Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes

• See also Template talk:CVG Navigation

WikiProject Video games

Main page

talk

Archives

Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

Comments

Looks great so far. -- Ned Scott 00:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The majority of it I support. However the err on the side of exclusion of unreleased is something that I can’t support. Otherwise it look ok. El cid the hero 11:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Article series, a MOS page that seems related. (Radiant) 16:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not entirely too sure about the navigation proposal. Sometimes, the navigation templates just become an eyesore to read when you string the links together into a navigation template, such as the Megaman Series (which explains why it has to be split up into franchises) and other series such as the Castlevania one are fast catching up.

We need proper guidelines for such templates, where shoving them into one section just won't do. Also, practically every other Wikipedia template under the sun utilises the exact same shade of blue that's being proposed here. Frankly, I'd much prefer it, if we agreed on a different template colour to distinguish our project from others. How's about the below sample?

Example Broken Link Example

The blue hyperlinks stand out far more on a background that isn't already blue and it sets this project's templates apart from other templates, such as Template:Viacom.

Apart from these issues, I'm all for standardised template guidelines and this is shaping up to be a good idea.

Wolf ODonnell 14:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea with a standardized templates, but that unreleased games shouldn't be included is just plain stupid, as they often contain very interesting information. --MrStalker 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there actually a consensus on this guideline? From this talk, I can't see any consensus, yet the template that it's the guideline appears on the project page, and I see it advertised as guideline. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere in the talk archives of WT:CVG. If I get a moment I'll try to look myself. -- Ned Scott 10:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no proper consensus, as far as I could remember. AMIB barged on to the scene and started changing templates how he saw fit. To boost his authority, he created this Navbox Guideline and ignored input from any users. Wolf ODonnell 20:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I can find absolutely nowhere where the guideline was agreed upon by the majority involved. All I can find is AMIB mediating everything and not listening to anyone else. So please, if someone can find where this guideline had a consensus, please show us. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive19#Navboxes yet again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this was discussed at length. Raise it on WT:CVG if you've got a problem with this. Removing disputed template. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-4 02:26

What was supported was to clean up the mess, but that doesn't mean that the method has that same support. It has some support, for some situations, but I'm seeing things being taken a little too far. -- Ned Scott 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened is that there was no vote for individual clauses within the guideline. Most people who showed support were supporting the entirety of the project, but not even the color scheme had a clear consensus, from what I'm reading, much less what to include (as many people found that the guideline made things too narrow and didn't include a lot of important subjects).

What needs to be done is get a clear and wider consensus of individual clauses, as well as remembering that the guidelines bend when the consensus says so, which are the two points that are causing all the problems. Maybe votes are in order. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Some form of RFC might be in order. -- Ned Scott 15:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have been wanting to RFC it since a few days ago when I mentioned it on the Template talk:Tekken series, since AMIB is adamant on going against the 8 people reverting his edits. I've been led time and time again to the discussion that showed this so called consensus on the guideline. I have compiled Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/archive19#Navboxes_yet_again at my sandbox, which clearly shows no such thing as a consensus on some issues AMIB is adamant about and violating 3RRs with (see here and here where he was blocked from violating 3RR in the latter.

I must add something more though. I'm not against a standard for the CVG navigational templates. I'm just doing this because people are upholding a guideline that doesn't have consensus, and even going as far as going against consensus when specific templates have clear consensus against it.

What I propose is a rewrite, separating style issues and format issues, with subsections, and only the subsections that receive consensus can go on the guideline page while the rest are debated, with a strong note that individual page consensus can take priority. If people agree, I will start whipping something up based on what I have observed and what exists. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion / exclusion of non-released games

There is a discussion going on about the {{Resident Evil series}} template, whether or not to include Resident Evil 5 and Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles.
A Man In Black says they shouldn't because they haven't been shown in playable form yet, and have no releasedate. He links to this guideline as if a policy to strengthen his statement.
Most, if not all, other editors disagree with him. Both games are officially announced games, they're big games with a lot of buzz, and Umbrella Chronicles has somewhat of a releasedate (2007). There is no doubt whether or not they are official, whether or not they will be released, or whether or not they will be significant at it's release. They are part of the series, without a doubt. As such, there is no reason to exclude said games because they are yet unreleased.
Any ideas and feedback? JackSparrow Ninja 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Template talk:CVG Navigation#Discussion about the CVG templates. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

wouldn't everyone here agree that the purpose of having wikipages for games not yet released it to make it easier to find accurate info on upcoming games. and if that is true then why make it hard to find a very useful and relevant page by not allowing them to be on nav boxes? Chardrc

This is an excellent point, and I would have to agree. Even though we shouldn't be willy nilly and updating every time someone farts at a gaming company, we can be reasonable with information we know readers are going to be looking for. -- Ned Scott 01:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ya so there should be like a reasonable guideline to pervert having a lot of links to stubs. but allows links to upcoming games with enough credible info to have a decent page about it. Chardrc

