![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Where exactly was this rule discussed? ViperSnake151 Talk 16:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to expand on it, but they are all so attached to the three original films. Some reviews even suggest that the they were just the original cuts (with the exception of the first film which was expanded as a bonus). I made a discussion in WP:TV to get this figured out. Lucia Black ( talk) 01:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Is good reads a reliable source in terms of ISBN and publisher? Lucia Black ( talk) 03:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Wondering what justification you have for deleting international programming on Template:Seven Network programming, Template:Network Ten programming and Template:Nine Network programming. You stated "Not appropriate to include programming produced by/for other networks" without discussion or citing a reason. The template is designated/titled "Seven Network programming (current and upcoming)", etc, which unlike American networks, contains a mix of locally produced and internationally acquired programming. The template isn't for "Seven produced progams, Nine produced programs, Ten produced programs" - it demonstrates their schedule, much like on similar American articles - both cable and network. There are examples of foreign made programming in American templates I found. Could you please explain further? Thanks, -- Whats new? (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for all your help with the Netflix original programs page. I've been trying to do as much as I can, but obviously your input its much better and it has concise the website for the better, which I was trying to do but didn't know how to. Also when you have a chance the Originals from Amazon and Hulu need some TLC. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andres balbuena ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
As you probably expected, the report didn't really result in much. Carry on editing :) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I saw that you reverted an edit of mine. I added Netflix because they are the main broadcaster for Next Class. I know Family aired it first but the show is made by Netflix (as can be seen in the credits of the show stating that). Just wanted to let you know. Also, for Degrassi: The Next Generation, we listed Canada's and the U.S. broadcasters. It's the same case for Next Class. Joshie ( New Horizons Await You) 17:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Robsinden regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. And I wasn't the one who submitted it; I only noticed that it was there and you hadn't been notified yet. I figured you might like to know.
J♯m (
talk |
contribs)
20:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
pls see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Banning articles from navigational aids -- Moxy ( talk) 20:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rob, care to share why you reverted my contribution on the films of The Pink Panther? MoxiM ( talk) 23:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey there. I have a question for you. So remember how you said we can't list "foreign" Networks in the info box? Well, what if the show is a split production show? Degrassi: TNG was a main Canadian show but also aired simultaneously in the US. So that's understandable for that show. But Degrassi: Next Class is not a Canadian show but a joint production between Netflix from the US and DHX Media (Family)in Canada. I was looking at other shows that possibly listed both Netflix and whatever network it's on in Canada or elsewhere. I found the show Between which is a joint production from a Canadian based company/City and Netflix, just like Degrassi: Next Class is with Netflix and DHX. They list the Canadian network and the US network (Netflix) since it's a split production. On those grounds, wouldn't that work for Degrassi: Next Class as well? So may I please have your opinion on this? Thank you. :) Joshie ( New Horizons Await You) 20:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The original network(s) on which the show has appeared. Do not add foreign broadcasters here.Therefore, if two networks are involved in the production, it would imply that it is okay to add both, as they are not "foreign" broadcasters. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 12:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of " Smells Like Teen Spirit", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 11:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
You redirected Template:Nebula Award Best Novel 1965–1980 etc. to Template:Nebula Award Best Novel - please make sure all the articles using the templates that now redirect there are updated properly (See: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Nebula Award Best Novel 1965-1980 etc.) -- Fixuture ( talk) 21:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Care to assist in expansion and sourcing? Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, my friend. You said it was too general, so, I narrowed the focus from Wealth to Extreme wealth. How about now?
