Wikipedia talk:Template locations

message: I think the poll is premature. Besides the custom that polls should be a last resort, there has apparently been no discussion or determination of specifics such as how long the poll would run or the numerical basis for determining a "winner." Maurreen 20:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He was not transferring them (which would not really have been that big a problem) he was deleting them.--Fenice 06:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About the poll

message: I posted the comment on the COTW section but in case it isn't seen I'm going to place it here to. Does that section include Sub-COTWs(ex:UKCOTF,BCOTW,PLCOTW, etc.). If it does then the section should be made more clear if it doesn't then  I believe we should create another combined one for those templates. Falphin 20:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I lean toward treating COTW, AID and the sub-COTW the same. Maurreen 21:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub-COTWs

message: ====Belong on Talk Pages ONLY====
#See Template talk:Unreferenced#Comments and Template:Edcomment for reasoning. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Template:AID]]

message: #See Template talk:Unreferenced#Comments and Template:Edcomment for reasoning. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Belong on Talk Pages ONLY

message: #~~~~ 14:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Belong in Articles ONLY

message: I am the one who will be posting this template most of the times. This template is quite different from the others listed here in that it is only on about twenty articles at a time, and stays there for ten days on average. It shows the reader as well as the editor that problems have been identified and that we know that the article needs improvement.--Fenice 15:47, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Current tally (in the form of talk page - article page):
* 3-7-0
* 3-5-0
* 3-6-0
* 2-6-0
* 1-8-0
* 0-7-1
* 2-6
* 2-7-0
* 0-7-0
* 1-4-1
* 3-3
Total: 20-66
So far, other than the "Album" template, the voters prefer using article pages by at least a 2-1 ratio. This suggests to me that, overall, these have little controversy. To work toward consensus, I think we'd be better off with a discussion along the lines of how to make templates better overall, less distracting to general readers, etc. Maurreen 20:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with people being allowed to do what they want. But it is important to note that such a result does not allow people to unilaterally mass-move templates from articles to talk pages. ~~~~ 23:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My issue is that it could be a source of edit conflict. Falphin 23:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Early tally, etc.

message: I'm not sure where's the best place to write this, but maybe ...
#There should be a limit on the number of templates that appear at the top of any given article.
#There is a way to consolidate a few templates to avoid cluttering pages -- for example, one template could list multiple types of warnings. 
#Some of the individual templates should be slimmed down. Maurreen 21:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideas for improvement

message: I've worked on the Wikipedia:Template standardisation/article proposal quite a bit now and have come up with the framework for the competition.  The reasoning is that I don't see the argument as being as simple as article/talk page location.  I would support placing some designs of certain templates on the article page, but not others.
This is interesting to find an idea about what people would want, but I think that giving people the chance to come up with template designs and positions (top of the article, bottom-right of the article, on the talk page, etc.) gives a lot more freedom and is more likely to come up with a consensual solution.  violet/riga (t) 00:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not simply a case of article/talk page 

message: Both  and  serve to tell that 'this article is part of that wikiproject'. By extension, assuming identical consensus is reached on both of them, the same consensus should apply to any template that tags an article as part of a wikiproject. I believe this to be common sense, but in case people disagree I've listed it on the voting page anyway. Please comment. Radiant_>|< 11:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
:This vote is somewhat malformed. Very similar templates should have been voted on in groups, e.g. there is no reason  and  should be in different locations, and it is also clear that all WikiProjects deserve to be treated equally. This is why the survey guidelines state that discussion should occur before a poll is held, which was not true in this case. - SimonP 13:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
I specifically opened the voting to force discussion to take place, as you were previously quite clearly acting unilaterally without consensus, by mass moving templates from articles to talk pages at a rate of 50 per hour. ~~~~ 19:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corollary 

message: This poll won't produce any results as we'll never get a 70-30 or 30-70 on almost all of these templates. As far as the proposals go I don't think it really changes a whole lot either as it just declares where a few templates go, and what color, and size they are. I believe the entire system should be simplified as I originally proposed under my proposal. Every thing could be clearly defined under a category, and all templates in the category has one or two possible places. I know this is a bit of a ramble but what do you all think? Falphin 23:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Standardized Templates

message: Someone posed the question of the length of this debate, and now some templates are being removed.  I am all for updating the template locations, but think that the discussion should at least be actually marked as closed, before any more template removals.  ∞Who?¿? 05:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you meant "close the poll"? I see no need to close the discussion. Maurreen 06:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yea, sorry, I tend to call voting → discussions, since we technically don't vote.  :)  But yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for clarifying for me. ∞Who?¿? 06:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I'll close it. Maurreen 06:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of templates or end of poll

message: Formerly, the "GA" template appeared in the talk page, so GA's non-policy status and GA's lax criteria were not a big problem. now a new template "goodarticle" has been created in addition to the "GA" talk page one, and is being forced onto the article page of all articles with GA status, without any prior discussion or consensus. i'm not sure the functioning of this page, if i should add it here or not, in the meantime there is a template for deletion vote where it is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 25. your comments/votes are appreciated. thx. Zzzzz 14:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The  template places a small Good Article symbol () in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is a good article on Wikipedia. The icon is very unintrusive, just like the featured article icon. —RJN 14:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's precisely the problem: GA is not 'just like' FA. FA's are exceptional and it might just be a good thing to identify them as such to the reader. 'Good articles' however simply are up to our own standards (WP:MOS, WP:V, WP:CITE). It is rather strange to tell the reader that he is reading an article that's up to our own minimal standards. Besides, as their number increases, the number of self-references increases and that's bad style for an encyclopedia. — mark ✎ 17:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article template now appearing on main article pagespace

message: Please comment on a new article space template at TfD Images needed. GregManninLB (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Images needed template in article space