Template talk:Gothic

wha is the point of this template? It groups unrelated meanings properly disambiguated at

Because they are not unrelated. The idea to was to facilitate anyone who might want to examine different aspects of Gothic. See Gothic (term).--SabreBD (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the template is not a suitable tool for this job, which the article Gothic (term) does ok. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with

The'FortyFive' 00:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Johnbod doesn't quite suggest the same thing (but I have asked for clarification). The object here was to ease access by readers to related areas and it was no doubt foolish of me to spend my time being bold and helpful. It strikes me that the same think might be achieved by changing the template to one on Gothic literature, or Gothic art and literature, which could include single links to

Gothic subculture under the "other" category. Unless the relationship between gothic revival and literature is also being disputed here, which would be very surprising.--SabreBD (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I never did get a response to this point. Is the objection to the inclusion of ancient Goths and would a template without them be more acceptable?--SabreBD (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find this template to have too many loosely connected topics only because they share the same root word. Does the Gothic language really relate to Gothic fiction, and do either relate to Goth subculture? This overly broad template should be broken up into smaller templates that are more separately focused on language, fiction, music, etc. Pinging Madreterra here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]