Template talk:Conjectural Title

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Current revision as of 17:18, 4 February 2008

This is the talk page of a deleted template. Please do not participate in the discussions archived here. If you can provide a reason for the existence of this template that hasn't been discussed below, you may start a new section.

So, rather than putting the TBD on this one, I'm just going to ask: what does this template do that couldn't be done with an individualized message for each article with a conjectural title? By that I mean one such as the one seen at the top of this version of Field Day intro. To me, this way seems better, as a template like this one seems to me to add clutter to the article (clutter that is effectively permanent, as it's not that likely TBC will confirm titles for these). The short messages are less cluttering and more informative, as they can actually tell the source of the conjectural title. Heimstern Läufer 09:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it would look a bit more sophisticated, and I still do, although, it may need to be a bit thinner, because you are sort of right about the clutter, but I really think it looks better. Thinner? Maybe. But words make it look like the article needs a template, since most other Wikis seem to have one, I just can't see why we don't need this, and in the below discussions, it seems people like the idea.--~ SlipStream 09:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Before I get to my point, let me say that if I thought this template were necessary, having the Visor Robot on it would be genius. That's a really nice touch. Alas, I don't think we need this template. For one, it's too blaring. I believe the {{noname}} template says everything we need to say, and I don't see any real reason for the two templates to exist alongside each other. — It's dot com 18:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually like this one better. I'm in favor of removing noname, and replacing it with this one. — Defender1031*Talk 18:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, do you mind saying why? This template gives less information than noname and is obtrusive in articles. — It's dot com 18:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's more noticable, and we can add the information giving feature easily. — Defender1031*Talk 18:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it... It's really bulky. And somewhat glaringly orange. It seems obtrusive, especially given that the template would likely be a permanent addition to the page (as TBC aren't likely to give a canonical name in the future). --DorianGray 19:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

DeFender1031: The problem I have is that it's too noticeable. We should definitely note that a title is uncertain, but I don't see any reason to shout it from the rooftops. — It's dot com 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, i see your point. Okay, then i suggest making the old one at least a little more noticeable. — Defender1031*Talk 19:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it can be made smaller, and colours can be changed, this discussion is about the template itself, that said, it is not about cosmetics, if anyone thinks it's ugly, change it, that's why Wikis are editable.

I think the template IS a positive contribution to pages, and that noname should be deleted, since it is redundent. Also, dot com, thanks for the compliment on the image, I liked the idea too.--~ SlipStream 02:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Note that this template, not noname, is the one that's redundant until consensus says otherwise. — It's dot com 03:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the colours to blues so it's less blaring.--~ SlipStream 05:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My only problem with this current template is that it won't explain where the assumed title comes from. The phrase "It may have been taken from the page title, or an interview, or simply assumed" is very vague and unclear. Instead, it should say something like "The title of this article is conjectural, meaning it has never been officially confirmed. It is taken from {{{1}}}." Then on the article, we put {{Conjectural Title|Strong Bad's first line.}}. – The Chort 12:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The noname template already does that. — It's dot com 18:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case, this template should be deleted. The way it's written makes it sound like "We have absolutely no idea why we are calling this article thus and could have easily made it up without consulting any evidence." – The Chort 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous Conversations

Just for reference, two previous discussions of this idea can be seen in the Main Page archive (very short), and on the Visor Robot's talk page. --DorianGray 09:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] State of the tempalte as of now

This is the only page in Category:Pages for Discussion, and I think we should clear this up once and for all. By reading the above sections it's a 4-2 for deletion. Main reasons for deletion: Too big and intrusive, redundant for another template already in use, no real chance for being taken off the page once it's there and uninformative. Main reason for keeping: Maybe needs to be a little more big, good image. Normally a 4-2 isn't real consensus for deleting, but I think we can all see the reasons speak for themselves. Anyone here want to speak before the template get removed? — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 11:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the mamy reasons why I don't like this template is that it draws too much attention to the fact we don't know the character's/toon's name. We only use templates if they're going to be temporary and if we need the reader's help to retify the problem (ie stub, rename, TBD). We don't intend on people making additional suggestions of what the article should be called instead because we simply don't know what the article is actually called. Due to the lack of activity on this talk page, I think we've reached a decision: delete. – The Chort 22:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)