Inclusion criteria[edit]

In case any edit wars crop up around this template, I think we should note some inclusion criteria. I'm in favour of broad criteria, namely any radical bookshop/social centre that disseminates political literature, acts as a meeting space or library for radical groups. In other words, I don't think it would be produictive to insist on reliable sources explicitly calling the operation an "infoshop" (which would injudiciously exclude non-American operatinos, for example). the skomorokh 23:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the content of this template, I'd like to suggest that it be renamed to Template:Infoshops and social centers.  — Scott • talk 15:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As no objection's been raised since I made the suggestion three years ago, I've gone ahead and done the rename.  — Scott • talk 17:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accurate reflection of number of centers[edit]

Hi my problem with this list is that it gives a totally wrong impression of the number of social centres in existence. If you go here http://usurpa.squat.net/ And click on the PDF you get the events happening in Barcelona centres this week. As I’m writing this there are 60 centres listed as running events this week. This is more centres than this entire list has listed for the world in just one city. Athens Greece also has vast numbers of centres, Italy at least 2 in every city and many more in places such as Milan or Rome. My point is that to make this list encyclopaedic it would be gigantic. The list gives the impression that it is mainly a small northern European phenomenon whereas it’s actually more prevalent in Southern Europe. FrutiDurruti (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi FD - the list can only reflect places that we have articles for; and in order to have an article, a place has to meet our general notability guideline. Perhaps there needs to be an article about social centres as a southern European phenomenon; that's certainly possible if there are reliable sources that discuss it.  — Scott • talk 23:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another possibility is to create a list article, detailing all the centers Jonpatterns (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ungdomshuset[edit]

Ungdomshuset in Denmark reopenned in a new location, should be moved to Current, and left in old? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

good point! the page itself is updated so i'll pop it back in current, for my feeling it doesn't need to remain in former Mujinga (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Binz[edit]

[1] @Mujinga, care to explain this re-revert? Through BRD, your addition has been contested, so the courtesy is to discuss rather than add it back yourself. czar 21:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Czar Sure. The explanation is that you appear to be hounding me by policing my edits (fro exmaple: herehere and here), which is flattering, i guess. This template has quite vague inclusion criteria, as stated above. It started off i believe as an 'infoshops' infobox, then was changed to 'social centres and infoshops' now for some reason it is 'autonomous social centres.' I agree with the original discussion point that "I don't think it would be produictive to insist on reliable sources explicitly calling the operation an "infoshop" (which would injudiciously exclude non-American operatinos, for example)." If you now want to insist that all autonomous social centres need to be reliably sourced as such, please discuss it first here, seems like a good place for it. I would note that if that is the case you should practice what you preach and explicitly reference the recently recreated 121 Centre as such.Mujinga (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When an editor adds articles to a navbox it is customary for other editors to check that work. Indeed, that's not hounding but the whole point of Wikipedia.
I'd be fine with a reference that referred to Binz as an infoshop or any reasonable derivate of a social center (e.g., having social center functions but not explicitly labeled that), but that article, where you've reverted me without justification as well, offers no source to cite either approach.
These tu quoques and lack of good faith across multiple talk pages are really tiring. 121 Centre is indeed already sourced to a reference that calls it

"a squatted autonomous centre, serving the local community as a bookshop, cafe, gig and rehearsal space, printing facility, office and meeting space"

If you are an experienced editor, then you should be familiar with BRD. Your edit has been contested, so it should revert to its stable/original state until we can reach a talk page consensus. czar 15:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1 OK i’m going to talk very slowly and long-winded this time round since you didn’t seem to get my point last time.

2 I asked you for your criteria on what is an autonomous social centre, since i am fine with the previously stated opinion that:

3 “I don't think it would be produictive to insist on reliable sources explicitly calling the operation an "infoshop" (which would injudiciously exclude non-American operatinos, for example)."

4 i am fine with this becuase we have to remember that english wikipedia covers the entire world not just USA. if ‘autonomous social centre’ is currently in vogue in the USA then great but we cannot expect all projects to explicitly identify themselves as such.

5 in my opinion Binz was obviously a social centre. this is why i added the reference from vice saying “The occupation housed 50 people and provided workspace for 100” since a project of that size will no doubt have a cafe and infoshop. you then reverted this edit, presumably becuase the reference was on the next sentence, not the one that explcitly said autonomous social centre.

