This template is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. For guidelines on this template's usage, see its documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes 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.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards
This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States 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.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
Thanks for the note. Losing the redlinks isn't too bad as Pulitzer Prize for History still has them linked. But removing the works themselves and replacing them with authors gives the impression that the author has won the prize when technically it is given to the book. Your new template {{PulitzerPrize BiographyorAutobiography}} has this problem. Would you consider a new template Pulitzer Prize for History by author (this being Pulitzer Prize for History by work)? Perhaps then author templates can be linked from author pages and this template from the works themselves. Just my two cents. Tassedethe (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think having Authors in the name makes it clearer. I agree that templates that have insufficient blue links aren't desirable; they can detract from the pages they are transcluded into. Thanks for all your efforts. Tassedethe (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me first say that I love what you have done with the other templates. This whole area needed a lot of work and Tony has done a great job to help clean up this area. As for the current template, I would have to disagree with your recommendation to remove the works because most of the works are redlinked. I think that the redlinks encourage people to create the articles in question (which I think everyone would agree should be created). Therefore, I think redlinks help push people into creating content and I favor them when the refer to articles that should be created. Remember (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I haven't lost track, I have created all of the templates outlined above and implemented 5 of the 6. As for the works. I have done a lot of templates in other areas and generally templates don't get created until the vast majority of the links are blue. I personally like redlinks too, but at WP:GAC, WP:FAC, WP:FLC and WP:PR, it seems that they are discouraged. Only in instances where it is extremely likely that an article will be forthcoming are they encouraged. Most editors shy away from creating templates where too many redlinks exist. Wikipedia is at a pretty highly developed stage and a topic where the majority of links are redlinks is one of questionable notability. I am not saying that Pulitzer Prize winning poems are not notable, it is just that for some reason editors have not been interested in compiling the content and sources. I think that when at topic gets about 75% full, the remaining redlinks may seem like omissions and editors might be likely to stub them out. When 90% are redlinks editors will think, this topic just isn't that notable and it may be a while before the article is created. Redlinks are not really appropriate when we don't expect an article soon. Thus in keeping with the other areas where I have been involved in developing templates I am not producing templates for highly redlinked areas.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this template is overwhelming in the information it presents, however I might've suggested the authors be removed. Other than that I don't have any noteworthy comments on the format. —Mrwojo (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't like any template that uses a yellow stripe, it always makes me think I've got a message! Otherwise I have no other preference. Tassedethe (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