Not a guideline

This page doesn't seem to be "generally accepted" by most editors. In fact, there is constant warring over this "guideline" at many template pages. --- RockMFR 20:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I put up a {{Disputedtag}}. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a very poor standard to have been set. This "guideline" has, more or less, entirely crippled what were once functional and useful navigation tools into things that appear to be completely beyond repair (or at least one advocate refuses to allow them to be). MarphyBlack 12:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a start, if even anything. For one, not all VG navboxes contain only information about the video games and their in-universe information. Some navboxes cross different forms of media, with almost no way of showing what media each row of links belongs to. This "guideline" needs a good going over and fixing up, at the least. -th1rt3en 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it shouldn't be enforced as a guideline when there's consensus against applying it. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -th1rt3en 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the guideline tag with the proposed tag, as this page is clearly not "generally accepted among editors". Also, if there's a seperate template guideline for video game articles, why aren't there any for other subjects? And if video game templates are standardized, wouldn't that mean other navigational templates must be standardized as well? --TBCΦtalk? 09:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please open up some sort of centralized discussion and advertise it before changing the status of this page. I've seen a disputed tag, with no real ennumeration of what the dispute is, here. The discussion at Template talk:CVG Navigation is ongoing and hardly resolved, and the only point of contention seems to be whether upcoming games should be included. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if by one person, it is still disputed. JackSparrow Ninja 23:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hence the {{Disputed}} tag, which should probably somehow direct people to the actual conversation but I guess that's a technical issue.

I don't see a dispute over USING {{CVG Navigation}}, using non-breaking spaces, shortening game names for space's sake when necessary, omitting in-universe topics or making infoboxes specifically for them, etc. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. Did you think I removed {{Disputed}}? I didn't; someone removed {{Guideline}} and I reverted that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe another point of contention is that a giant and ugly mix of seemingly random titles such as this isn't particularly helpful or useful when compared to something along the lines of this (I suppose the repeated "Resident Evil" titles could be removed, but this is just a past example, not the perfect candidate). The latter template far exceeds the former both in its functionality and aesthetic value by quite a wide margin. MarphyBlack 00:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, TBH, if that template were edited to conform with this guideline, it'd look like this. Not quite as ugly, mixed, or random. I'll admit sections work better when you're trying to cram a lot of links into a template, but if you have so many links you need sections, you probably have so many links you need multiple templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And this seems to be where the "What games should be included?" conundrum comes in (And I'm not talking about the unreleased game conundrum with all that "Does the game have a name? A release date? In playable form?" stuff, either. That's a whole other can of worms). To me, it seems that arbitrarily deciding that certain games in a game series are not worthy enough to be included in such a template is inherently POV. I see you have even removed the films as well. I can't particularly think of any reason why not to include the massively well-known and established films in the template, since at one time this template did cover the entire series (It's even in the template name). I think this is another ideal instance depicting just how far too narrow and useless these navboxes are being made (Incidentally, your most recent edit to this Resident Evil template does, quite literally, make it totally useless on the movie pages, like so. Doesn't make much sense that a video game-only template for the series would be appearing on the film's page). MarphyBlack 00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to include the massively well-known and well-established films in a template. It doesn't have to be this template. Consider how the Mario and Sonic templates have been split; RE, the example in question, would probably benefit from the same division, and it wouldn't be any more arbitrary or POV than the sections you propose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I've gone ahead and split that template, fixing the links to templates in each article. This is an example of how these template should be split, and I've been negligent in fixing transclusions in the past. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, the nav template used for the Resident Evil movie article doesn't contain a link to the game article... If you don't want to use nav templates, that's fine, but that is just stupid. Nav templates for things like this should be per topic, not per media. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It has a link to the Resident Evil series page. What's it missing? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A guideline must receive consensus among the majority of the entire Wikipedian community, not just among CVG members. As such, I'm removing the guideline tag.--TBCΦtalk? 05:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, see my comments on Wikipedia_talk:Navigational_templates#Video_Game_Template_Discussion.--TBCΦtalk? 05:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I see one single dissenting opinion there: yours. It's not unreasonable to form a consensus at WP:CVG for pages that fall under WP:CVG, especially when all interested editors were directed either there (or, later, to this guideline.

