Template talk:Conjectural Title
From Homestar Runner Wiki
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