6 i don’t think autonomous social centres need to be explicitly labelled as such.

7 if you do, i have supplied a link on the binz occupation talk page which in my opinion by calling the place a Kulturzentrum, talking about the cafe etc shows it to be a social centre. my reference to your pedantry is becuase i am assuming you objecting that the Binz is not explicitly referenced as a soical centre … even though we havent agreed that is necessary AND even though it actually does appear to be a social centre - something which it would be great to get a third opinion on

8 i have no idea why i need to tell you this when my edit said “please see talk”

9 my further point is that if you are insisting that autonomous social centres need to be explicitly labelled as such (which in my opinion, as previously stated in 4, is not necessary) then you should be judged on the same level. therefore the sentence “121 Centre was an occupied autonomous social centre in the Brixton district of South London between 1981 and 1999” would need to have a reference on it.

10 further, your reference, which you didn't supply above, seems to be this one from the anarchist cookbook. since the phrase "a squatted autonomous centre, serving the local community as a bookshop, cafe, gig and rehearsal space, printing facility, office and meeting space" is marked by quotation marks in the text and is unreferenced, im worried this is simpy lifted from the 121’s own publicity and thus no use as a source

11 by the way im more than happy to hear other opinions here, Scott you expressed an interest what do you think? Mujinga (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Vice source is fine for Binz, as I've already expressed on its talk page. I already responded above re: explicit citations for "autonomous social center" so not sure why it bears repeating: if it sounds like anything described at autonomous social center, then no qualms. But the article was not sourced as such when I started this thread. If you're honestly contesting the 121 Centre citation, you can take it up on its talk page. czar 17:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All i ask from you is to be consistent. Great! We both agree that social centres don't need to be explicitly labelled as such. Then i don't understand why you would need to make this this edit and justify it by telling me "the whole point of referencing on Wikipedia is for readers to follow the immediate link to verify the article's contents" Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
? The Binz occupation article text claimed it was a social center, but the only ref on that claim (NZZ) did not state or imply this, so I added the Vice ref to the sentence to support the claim. It's standard verification responsibility. czar 13:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh no! We disagree. You are off on your own again, arguing that social centres do need to be explicitly labelled as such. Mujinga (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal[edit]

Proposal to change the name of this template back to 'Infoshops and social centres.' Or a new name that fits the member pages better, to be discussed below.

Rationale: I don't think the phrase 'autonomous social centre' really can be applied to places like CIRA, Extrapool, Freedom Press, 491 Gallery, The Forest, whereas the looser phrase infoshop or social centre could be applied. I don't want to delete these places, rather give the template a better name. A lot of the USA projects seem more like bookshops, thus again the same problem.

Timescale: This is not an urgent discussion, so I'm happy to wait a few months for opinions before making any change. Mujinga (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. - yup, that being the infoshop
  2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article. - this guideline isn't so important since as the literature (eg Lacey) makes pains to state, infoshops and social centres are vaguely defined themselves
  3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. - yup
  4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. - yup .. and category as well
  5. 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. - yup

Mujinga (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_27#Template:Infoshops
re: "changed it back," ? The edit history has this title preceding the other by years. When retitling an navbox, cut-and-paste is not the way to go—it makes a mess and doesn't preserve the edit history. Perhaps most perplexing, infoshops are a subset of autonomous social spaces, not vice versa. But my original points (above) remain, so taking to TfD for outside opinions. czar 14:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You "forgot" step three of the TfD. Mujinga (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I use a common script that notifies the appropriate parties automatically. czar 01:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed the cut and paste move. Also I think that the original title "Infoshops and social centers" was best, because as Infoshop says they "can form part of a larger radical bookshop, archive, autonomous social centre or community centre...". The relationship between those is strong enough to form the basis for this navbox.  — Scott • talk 13:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for doing the fix, sorry for the extra work. I was going to request a history merge once the deletion "debate" was over but that has been stalled for 2 weeks now. I agree "Infoshops and social centers/centres" is the best name, but in that case i can already see us heading back for a new deletion debate since someone will no doubt pipe up to say navboxes have the requirement (even if it's only actually a guideline) that There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template. Mujinga (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories