First, we set up 366 Day "articles" that have absolutely no content except a template call, and will never be edited. And 366 Day "templates" that contain all the day article content and are always edited, which is completely backwards... but now we are putting all of the uniform article content into templates as well? This is a terrible idea! The primary content of article pages should not be in templates, and templates, which are supposed to be small pieces of constant information used in many articles, should be set up to be edited very few times becuase of the overhead in updating all of the articles that use them when they are changed. grumf. --Bp 08:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- The templates are all prefaced by a header tag, which means they'll always have an "edit" button on top no matter when they're used. And each one is going to be used in three or more articles anyway, and i can't justify copying the same information over three times. grumf. -- Captain M.K.B. 09:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
These arent navigational aides or common tables, they are the bulk content of the article. Furthermore, only 3? thats exactly the kind of small time thing that should just be copied, with the paragraph re-written to serve the individual article. uhg! --Bp 09:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to provoke your disgust. -- Captain M.K.B. 09:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Eh, I think it is a bad idea. Not disgusting. Maybe a "mmruh" will do it. mmruh. --Bp 09:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Before you go completely crazy with those, Mike, this is absolutely against everything what "wiki" normally stands for. It does make it harder to edit for people who aren't completely aware of all the Mediawiki functionality. It does take article content somewhere it doesn't belong (I think the day templates are a special case here, but that's another discussion). It does create some sort of content duplication - at least in appearance, by transcluding the same "content template" to several pages. Last but not least, it completely undermines the general structure we otherwise have - one article per item, using navboxes or categories to group them. I think there's absolutely no reason to have three or more articles for one group of items (unless it's an unannotated list in each case, linking to separate articles), each time repeating the same content in different order. This doesn't make reading the stuff easier, this doesn't make finding it easier - it accomplishes nothing in my opinion, and I'm absolutely for re-merging that content, alternatively creating "real" separate articles if necessary. And yes, this apparently something that needs to be discussed in more detail than just you adding snide remarks - thanks for that. :) -- Cid Highwind 09:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Cid and Bp. Before seeing this thread, I was about to create something similar after looking through the uniforms article. That stuff does not belong in templates, it belongs in articles (well, it belongs in the article, singular). I do not see a need for that information to be in half a dozen articles, it doesn't make sense to how we seem to run MA. Since it should be in just one article, it should not be in templates. All putting it there accomplishes is making it harder for people to edit. Now, when they go to edit that uniform article, they get the unpleasent surprise of seeing it is all templates, and now they have to open the template and edit them. You have added steps without reason. I had to deal with the same thing with the Memory Alpha:Requested pictures page yesterday. I wanted to edit the first paragraph, and what did I find? It was a template, a template that is only being used in that page. Why does it need to be a template? Why can't it simply be code in the page? It added work to fix what was a minor error. Why would we want to expand that problem? --OuroborosCobra talk
12:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Cid and Bp. Before seeing this thread, I was about to create something similar after looking through the uniforms article. That stuff does not belong in templates, it belongs in articles (well, it belongs in the article, singular). I do not see a need for that information to be in half a dozen articles, it doesn't make sense to how we seem to run MA. Since it should be in just one article, it should not be in templates. All putting it there accomplishes is making it harder for people to edit. Now, when they go to edit that uniform article, they get the unpleasent surprise of seeing it is all templates, and now they have to open the template and edit them. You have added steps without reason. I had to deal with the same thing with the Memory Alpha:Requested pictures page yesterday. I wanted to edit the first paragraph, and what did I find? It was a template, a template that is only being used in that page. Why does it need to be a template? Why can't it simply be code in the page? It added work to fix what was a minor error. Why would we want to expand that problem? --OuroborosCobra talk
- i don't think its so bad. if you click edit on a subsection in the article, you edit the appropriate template. if you click to edit the article, it gives you a list of templates present.
- you vigilant hawks didn't notice that i did the same thing a year ago with dedication plaques, did you? you weren't strenuously guarding Memory Alpha against possible improvements then? -- Captain M.K.B. 13:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Care to tell where the templates are on that exact page? -- Cid Highwind 14:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- What are you talking about Mike? I do not see any templates on the dedication plaques article. Maybe that is why I did not raise hell then. In addition, so what? I do not think it should matter that I did not notice something before. I've noticed it now. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- What are you talking about Mike? I do not see any templates on the dedication plaques article. Maybe that is why I did not raise hell then. In addition, so what? I do not think it should matter that I did not notice something before. I've noticed it now. --OuroborosCobra talk
- Sorry -- meant dedication plaque comparison. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)