Best,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 22:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
It's been a week with no objections. I'll move it to the mainspace. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 21:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I invite you to ongoing RM discussion. George Ho ( talk) 06:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
see here. best wishes. Frietjes ( talk) 20:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For further cleanup of Template:Music festivals and other wonderful work that you do on Wikipedia! gidonb ( talk) 00:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC) |
seems a bit much to have films in here ... Frietjes ( talk) 22:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
there is no generally accepted list of "Brat Pack" movies. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 08:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Soon after I edited the Marc Chagall template you came by (having never edited it before) and removed some old links to sister-projects which contained valuable reader information (you seem to relish removing data from readers, I don't know why), which you also did to the Rob F. Kennedy template which I recently edited. I've asked before if you are stalking my page edits, and you said no, but, along with other swoop-ins, I have to say "hmmmm". If not, and I guess it's not wiki-illegal, once again my apologies. Randy Kryn 14:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Moved discussion to article talk page. Mitchumch ( talk) 15:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Tom Sharp things JarrahTree 13:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, you seem familiar with the policies regarding templates for discussion. Could you help resolve an issue here (it's the government misconduct one)? Thanks. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 11:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
As a participator in the discussion at Talk:Universal Monsters (2014 film series)#Requested move 25 May 2016, you maybe interested in a discussion regarding a similar topic at Talk:Godzilla-Kong cinematic universe#Requested move 3 June 2016.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 15:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
That guideline does not say "use the spaced form in every case". Credits are usually listed how they are shown on-screen. We do not add or omit diacritical marks or similar because of WP:COMMONNAME either. It does not mean that's the only name that can be used in every case. nyuszika7h ( talk) 15:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
You wrote: "Hi. Please note that per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, the navbox {{ Classical guitar}} is not to be transcluded at Marko Topchii as he is not mentioned within the navbox. Navboxes provide navigation between articles, if they are not mentioned then it does not perform this function. They are not to be used as a "badge" or portal on loosely related topics. See Template talk:Aviation lists#RfC: Should this navbox be removed from non-mentioned articles? for a recent RfC on the same subject. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 07:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)" The page is mentioned in navbox in the category List_of_classical_guitarists. Moreover, the subject is active representative of the contemporary classical guitar society. So why this article classified as "loosely related" and "vaguely related". The main purpose to place the full navbox is not the "badge", but to symplify navigation to related articles and to separate classical guitar from other guitar instruments. Thank you. ( talk)
seems unnecessary since we already have Template:Anarchism and Template:Anarchism sidebar? Frietjes ( talk) 15:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Isn't this all cast by definition? 98.230.192.179 ( talk) 00:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Your reversion of my move without notification was in appropriate. In fact, you should have discussed it with me before reverting. Your edit summary suggest that the move was made without discussion. Absolutely correct. Most moods are made without discussion. Discussion is warranted before the move if there is good reason to believe it might be contentious. Given the vast predominance of CCH Pounder compared to C. C. H. Pounder, I am still at a loss to figure out why it is contentious. I think you should undo your revert and then raise a discussion if you have an argument why you think the rare term is preferable to the common name term.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 18:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to share with you the sequence of events from my point of view see can see why I am not happy with how this is being handled. I am an OTRS agent and field a lot of emails from people writing into Wikimedia with questions and requests. A common email is a specific edit request — we never mindlessly act on such a request, but look into the facts and circumstances and determine whether the edit is straightforward in which cases we might simply carry it out; if there are complications, we will provide advice about how to proceed. Here is the sequence of events from my point of view:
I respectfully ask you to self-revert and you can open an RM if you wish. If you refuse to self-revert, I'll do the reversion for you, and you can open an RM to see if the community agrees with your reading of the guideline. -- S Philbrick (Talk) 15:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm starting to worry about your possible bias. Why on earth did you remove a relevant template in this edit. You aren't a newbie, you know that edits should have an edit summary.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 17:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
There are some larger items of interest although this isn't the place so I'll be brief. Wikipedia sometimes looks like a microcosm of worldwide government issues. I presume this is true of all places but I'm more familiar with the US so I'll note that some things are done very locally and some things are done at the countrywide level and some things are done at a level in between. There are advantages and disadvantages to both so there's a natural tension. Local decisions can better reflect the interest of the local inhabitants, while countrywide decisions are potentially more efficient but can certainly provide more uniformity. In some cases uniformity is a good goal in some cases it is not necessarily as important.