Again, before changing the status of this guideline, please form a centralized discussion somewhere (I don't care where) and finish that discussion. This isn't a looking-for-support proposal; this proposal had support at WP:CVG, and I still think it does. If you don't think it has broad support, we can gauge that support and either leave it as is or tag it {{rejected}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And even the discussions you keep linking to have no consensus. Thus, it is obviously not a guideline. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

For crying out loud, MAKE A DISCUSSION SOMEWHERE AND FINISH THAT DISCUSSION. This is already labeled {{disputed}}, and it's not a proposal for a new practice; it's an existing practice. (Look at Category:Video game navigational boxes if you don't believe me.) It did have broad support at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive19#Navboxes yet again. I checked twice on talk to see if there were still any outstanding issues, and got only support (save for a disagreement with El Cid (talk · contribs), who proposed the final name/release date/playable form standard for upcoming games.) Now, if you don't think it should be current practice, or if you think it needs to be changed, or if you don't think it has consensus support any more, fine, but this isn't a proposal in any sense of the term. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one that's leading everyone all over the place, so don't look at me. I'm just following whenever someone leads somewhere else. And fine, if you say it's not a proposal, it's no way that it's a guideline. So either removed both completely, or leave the proposal one there. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This had consensus support. I believe it still does. You may disagree. THE WAY YOU RESOLVE THIS IS TO TAG IT DISPUTED AND OPEN A CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION. I've linked, repeatedly, to the discussion that led to the formation of this guideline, and I can link you to any number of cases where it has been implemented by any number of editors. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at my last comment on the Comment section of this talk, where I clearly show what you linked to NOT HAVE CONSENSUS. And any other cases you cite is biased, because there's no way to tell that editors followed it only because you listed it as a guideline. Like I said, prove that there's consensus in the discussion you linked and I'll concede. You won't be able to. I went through it three times. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. If you look in that discussion, nearly every point met with unanimous support. The only ones that didn't end up meeting with support were the color (which is adjustable in the final template) and excluding unreleased games (which was resolved later).

Now, I don't disagree that some of the parts of this guideline need to be reviewed, be it a renewal of the arguments and ratification of their results or a change in consensus. We've had a centralized discussion, though, and overturning the results of that discussion deserves at least as wide and as thorough a discussion, and to wait until the completion of that discussion. (Note that this wasn't tagged {{tl|guideline until months after that discussion was complete.)

In any event, tagging this as proposed is inappropriate, because it's not a proposal. It does largely describe current practice, and has been ratified through lengthy discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

tagging it as guideline for even the style when the color isn't agreed upon isn't appropriate either. Nor is your constant reverting of the page. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Who's disagreeing about the color? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

at least for me the reason why i don't like ti was that it almost restricts too much. its a good idea but it goes to far on some points like upcoming games, and for example the half life game series's nav box used to have everything but was also organized so that it was all relevant and easy to use and find everything you needed. Chardrc

whats with the abrupt stop in discussion over this topic.. i seriously think some changes should be made to this before it totally finalized. 64.122.232.181

It got moved to WT:CVG#Navboxes_III:_Son_of_Navboxes. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

why was it moved.. this is the discussion for it so this is were it should be discussed.. its only common since. Chardrc 20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

Constant additions to the proposal category are screwing up the category watchlist Javascript. Discuss it. -Amarkov moo! 05:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sections in navboxes

(Starting note: since the other sections were getting long, I decided to make this new one). Why does it seem to be so bad to section templates off? I'm not asking for much. An example of a template that need sections: Resident Evil. For Resident Evil: main games, then spinoffs (or other games), and a section for characters and other articles. Calling the template "video games" and jamming the articles all together isn't helping alot. Then a section for films. I've seen versions of a template with these sections: and it looks fine (but has been reverted due to "standard appearance"). Comments? Thoughts? RobJ1981 06:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen how the template was split into multiple templates? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you in reference to Resident Evil or another game? I don't think I've seen it for Resident Evil. Or are you saying sectioning makes it look like multiple templates? (If that's the case): I still feel strongly a cluttered bulleted list in a template isn't helping to navigate. Even with the words "film" by the Resident Evil movies, it's still a jammed in cluttered mess. RobJ1981 06:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to the Resident Evil template, which was split earlier this evening. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok my bad then. I checked it: I still don't agree with the listings of characters and creatures. They are related (and for the games): but wouldn't it make more sense to just have the complete name of the list article in the template? It's a space issue somewhat, but not a huge extra amount would be used. RobJ1981 06:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Be my guest. I don't know who started everyone doing that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

ya that was one of the big resons why i am against this guidline. for example the Half life series nav boxes had all the games important characters and other useful info that made it great. but now its just a clump of games at the bottom of the page that isn't all that useful.Chardrc 12:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Centralized discussion

This is going on in at least three different places, so let's focus. WT:CVG#Navboxes III: Son of Navboxes seems like as good a place as any (since it's visible and relevant), so let's all go there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Still disputed

This guideline still does not have a consensus on acceptance. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive24#Navboxes III: Son of Navboxes ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

A lengthy discussion that resolved that...

1. Nobody really cared about the color enough to ever change it; if Wolf wants to change the color nobody's stopping him.
2. That splitting templates instead of sectioning them solved many of the disagreements, particularly ones over very large game series and in-universe topics
3. That upcoming games need to be merged into series articles

Which of those is incompatible with this guideline? What are you disputing? Why haven't you disputed it in that discussion? Why haven't you revived that discussion from the archive if you still have a dispute? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Resolved? How was it resolved? Not even all of the sections were discussed. Just because it died down does not automatically mean everybody agrees with you. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 01:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Then by all means, revive the discussion with the parts you dispute. Nobody made, or even suggested, changes to this guideline. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have it revived on this talk page, which seems to make the most sense since this is what is not in consensus. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 01:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Then do the work of making alternate proposals and inviting contribution. I invited dozens of editors regardless of how they felt about the current guideline, put notice on every relevant talk page I could think of (including several different related Wikiprojects), and opened a large discussion in a neutral location. I even deferred comment for several days to allow protests to be brought up instead of cutting them off at the pass.

After all that, nobody proposed any alternatives, (other than going from blue to green). Go make a new proposal and form consensus for it. Fixing the hundreds of navboxes for WP:CVG alone is a big project, and if it's too much work to make a centralized discussion for your proposals, let alone revive an existing centralized discussion, it's going to be too much work (and you have too little support) to get anything done with those hundreds of templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, RfC involves third party. When you invite only those involved, it's not an RfC. However, just because something new hasn't gained consensus DOES NOT MEAN that what was disputed before has consensus, which is what you're trying to say. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion was linked prominently in several different places, including tangentially-related Wikiprojects, the video game Wikiproject, and the RFC page.

This had consensus. I believe it still does. The best evidence of this is that the vast majority of the navboxes are currently using this style. Go make a new proposal, even to abolish standard style, and form a new consensus. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It really doesn't. I'm sure the reason that a good portion of the navboxes still in this style is because you have single-handedly repeatedly reverted and/or edit warred any attempt at change, even when you were at a minority. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Singlehandedly? So, Combination (talk · contribs) and Deckiller (talk · contribs) and Steel359 (talk · contribs) and Jonny2x4 (talk · contribs) and Dispenser (talk · contribs) and ZS (talk · contribs) are my socks, now? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase. You have been responsible on several navboxes for A) changing/removing things before finding or discussing a consensus. B) edit warring and repeatedly reverting any attempts at change/add to navboxes, even when they were discussed on the talk page, and C) not trying to find a consensus different than your own even when you are the sole minority on that talk page. This guideline seems to only be accepted by those involved in the project and not all of Wikipedia. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You're making a distinction that doesn't exist. Rather, there are points in this guideline that a significant number of people dislike. Do those people constitute a majority? Do they have an argument that is convincing others? Can they form a consensus to effect change? Is someone going to propose removing a section that is too disputed to be part of a standard?

These sort of things are why centralized discussions are useful. Nobody has proposed a change. It's easy to rally disparate complaints against an existing standard, or against a concrete proposal. Someone needs to go rally some support for a concrete proposal, so we can get some work done. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/archive24#Navboxes III: Son of Navboxes resolved any of the things you stated above. There may not have been any consensus for what to do, but there are plenty of complaints on there about the current system. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 00:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Seriously, AMIB? Are you joking? If you aren't, well, then do you really want to know why a vast majority of navboxes use this style? (I mean, you honestly can't figure that out?)

If you're legitimately naive of the reason, then I can tell you quite bluntly: It's because you changed them all yourself and proceeded to revert any and all edits that didn't conform to your little "guideline". If you were insinuating that the vast majority of navboxes used this style because users are voluntarily subjecting themselves to it, then by golly, open your eyes man! You'll also note that other editors are obliged to revert back to your versions because your "guideline" was defined as an official policy (Which you declared as being such, incidentally). So, essentially, their hands are tied. They can't do anything about it in the mean time. They're being forced to accept your version. Again, this seems very similar to your deliberately misinforming others/blatantly lying in order to make it seem as if your opinions truly had any consensus (Which in this case, for the record, they didn't). MarphyBlack 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Combination (talk · contribs) and Dispenser (talk · contribs) and Thunderbrand (talk · contribs) and TKD (talk · contribs) and Hbdragon88 (talk · contribs) are not me. It's not as though I changed all 300+ templates on my own; I didn't even do the bulk of the editing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No one said they were, but 7 people do not make a full consensus across wikipedia . ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. Both you and MarphyBlack just said it was just me. Those are a number of people who are not me. Let's put the "unilateral crusade" nonsense to bed.

