This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rotational (talk | contribs) at 20:48, 19 March 2009 (→Template:Unreferenced-inline). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:48, 19 March 2009 by Rotational (talk | contribs) (→Template:Unreferenced-inline)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| < March 18 | March 20 > |
|---|
March 19
Template:Southern Nazarene University
Goes against WP:NAV#Properties ("Navigation templates provide navigation" No. 1 & No. 3; "Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles" No. 1; "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles" No. 1; "Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative" No. 1): Largely non-extant links for non-notable topics, links to unrelated pieces of OKC; again, non-extant links for non-notable topics; again, links to unrelated pieces of OKC, not supported by WP:RS; does not match http://home.snu.edu/dept/VSG/VSG.pdf VSG. Additionally, goes against WP:CLN#Navigation templates ("As with categories, all the articles in a template should substantially deal with the subject of the box. Ask yourself, is the subject of this box something that would be mentioned on every article in it? If the answer is 'no', a category or list is probably more appropriate." & "Disadvantages of templates" No. 3). Attempted colour correction and utility alteration reverted by creator: potential WP:OWN and WP:COI issues. Regardless, template is unnecessary, function better served by a "Category:Southern Nazarene University" for the small number of existing and notable articles. Aepoutre (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Template:Bosnian War Camps
I created this template, I went ahead and added its contents to Template:Campaignbox Bosnian War, so its no longer needed. PRODUCER (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Template:Unreferenced-inline
Template duplicates function of {{unreferenced}} and was only created to be placed at the bottom of articles (e.g. on Mary Maytham Kidd), which goes against the standardization for clean up templates at WP:TMC. Rkitko 12:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Strong keep Since when has Rkitko become psychic and been able to divine ulterior motives for the use of templates. This template, in common with many other in-line templates, was designed to be less in-your-face than the boxed version. As for placement, it can be put anywhere in the article, even though WP:TMC states quite clearly If too many tags are piled at the top of an article, the article starts being eclipsed by the tags, especially with short or stub articles. Please try to consolidate them into the ((articleissues)) template as much as possible.
In keeping with a lot of Rkitko's recent editing, this has more than just a hint of personal vendetta. Rotational (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)- Comment Please be civil. This has nothing to do with you. I just don't see the point of this template and I don't believe there are any other clean up templates that are "in-line" like this. The clean up templates were recently standardized, and the quote from WP:TMC has more to do with a suggestion to use {{articleissues}} than suggesting to place the tags elsewhere. I see no need for an in-line version of this template. --Rkitko 20:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I see nothing in my comments above which can be construed as uncivil. You have already made perfectly clear your abhorrence of anything which is not boxed or lined, so there is no need to belabour it. Rotational (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Template:RIAA Diamond
- Template:RIAA Diamond (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Navboxes (according to WP:NAVBOX) are "to facilitate navigation between those articles". I think it is unlikely that someone is going to want to navigate between the different albums that the RIAA has certified as Diamond. This would be better served by a category or maybe a list article. JD554 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Abstain: I think this would be better off as a category. Also if editors want to they can always add the ♦ symbol and date to the certifications box on the album article. The template at the moment already looks big and will continue to grow over the months. No vote from me. MegX (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. A list of all the diamond albums already exists at List of best-selling albums in the United States. This template just repeats the same information, for as the nom says an unlikely and unnecessary navigational ability. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)