Within Wikipedia, I hope it would be obvious that allowing each individual or even each wiki project to define conflict of interest as they choose is unworkable. We must have a rule that applies uniformly to all. For other matters, it makes a lot of sense to allow wiki projects to make some decisions. The ideal list of parameters in an INFOBOX is a good example of something that can be determined at the wiki project level. Whether or not a sports team INFOBOX should have a field for head coaches assistant coaches associate head coaches and director of basketball operations is a discussion that a wiki project can resolve but a Wikipedia wide RFC would struggle with, due to subject matter (lack of) knowledge. I deliberately chose INFOBOX is because they have been the subject of some controversy. I think it makes sense for a wiki project to debate among themselves the best parameters for INFOBOX is applicable to that wiki project, but I disagree with the wiki projects that think they have the right to decide that info boxes are either mandated or precluded. Sensibly, the community agreed.
It is natural that a wiki project will take on subjects of interest and might forget that the subject matter is not narrowly theirs to decide. A wiki project has the subject matter knowledge to discuss the types of templates that might be warranted in a wiki project, but if they then decide they aren't big fans of navigational templates, they are intruding into a Wikipedia wide responsibility. They might well have useful input into how navigational templates ought to be used project wide, but navigational templates are used throughout the project and no particular wiki project should be declaring that they are exempt from the overall rules.
I am sympathetic to the possibility that a navigational template can be overused. However, abuse of a particular navigational template is not licensed to declare that certain things cannot be done because they are in violation of some desire of some editors. I'm sympathetic to the goals of the bidirectional guideline but it's a crude tool that must be evaluated to determine whether it is keeping out nonsense or keeping out useful navigational tools.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Where exactly was this rule discussed? ViperSnake151 Talk 16:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to expand on it, but they are all so attached to the three original films. Some reviews even suggest that the they were just the original cuts (with the exception of the first film which was expanded as a bonus). I made a discussion in WP:TV to get this figured out. Lucia Black ( talk) 01:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Is good reads a reliable source in terms of ISBN and publisher? Lucia Black ( talk) 03:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Wondering what justification you have for deleting international programming on Template:Seven Network programming, Template:Network Ten programming and Template:Nine Network programming. You stated "Not appropriate to include programming produced by/for other networks" without discussion or citing a reason. The template is designated/titled "Seven Network programming (current and upcoming)", etc, which unlike American networks, contains a mix of locally produced and internationally acquired programming. The template isn't for "Seven produced progams, Nine produced programs, Ten produced programs" - it demonstrates their schedule, much like on similar American articles - both cable and network. There are examples of foreign made programming in American templates I found. Could you please explain further? Thanks, -- Whats new? (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for all your help with the Netflix original programs page. I've been trying to do as much as I can, but obviously your input its much better and it has concise the website for the better, which I was trying to do but didn't know how to. Also when you have a chance the Originals from Amazon and Hulu need some TLC. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andres balbuena ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
As you probably expected, the report didn't really result in much. Carry on editing :) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I saw that you reverted an edit of mine. I added Netflix because they are the main broadcaster for Next Class. I know Family aired it first but the show is made by Netflix (as can be seen in the credits of the show stating that). Just wanted to let you know. Also, for Degrassi: The Next Generation, we listed Canada's and the U.S. broadcasters. It's the same case for Next Class. Joshie ( New Horizons Await You) 17:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Robsinden regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. And I wasn't the one who submitted it; I only noticed that it was there and you hadn't been notified yet. I figured you might like to know.
