No edit summary |
Ashbear1603980@legacy41525370 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:::I understand the desire for simplicity here in regards to naming, but to me a template called "Humans" would be a navigational aid about all things human, when it is currently just about human nations, kingdoms, and capitals. |
:::I understand the desire for simplicity here in regards to naming, but to me a template called "Humans" would be a navigational aid about all things human, when it is currently just about human nations, kingdoms, and capitals. |
||
:::We could go the direction of keeping the templates organization-based (which I feel merits a rename of them all), or we could go the direction of making the templates more complex and inclusive. If the latter, the organization aspect may be overshadowed, possibly getting a negative reaction from those who find value in it, and the templates would likely become a mess, as there would be more room for 'debate' and 'creativity'. However, I still think they would be more useful templates (ones that hopefully can be maintained).--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 17:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
:::We could go the direction of keeping the templates organization-based (which I feel merits a rename of them all), or we could go the direction of making the templates more complex and inclusive. If the latter, the organization aspect may be overshadowed, possibly getting a negative reaction from those who find value in it, and the templates would likely become a mess, as there would be more room for 'debate' and 'creativity'. However, I still think they would be more useful templates (ones that hopefully can be maintained).--{{User:Sandwichman2448/Sig}} 17:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | :::I prefer changing it to human organization but out of curiosity what would you put in the Human Template besides those things you mentioned.--[[User:Ashbear160|Ashbear160]] ([[User talk:Ashbear160|talk]]) 21:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 21:44, 21 March 2011
Forums: Village pump → Racial organization template naming
It seems to be a standard to name racial organization templates as just "race" rather than "race <something>". Why is this? I have discussed this a few times at places like User talk:Lon-ami#Naga and User talk:Lon-ami#Orcs to no avail.--SWM2448 19:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say because for the most part <race> is not taken by any template, and shorter names seem to make things easier such as adding to the group pages (either that are missing it, or later down the road when new ones are added) without trying to figure out or remember if its tribes, clans, groups, etc after <race>.
(Sssss/Slithered) 08:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I thinks it's because of what Coobra said, it's about groups holding some kind of sovereignty, I do it this way because it was done that way before I was here.--Ashbear160 (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I understand the desire for simplicity here in regards to naming, but to me a template called "Humans" would be a navigational aid about all things human, when it is currently just about human nations, kingdoms, and capitals.
- We could go the direction of keeping the templates organization-based (which I feel merits a rename of them all), or we could go the direction of making the templates more complex and inclusive. If the latter, the organization aspect may be overshadowed, possibly getting a negative reaction from those who find value in it, and the templates would likely become a mess, as there would be more room for 'debate' and 'creativity'. However, I still think they would be more useful templates (ones that hopefully can be maintained).--SWM2448 17:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I prefer changing it to human organization but out of curiosity what would you put in the Human Template besides those things you mentioned.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)