the article talk-page to ensure that the Template:WikiProject Sociology is included on that page. Thank you! Meclee (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another spring cleanup

This nav bar gets used on a whole lot of pages, so it has to be minimal and slim. This means that (a) when new links are added, attention needs to be paid to the formatting, so that the nav bar stays at roughly the same width as before; (b) there should only be links to topics which a user would be unable to locate by clicking other logically related links from the nav bar; and (c) the links should only be to major areas, not specific topics of inquiry, because there are too many topics of inquiry to fit all here.

So, for example, there doesn't need to be a link to "inequality" because the "social class", "mobility" and "stratification" links already cover much of the same area; the reader should be able to easily navigate to the inequality article through one of these. Similarly, there doesn't need to be a "feminist sociology" link because the "sociology of gender" article prominently discusses the topic in its first section, and a reader could easily locate the feminist sociology article via this link.

And there are simply too many topics of investigation to include any but the biggest ones in the list. (Unless we add a collapsing section for them, which may work well though I think it may be a pain to manage.) - ^Darwin/_Peacock ^[Talk] 23:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Concepts" section?

I've just seen this template at Power (social and political) and wondered if a "Concepts" section (that included Power) would be worthwhile/possible..? The comment at the start of the code pleads for the template to be kept succinct, so perhaps not; on the other hand, the template could be converted into a {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}}..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to footer?

This template is rather bulky to be used as a sidebar, and too general a subject for that position. The guidelines in WP:NAVBOX provide a list of criteria for navboxes in general and notes that "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines." Two that it does not meet are:

The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.

I propose changing this template into a horizontal (footer) template. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the guidelines state that a navbox is for navigating between articles, so it should not be on any articles that it does not mention. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is already a horizontal (footer) template for sociology, at Template:Sociology2. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it isn't used on any pages and there has been very little work on its content, so I think it makes more sense to consider this one. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And frankly, it is not nearly as effective/ comprehensive as the sidebar. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my view this is a very good, stable, 'mature' disciplinary template. Over the years, it has needed housekeeping from time to time to keep it from getting too big. Other than that, though, I think it has served its purpose well. "If it ain't broke..." Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing any change to its content, just its location on the page. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess I did not read your initial note closely enough; thank you for the clarification. It may be that I'm used to the current sidebar navbox, but I quite like/ prefer it where it is. Other editors may have different views, though. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about the other question - putting the navbox on pages that are not in its list? Seems like overlinking to me (see below). RockMagnetist(talk) 02:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles should be linked?

I originally stated this question above, but to avoid confusion I'll put it in its own subsection: The guidelines state that a navbox is for navigating between articles, which I think implies that it should not be on any articles that are not listed in the navbox. Should the template be removed from those pages? RockMagnetist(talk) 02:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An added point: for articles not listed in the navbox, a link to Outline of sociology would probably be more useful and would reduce overlinking. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for breaking out this related question. Interesting to me that the navigation sidebox at WP:NAV itself is rather large! It does not bother me that the Sociology sidebar is used on many more articles than appear in the sidebar. I would not want the sidebar larger: it would become cumbersome. Limiting its use to only articles included in the navbox seems overly restrictive, however. I like the suggestion of including and linking it to Outline of sociology. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there is some irony there. Note, however, that I was suggesting a link to Outline of sociology instead of a navbox in articles that are not in its list - one link in See also instead of 60. The navbox already has a link to the outline. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is a middle way. There are articles like Taboo that are part of psychology and anthropology as well as sociology, but the sociology navbox spans the lead, TOC and first section. To me, that seems intrusive. Another example is Anomie, where another navbox that actually does include that article is squeezed out of the lead by this navbox. So here is an alternate proposal: Only use the navbox where sociology is the primary category for a subject, and if the article isn't listed by the navbox, use a horizontal navbox instead of a sidebar. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historical sociology

Is historical sociology not a subfield, rather than a method?

It's method would be "historical analysis", etc.

I think this should be moved into subfields as historical sociology is a particular flavour of sociology that has underpinning methods to undertake it. Jamzze (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated this to a sub-field and added on the more apt historical method page to the methods section. Jamzze (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People section

Hi all,

The people section of this template offers a great launchpad for readers to see a top-level view of key people within sociology.

However, I think it currently offers limited engagement with figures outside of western fields as well as having an unbalanced focus on men.

I wanted to suggest adding sub-headings within the 'People' section around organising key figures under their main location (e.g. European, North American, etc.). This will help highlight to readers the current focus of the key people and create room to build representation from further areas of the world. Jamzze (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]