J♯m (
talk |
contribs)
20:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
pls see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Banning articles from navigational aids -- Moxy ( talk) 20:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Rob, care to share why you reverted my contribution on the films of The Pink Panther? MoxiM ( talk) 23:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey there. I have a question for you. So remember how you said we can't list "foreign" Networks in the info box? Well, what if the show is a split production show? Degrassi: TNG was a main Canadian show but also aired simultaneously in the US. So that's understandable for that show. But Degrassi: Next Class is not a Canadian show but a joint production between Netflix from the US and DHX Media (Family)in Canada. I was looking at other shows that possibly listed both Netflix and whatever network it's on in Canada or elsewhere. I found the show Between which is a joint production from a Canadian based company/City and Netflix, just like Degrassi: Next Class is with Netflix and DHX. They list the Canadian network and the US network (Netflix) since it's a split production. On those grounds, wouldn't that work for Degrassi: Next Class as well? So may I please have your opinion on this? Thank you. :) Joshie ( New Horizons Await You) 20:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The original network(s) on which the show has appeared. Do not add foreign broadcasters here.Therefore, if two networks are involved in the production, it would imply that it is okay to add both, as they are not "foreign" broadcasters. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 12:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of " Smells Like Teen Spirit", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 11:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
You redirected Template:Nebula Award Best Novel 1965–1980 etc. to Template:Nebula Award Best Novel - please make sure all the articles using the templates that now redirect there are updated properly (See: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Nebula Award Best Novel 1965-1980 etc.) -- Fixuture ( talk) 21:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Care to assist in expansion and sourcing? Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, my friend. You said it was too general, so, I narrowed the focus from Wealth to Extreme wealth. How about now?
Best,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 22:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
It's been a week with no objections. I'll move it to the mainspace. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 21:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I invite you to ongoing RM discussion. George Ho ( talk) 06:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
see here. best wishes. Frietjes ( talk) 20:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar | |
For further cleanup of Template:Music festivals and other wonderful work that you do on Wikipedia! gidonb ( talk) 00:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC) |
seems a bit much to have films in here ... Frietjes ( talk) 22:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
there is no generally accepted list of "Brat Pack" movies. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 08:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Soon after I edited the Marc Chagall template you came by (having never edited it before) and removed some old links to sister-projects which contained valuable reader information (you seem to relish removing data from readers, I don't know why), which you also did to the Rob F. Kennedy template which I recently edited. I've asked before if you are stalking my page edits, and you said no, but, along with other swoop-ins, I have to say "hmmmm". If not, and I guess it's not wiki-illegal, once again my apologies. Randy Kryn 14:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Moved discussion to article talk page. Mitchumch ( talk) 15:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() ![]() | |
---|---|
Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon
|
-- Ipigott ( talk) 10:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Tom Sharp things JarrahTree 13:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, you seem familiar with the policies regarding templates for discussion. Could you help resolve an issue here (it's the government misconduct one)? Thanks. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 11:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
As a participator in the discussion at Talk:Universal Monsters (2014 film series)#Requested move 25 May 2016, you maybe interested in a discussion regarding a similar topic at Talk:Godzilla-Kong cinematic universe#Requested move 3 June 2016.-- TriiipleThreat ( talk) 15:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
That guideline does not say "use the spaced form in every case". Credits are usually listed how they are shown on-screen. We do not add or omit diacritical marks or similar because of WP:COMMONNAME either. It does not mean that's the only name that can be used in every case. nyuszika7h ( talk) 15:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
