Jump to content

Template talk:Science fiction

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion of people in the template

[edit]

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction#Influential pioneers in SF. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add more people to the influential section until we come to a consensus at the above discussion. We don't want it to become bloated with links to people who are not accepted as influential via broad consensus. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

Please come participate in the RfC regarding the influential people section. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The following have been removed due to them redirecting to articles already included in the template. We should only be linking once per navbox:

--Rob Sinden (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category egg

[edit]

We should not be linking to the category WP:EGG Category:Science fiction by nationality (hidden as By region) from this navbox, as reader will not be expecting to end up in Category namespace from the navbox. In any case all of the articles in the category are in the navbox, so it is redundant. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We've previously had a discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 9#Category "easter eggs" in navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't so much a discussion as a four or five people talking in an echo chamber. WP:SURPRISE isn't even a guideline, either. And I think you are applying WP:EGG too strictly. I don't think anyone will be made uncomfortable by finding themselves in a category. I find that totally absurd. What I do find obnoxious is your ownership tendencies on this template. You blast in here and refuse to engage in any discussion, instead making changes and refusing to allow anyone to dispute them or revert them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you shouldn't throw WP:OWN around like that, when I could easily accuse you of the same thing. Category eggs have been discussed by experienced editors at the talk page of the guideline as demonstrated above. No better forum for the discussion than that. Also note, per WP:NAVBOX, Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia. Category pages are not articles, and we shouldn't be directing readers out of mainspace. Exceptions could be made if the links are explicit, although personally, I am against this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly willing to accept changes if there's a valid reason for it. So far, I'm not seeing one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As demonstrated there has been consensus not to include hidden links to categories in navboxes for some time. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2020

[edit]

I've noticed the link to "jump drive" is currently a usb flash drive, with other redirects for jump drive otherwise linking to the page hyperspace anyway. I suggest removing the link for jump drive, as making it a redirect would only link to the page immediately next to it. Erfly (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done . Staszek Lem (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2020

[edit]

The embedded template added in this edit should be reverted, as this is not the correct way to use navboxes. If this really needs to be done, then a simple merge would have been the correct procedure. It seems Jonesey95 already has expressed issues with this edit. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why it is not a correct way. Many templates are transcluded into each other. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A simple merge will not do, because the embedded template may be used independently, and merging will create maintenance problems commonly associated with WP:FORK. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A navbox should be transcluded on all included articles. If it is worthy for inclusion here, then this navbox belongs on that page, not a subset of those articles. i.e. it shouldn't be used independently. Therefore a merge would facilitate that. In any case WP:BRD needs this to be reversed. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't? There is no reason to drag a huge scifi navbox into all scifi articles. Some of them have a limited sub-scope., with narrower navigation range. And nothing should be reversed without the conclusion of the discussion. My transclusion added missing items into the template. If one reverts, they must re-add information. Otherwise the act will be non-constructive. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This SPER has not been discussed in over a week, so I'll close. To reply, copy and paste this: {{replyto|Can I Log In}}(Talk) 20:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several sci-fi templates

[edit]

I've just merged/"folded" {{Spacetime in fiction}} into {{Science fiction}} because of overlapping content. Later I noticed another overlap, {{Spatial anomalies in fiction}}, the latter being a top navbox. Keeping these separate templates presents maintenance troubles, commonly associated with forking/duplication. However someone disliked inclusion template into template Any ideas how to handle the issue in a better way? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under discussion

[edit]

CapnZapp (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Science_fiction&oldid=1236081839"