Consensus on Wikipedia is a consensus of the interested, as with everything. If you think there are people who might care who need to know about this, go get them. I got everyone I could think of who would possibly have any interest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So that discussion has ended, and quite clearly this "guideline" has proven itself to be more than disputed enough so as to remove its status of guideline since there was definitely not a consensus to support it (Much less any support at all). Shall I take the honor of removing the guideline tag from this page now? I'm quite anxious on getting to revert all of AMIB's template edits so we can return to a state of normalcy. MarphyBlack 01:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I doubt that is in consensus either. I'd say having it changed to {{proposed}} would be the better thing to do at this point in time. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And that discussion ended with nobody proposing anything. If you reverted EVERY SINGLE EDIT I've ever made to a navbox, they'd still mostly be using this standard style. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's another point, you've made so many reverts to go back to conform navboxes to this guideline, it's hard to tell how many navboxes were in a consensus. We dont have to have a central conformity at this point, it'll just be that those watching the navboxes will change whichever they want, not all of them. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why nobody is going to go revive that discussion or starting a new one if they still have problems. If there's obviously so much support to mark this as no longer a guideline, why not bring it up somewhere centralized? Are you so unsure of your support? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If our support was overwhelmingly outnumber, then this guideline would no longer be in dispute. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so there isn't consensus to overturn even the idea that they should be standardized, let alone anything else. Generally, you need consensus to change the status quo. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You also need one to establish it in the first place. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've linked previous discussions repeatedly. Note that the Navboxes yet again discussion was immediately followed by a standardization of the navboxes, largely by users who were not myself. Dispenser and Combination did most of the standardizing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The discussion ended with the clear conclusion that there was no, if any, support for this navbox policy, which certainly means it fails the necessary requirement of being "generally accepted among editors". That discussion was not meant to propose any alternatives or to try and fix what is currently in this "guideline" (Not that this "guideline" is salvagable, anyway). It was meant to get this abhorrent disgrace of a policy removed forever, and I doubt anyone will be sad to see it go. The next step would be to repair all the damage that's been done because of this terrible travesty, but that comes later. MarphyBlack 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Then form a consensus to do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I believe you need actually have a consensus behind your proposal first before you can ask for another consensus to be made in order to counter it. Otherwise, finding a consensus to remove something that never had a consensus to begin with? Well, that just sounds silly, doesn't it? Also, you seem to be avoiding the issue. The problem is that this "guideline" is not "generally accepted among editors", a.k.a., there has been no consensus regarding it. I believe this is enough of a reason to strip this "guideline" of its policy status, since being "generally accepted among editors" seems to be one of the necessities needed to be one. MarphyBlack 02:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of the CVG navboxes currently reflect this style. You want to change that. Form consensus to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But the vast majority of users do not. I'm not saying not to have this style, I'm saying: "DO NOT STRICTLY ENFORCE THIS STYLE". There is a difference. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

{{Sofixit!}} Dig in and fix the parts you think are too strict! Take for example the guideline on excluding upcoming games; everyone agrees (I hope) that A developer has expressed interest in making a sequel to this game" isn't helpful but "This game has been the subject of numerous hands-on previews, has been leaked in beta form, and is coming out next week" is helpful. El Cid offered an objective standard of final name/release date/hands-on preview that everyone was more or less happy with for quite a while, and nobody has ever offered much of an alternative. If someone just edited this with a new standard, maybe we'd have something everyone (or enough to form a consensus) would be happy with. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no general consensus here about upcoming games. You're still missing my point. No strict enforcement of navboxes does not mean change the guideline, it means change the enforcement policy. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What enforcement policy? The enforcement policy is digging in and editing the templates. On the bulk of them, far-off upcoming games are excluded, with general or unanimous support. The handful that aren't are the outliers, with vocal opponents that outshout the general support of users who don't have a strong opinion about a specific series. Right now, the general standard has support in the wild, with the FF project and the Pokémon project enforcing it (and without my influence, thankyouverymuch), with general consensus supporting it on the GTA and Half-Life templates, and with a number of talk page discussions consisting of: "Hey, why did you revert my addition of Kwazy Quux X+1?" "Well, it's not really a core topic right now, since it's so far from release." "Oh, that makes sense."

Implied here is that the discussion has been "Here's the standard! Follow it or ELSE!" On the contrary, the vast majority of users follow it because the argument behind it has convinced them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Vast majority? You've cited 7 people, I've seen you revert edits by more people than that. You keep speaking of unanimous and/or general support and it really doesn't seem that way. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Majority of users who follow it, although I do believe that they're in the majority. I've never threatened a user with "Follow this or I'll block you!", nor do I know of anyone ever doing that. Instead, it's always people being convinced by the arguments on this page or not convinced. That's what a guideline is; a description of existing practice and a convincing explanation of the reasoning behind that existing practice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that there isn't already a consensus to change these navboxes, AMIB? Take note of the many template reverts that you, personally, have had to make. I doubt they all came from one person. The only thing stopping many editors is this asinine policy that's currently in place and being enforced to a dictatorial-like level. If they violate it, they risk getting banned for breaking policy. Tough decision, eh? MarphyBlack 02:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

??? Who has been threatened with banning? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct. The discussion was for establishing that there was, and still isn't, consensus for the guideline. Any other goal would be too much more at this point in time. And where was it listed on RfC? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This guideline is such the status quo. It was static from December to March, and reflected and still reflects current practice in navbox style. The discussion established that a lot of people want to make minor or major changes to the status quo, but nobody can agree on what. Someone form a consensus for changes to the status quo. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a consensus anywhere in these discussions. No true consensus was formed from the initial discussions of the proposal, not only because, but most importantly because there was a failure to inform editors who were not directly associated with WP:VG (but do maintain its articles, and/or are associated with other connected projects) about the proposal when it was being discussed. A centralised discussion is needed to rectify this, but it doesn't change the fact that a centralised discussion never took place to establish this as a guideline in the first place (again, no attempt was made to inform concerned editors - perhaps deliberately so, as AMiB did admit that the proposal would "not be popular" [1]).

Bearing that rather glaring error in mind, this should be rectified at once. I'd suggest that this should be restored as a "proposed" guideline (since errors began at the onset of this proposal), some measures are taken to inform concerned editors of a centralised discussion, and a straw poll is taken to (try and) find a consensus. The straw poll would make the discussion simpler - current discussions are a mess, and this would help determine an acceptance of the guideline in its current form. Once that's done, the proposal would either be accepted, or a new discussion could take place to suggest changes (followed by another straw poll). If anyone is so sure of their belief in support, then they have nothing to fear by doing this. RobWill80 17:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This was brought up at RFC both times, and I said it would not initially be popular, as it was changing the status quo. Well, it's five months later, and the status quo has since changed, and this guideline now largely reflects common practice. Now, there's what seems to be a revisonist effort to say, "No, this isn't really the status quo, so the handful of disparate nitpicks can be combined into 'consensus to eliminate the status quo.'"

Nobody has proposed anything practical here. Everyone has said, "Well, I don't like this, let's kill it," nevermind that 90% of the template currently use this style and nobody's proposed any alternative.

Can we please cut the wikilawyering bullshit and can someone make some sort of productive proposal we can talk about? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe first we need to see if there still is a consensus, after all, you keep claiming this template is nearly unanimous for keep. Consensus can change, especially when it reaches people who were not involved in the original discussion of creating the consensus. Then if there's no longer a consensus we can work towards a new design, or get rid of it altogether, depending on what is agreed upon. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Current totals

Although strength of arguments usually take precedence over popularity, it's good to know how many people support each side, especially where consensus is concerned. I took the liberty of getting that organized; hopefully, I did not miscategorize. Hopefully more people will be willing to chime in when they only have to sign their name. --Miguel Cervantes 18:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC) NOTE: THIS IS NOT A STRAW POLL OR VOTE. IT IS MERELY A LIST OF SUPPORTERS.

People who believe a consensus has been reached:

• A Man In Black

People who believe no consensus has been reached:

• Th1rt3en
• Wirbelwind
• MarphyBlack
• RobWill80
• Thomas Connor
• Chardrc 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

An unadvertised straw poll on an obscure talk page? So nobody's going to bother going ahead with some sort of RFC or centralized discussion? That's not how things work on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So advertise it. This is the talk page of the actual guideline, it doesn't seem that obscure a place to talk about the guideline in question. This poll is not to remove the guideline but to show who's in what standing for it. With it we can work towards a consensus and actually see if it is as unanimous as you claim it to be. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to effect change, go advertise your efforts. I've done two RFCs so far, and you don't like either of them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Does that disclaimer make it any better for you? I refrained from referring to it as a poll or vote for a reason. --Miguel Cervantes 20:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You've also claimed past discussions resolved the issue and made a consensus when they clearly haven't. As far as I can tell you're not for this because it might show that the guideline really is disputed. Anybody keeping tabs on this guideline is most likely watching this page (and talk page obviously) and should show up on their watchlist. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 20:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But at the same time you say advertising on the WP:CVG talk page (and WP:RFC and dozens of talk pages) isn't visible enough. If you're so sure in your convinctions, surely you can show me how to properly advertise a centralized discussion, instead of browbeating me about a "solitary crusade" when I'm the only one who showed up to argue for the current practice of not making the bottom of every game page look like shit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this argument didn't happen until after you started making changes, then the pages you mentioned clearly aren't visible enough. Adding notes in affected pages (or umbrella articles) when you made the proposal would've been a step in the right direction. By the way, I don't see how following this guideline is "common practice" or "the status quo". The alarming rise of template edit wars that this guideline provoked would be the first thing that crosses my mind. RobWill80 20:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you disputing? Why haven't you disputed it in that discussion? Why haven't you revived that discussion from the archive if you still have a dispute? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I dispute many things to do with this guideline, but those that I'm voicing here are about the claim that this guideline was created through consensus, and the claim that there is currently a consensus to enforce this guideline. Given the opportunity, I would've been involved in the earlier debates. You know why I wasn't involved when you first proposed this guideline (knowing that it existed would've helped). As for the more recent discussion, I haven't been active on Wikipedia for the past month through necessary absence (one reason for which is noted on my user page, any other reasons are not your concern). When I could, I read through that discussion, and generally shared the opinion of those opposing the current guideline. Adding my opinion wouldn't have altered things, considering that it would just echo those already given, and (in my opinion) those opposing the current guideline had a stronger argument than you anyway. Since I just "got back" today, and saw that the last debate was archived and that this one was active, I felt it more appropriate to respond here. RobWill80 21:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So, um. You're arguing about something that is three degrees separated from improving articles. (The status of a guideline on making templates that actually appear in articles.)

Did anyone have any productive suggestions, ideas, or proposals? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of proposals can be found here. However, this dispute is about the current guideline's acceptance on Wikipedia, which has nothing to do with changing it (at the moment anyway). ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't I see it listed on any of the RFCs nor do I see it in the histories? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. I don't maintain the RFCs. I just put it up at Arts & Entertainment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Current discussed topics

Carrying over topics from Navboxes III for identification purposes. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Guideline as a whole (acceptance, enforcement, policy)
• Navbox color
• Include/Exclude section headers
• Splitting templates (in lieu of sections)
• Include/Exclude upcoming games
• Include/Exclude canceled games
• In-universe topics (notable and/or non-notable)
• Separate character templates (for those with large lists)
• Scope of guideline (games only?, game related, films based on games, hardware, etc.)

I'm not sure that in-universe topics are properly in dispute, but that there was some confusion about whether this template was somehow outlawing templates that were composed entirely of in-universe topics (which it isn't, AFAICT). The confusion, I think, arose from when I sent {{Mortal Kombat characters}} to TFD, citing this guideline as an example of the effort to not have huge, exhaustive lists in templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I just put together a list of what was talked about on the other page. I'll change the title of this section. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 21:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a good start; I'm just not sure where we are on most of it, since I'm not sure if the conversations petered out from a lack of interest, a lack of ideas, or what. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Might have gotten tired of debating/arguing/etc., which is why I think we should take this one step at a time, rather than jumping right to change. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 23:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Th1rt3en; we should only work on one point at a time. It might take longer, but this is Wikipedia, not a bomb squad, and time is a luxury we have. --Miguel Cervantes 00:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other navbox guidelines from other projects that have as specific guidelines as this one? ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 23:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing to suggested policy

Based on what has been discussed (unpopularity, no original consensus), I believe the {{guideline}} template should be changed to {{proposed}}. Any comments/suggestions/objections? -♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What is going on here?

I see a lot of debate on this talk page about whether or not this is a guideline, but nearly all of that appears to be meta-debate, in that I'm not quite following what the people who don't like this page object to. It seems to me that if you object to a guideline on navboxes, you'd have some kind of concrete objection, such as preferring a different color or layout. So could somebody explain in a sentence or two what the actual issue is? >Radiant< 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall it seems to be an objection to the strict enforcement of this policy which appears to have been set as a policy without actually having a consensus across Wikipedia, rather just one among the Video Games Wikiproject. In some cases, the guideline has been followed as it is strictly set in stone, even if there is no consensus (or even support) among those watching and continually editing the individual Navboxes. As such, some of the supporters of the guideline have continually reverted, edit warred, and ignored discussion regarding individual Navboxes. In short, we don't believe there's an actual consensus for this guideline beyond the Wikiproject users. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there isn't even consensus with the CVG wikiproject users. As I have shown elsewhere, there was originally no consensus in the guideline to begin with, and then using the excuse that it has consensus, a very few CVG members began changing everything to how they see fit, claiming it to be guideline. When it was proven false, the changes died down for a few days and started back up again. On several pages where the CVG members started edit-warring, there was overwhelming consensus against it and it keeps getting reverted by the same person over and over. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

AMiB has been given a block for a few days, and he has attempted to block himself permanently. I don't know where that leaves us with this debate, so I'll ask the obvious: should we continue, or wait to see if he calms down and comes back? RobWill80 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he seems to be the only person in this debate that believes this is already in a full consensus. I think we should at least start discussing what should change (seriously, instead of just making suggestions that don't follow though), but wait before making any dramatic changes for a few days, to see if A) other users who support this template come forward, or B) AMiB returns.

However, I still think that the policy template should be changed to a suggest policy template. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, especially about changing this back into a proposed guideline (even if the proposer still says that he's through). Given the issues raised, and the amount of time/work that may be needed to fix it (unless it's scrapped), the current guideline isn't suitable for enforcement right now. RobWill80 12:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I third that as well. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Although it was already done, fourth'd. However, I am of the opinion that we don't even need a guideline to determine the style of video game navboxes. You simply cannot make something that will be all-encompassing and broad so as to cover every single possible odd little aspect or issue that individual game templates may encounter. I would declare that to be, more or less, impossible. It would be far more beneficial to simply let users use common sense when dealing with any navbox template. So we might have game templates with different looks and styles? Big whoop. I am more concerned with the helpfulness and functionality of these navboxes. Don't forget, people are supposed to be using these things. It would be difficult to make any one guideline that wouldn't ultimately impede the user's navigation abilities. I'm looking at Category:Video game navigational boxes and it's very disheartening to see perfectly useful templates being mangled and butchered (Around the same time period as well) just in a sad attempt to make them all conform to one ungodly travesty of a guideline (I have half a mind to simply revert the whole lot to when they existed in a sane state). I would not want to see this same situation happen again, and this miserable shell of a guideline should simply be left to rot as a reminder of this unpleasent turn of events. MarphyBlack 09:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. This conformity has caused more problems than it has fixed. Although, some of the older templates did not always work correctly (in my browser at least), and some did get rather bloated. If anything, this guideline should just be used as a guide to starting a template, rather than controlling one. If you feel that older versions are better navboxes, I say go for the revert but make sure there's a consensus for it. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that it should be scrapped. RobWill80 18:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• I wish to point out that guidelines are not meant to be strictly enforced and can certainly have exceptions. That is not saying that we need a guideline here, of course. But if people want one, then instead of what it says now it could give pointers against bloat, and explain why some older templates don't work in some browsers (as Thirteen says). Or we could make it {{historical}} for now until people are interested in working on it. >Radiant< 09:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem with this former guideline was that there were never any exceptions allowed. Not one. It was always nothing or nothing. No compromise, no middle ground, no discussion. I'd like to point out that, a month later, Template:Metal Gear series is still locked from editing solely because of an edit war brought about by this, and only this, one policy alone. The issue hardly ever seemed to be removing bloat or preventing odd browser problems. The real challenge was simply getting the bare minimum included in these templates. MarphyBlack 23:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. AMiB in particular acted like he owned the templates, even enforcing changes not specified on the current guideline. I wish I knew about that page sooner, I would have brought it up on several occasions. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 00:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Marking bloated templates for cleanup

Since one of the reasons this policy was made was to prevent navboxes from becoming bloated, I suggest instead of strictly controlling what goes into the navboxes there could be a cleanup template for bloated templates. Something like:

{

This might cut down on edit warring within templates when there is a conflict of interest. (Video game proposal — Generic proposal) ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 03:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a good way to encourage discussion, so it's definitely worth trying out. Before that is needed, however, we may need to address what links are allowable in templates (that's if we keep this guideline). I have to go to work right now, so I'll have to continue this later on. RobWill80 12:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and created ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

New draft

I've tried to make a new version of this page based on what people have been saying in all the discussions. It doesn't get into strong enforcement, but it does offer tips on controlling template size. Feel free to tinker with it as you see fit.--Miguel Cervantes 15:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good start, I like it. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I think the current guideline is much better, in that it explains what the scope of the navboxes should be, I see nothing of that in that current proposal, and personally I dread the day we see templates like this appearing again:

It is because horrible templates like this that the scope guideline was introduced, and there was definite consensus for this amongst CVG editors. Also, the new guideline doesn't say anything about a standard colour scheme, like we have for {{Infobox VG}}, and {{Infobox VG system}}. Is anyone here seriously suggesting that we allow different colour schemes? I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of editors would have objections to that. Your new guideline also doesn't specify to avoid using show/hide since that breaks certain browsers. In fact, I'm reading your guideline as basically saying "do whatever you feel like", which is certainly not what we want, unless I've totally misunderstood the consensus on this issue over the last couple of years. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-2 17:40

The current guidelines have been enforced very strictly, and in some instances have gone against general consensus of those in discussion on the template's talk page. The above template is bloated but the current guidelines keep them bare-boned, leading to edit wars and the such. This is why I suggested the cleanup tag, to keep templates organized without ruling with an iron fist. Take a look here for an example of how the current guidelines don't always work either. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I also don't see why the re-design of a bloated template that originally had 50 links should affect the design of a non-bloated template with 5 links. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that since this is a guideline we should treat it as such and not as a policy that must be followed in all cases. However, I do feel that we should keep them to a minimum. Navboxes should not become replacements for categories and "List of XXX games" articles. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-2 22:22

The original proposal explained the scope of what navboxes should be? How? I think it was far more concerned with form over function. Navboxes are supposed to be used, not stared at. As for creating them, no-one is suggesting that editors should "do whatever they feel like", but rather "use their heads". If that doesn't work, then talk it over. It wouldn't harm to have a little trust. RobWill80 20:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the truth of the matter is that we tried that approach and that lead to the development of templates like the one above for almost every game series. Which is why we developed these guidelines. Now, I'm all for using this as a guideline and not as policy so that some leniency should be applied, which is what AMiB probably didn't do enough, but I think that having a conservative guideline is definitely in the interest of keeping cruft and bloat out, especially for gaming articles. This is similar to our article guidelines which mainly deal with what the scope of gaming articles should be, and what kind of content should be removed. These guidelines are not a case of not assuming good faith, but rather with dealing with problems that have cropped up time and time again in the past. JACOPLANE • 2007-04-2 22:22

It's a rough draft. If you don't like what it says, change it up. I just made it so we could have somewhere to move on to.--Miguel Cervantes 02:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well one thing I prefer in this new version is the better use of section headings, such as the subheadings in the "what to include" section, much easier to read than a lot of undivided paragraphs. Camaron1 | Chris 18:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)