You wrote: "Hi. Please note that per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, the navbox {{ Classical guitar}} is not to be transcluded at Marko Topchii as he is not mentioned within the navbox. Navboxes provide navigation between articles, if they are not mentioned then it does not perform this function. They are not to be used as a "badge" or portal on loosely related topics. See Template talk:Aviation lists#RfC: Should this navbox be removed from non-mentioned articles? for a recent RfC on the same subject. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 07:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)" The page is mentioned in navbox in the category List_of_classical_guitarists. Moreover, the subject is active representative of the contemporary classical guitar society. So why this article classified as "loosely related" and "vaguely related". The main purpose to place the full navbox is not the "badge", but to symplify navigation to related articles and to separate classical guitar from other guitar instruments. Thank you. ( talk)
seems unnecessary since we already have Template:Anarchism and Template:Anarchism sidebar? Frietjes ( talk) 15:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Isn't this all cast by definition? 98.230.192.179 ( talk) 00:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Your reversion of my move without notification was in appropriate. In fact, you should have discussed it with me before reverting. Your edit summary suggest that the move was made without discussion. Absolutely correct. Most moods are made without discussion. Discussion is warranted before the move if there is good reason to believe it might be contentious. Given the vast predominance of CCH Pounder compared to C. C. H. Pounder, I am still at a loss to figure out why it is contentious. I think you should undo your revert and then raise a discussion if you have an argument why you think the rare term is preferable to the common name term.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 18:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to share with you the sequence of events from my point of view see can see why I am not happy with how this is being handled. I am an OTRS agent and field a lot of emails from people writing into Wikimedia with questions and requests. A common email is a specific edit request — we never mindlessly act on such a request, but look into the facts and circumstances and determine whether the edit is straightforward in which cases we might simply carry it out; if there are complications, we will provide advice about how to proceed. Here is the sequence of events from my point of view:
I respectfully ask you to self-revert and you can open an RM if you wish. If you refuse to self-revert, I'll do the reversion for you, and you can open an RM to see if the community agrees with your reading of the guideline. -- S Philbrick (Talk) 15:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm starting to worry about your possible bias. Why on earth did you remove a relevant template in this edit. You aren't a newbie, you know that edits should have an edit summary.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 17:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
There are some larger items of interest although this isn't the place so I'll be brief. Wikipedia sometimes looks like a microcosm of worldwide government issues. I presume this is true of all places but I'm more familiar with the US so I'll note that some things are done very locally and some things are done at the countrywide level and some things are done at a level in between. There are advantages and disadvantages to both so there's a natural tension. Local decisions can better reflect the interest of the local inhabitants, while countrywide decisions are potentially more efficient but can certainly provide more uniformity. In some cases uniformity is a good goal in some cases it is not necessarily as important.
Within Wikipedia, I hope it would be obvious that allowing each individual or even each wiki project to define conflict of interest as they choose is unworkable. We must have a rule that applies uniformly to all. For other matters, it makes a lot of sense to allow wiki projects to make some decisions. The ideal list of parameters in an INFOBOX is a good example of something that can be determined at the wiki project level. Whether or not a sports team INFOBOX should have a field for head coaches assistant coaches associate head coaches and director of basketball operations is a discussion that a wiki project can resolve but a Wikipedia wide RFC would struggle with, due to subject matter (lack of) knowledge. I deliberately chose INFOBOX is because they have been the subject of some controversy. I think it makes sense for a wiki project to debate among themselves the best parameters for INFOBOX is applicable to that wiki project, but I disagree with the wiki projects that think they have the right to decide that info boxes are either mandated or precluded. Sensibly, the community agreed.
It is natural that a wiki project will take on subjects of interest and might forget that the subject matter is not narrowly theirs to decide. A wiki project has the subject matter knowledge to discuss the types of templates that might be warranted in a wiki project, but if they then decide they aren't big fans of navigational templates, they are intruding into a Wikipedia wide responsibility. They might well have useful input into how navigational templates ought to be used project wide, but navigational templates are used throughout the project and no particular wiki project should be declaring that they are exempt from the overall rules.
I am sympathetic to the possibility that a navigational template can be overused. However, abuse of a particular navigational template is not licensed to declare that certain things cannot be done because they are in violation of some desire of some editors. I'm sympathetic to the goals of the bidirectional guideline but it's a crude tool that must be evaluated to determine whether it is keeping out nonsense or keeping out useful navigational tools.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 20:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |