Template talk:Half-Life games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Template

No. Just no. The old, bigger template included everything. Instead of five or six small and basically useless articles, that do not help navigate (which is the purpose of a navbox), that one facilitated navigation and was quite helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.196.68.208 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

This layout was used to facilitate guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes, and is based template designs in Wikipedia:WikiProject The Legend of Zelda series#Templates. It could have been worse. No one bother doing this and only a navigation box listing the series' games exists. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 16:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC) ╫

The change is based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes. Template:Half-Life topics is offered as a link to other related topics. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 16:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC) ╫

i agree the new nav box is practicaly useless. the old one with everythign was way better. Chardrc

Why was it necessary to crappy-fy this template? The old one looked fine and was in depth. Don't fix what isn't broken. (This, on the other hand, is broken, fix it) --80.47.36.89 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

can some one please revert it back to the way it used to be.. i would but i dont know how...64.122.232.181 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC) ok whos the person that removed episode 2 adn 3 from the list again... 02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine, let's allow articles containing rumors to listed. But I'm having trouble understanding how the original format is acceptable. It was too cluttered, difficult to sift through and maintain, and partially irrelevant to certain readers (Take, for example, a person who is only intending to study the series' gameplay. What is the likeliness that he is interested on characters, alien characters, locales and back story events?). There is more to the populace who reads these articles than just gamers. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 12:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC) ╫

someone please change it back.. this was the worst change ever. 12.214.193.78 03:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's either this, or A Man In Pink's single "games template" arrangement. I merely responded after he cut off everything except released games in the series, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes, a guideline he originally composed himself. You are free to undo all this, but don't be surprised if Mr. Pink decides to revert your changes again. If you have a problem with his arrangement, bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes. I'm only playing by the rules.

This arrangement is perfectly fine if you get use to it, and probably the best way to avoid potential conflict: The Half-Life series link on all HL navboxes title bars should direct to a homepage that features directories to all relevant topics. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 13:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC) ╫

not this still sucks.. it was perfect before this just makes you have to go in circles to get to pages for hl2 episode 2 or 3 and it is inefficient. i dont care aobut what ever rule was made.. if it isnt broken dont fix it.. and it wasnt broken so thuis guy jsut comes adn brakes it and makes it nearly unusefull.17:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC) chardrc

As I said, we make do with what we have. Under current navbox policies, there is lesser freedom on how we can define their design, for the purpose of avoiding clutter and linkages that may not be useful to the general reader. If there is any attempt to revert to the earlier version without any valid justification, they may be reverted to the CVG Navigation version, so there is little point arguing about it right now. Meanwhile, a new debate on the current box design is in progress (the discussion also includes the merit of boxes for specific scope of topics), so changes on the boxes are suspended for the time being. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 15:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC) ╫

i still dont like the new format.. but at least episode 1-3 are in it now... but im still missing the easy axis to important people pages. Chardrc 21:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Screw this. I'll wait until the guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes is finalized, agreed upon or rejected. Until then, it's just formatting and vandalism watch. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 12:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC) ╫

And to be frank, you still don't understand the situation, do you? The original template was reduced to listing only games. The only alternatives were creating specialized templates or creating one template listing everything on the series expect the games, which I still don't know would work. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 12:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC) ╫

what i don't understand is why before it was perfectly fine and ok. but now we have to get all anal over it.just answer that with a reason other than that some person decided that he had to get anal about it. and then I will try to be quiet Chardrc

It is currently an official guideline. However, this guideline has a very clear disputed status, and depending on how this discussion turns out, it could be revoked. Despite that, edit warring in the mean time will not serve to any beneficial purpose, so you're best simply waiting for a result (Incidentally, such edit warring is one of the main reasons/indicators of said guideline's disputed status and evidence to suggest that there is no "consensus" supporting it). MarphyBlack 02:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

its hard to have a discussion on the nav box discussion when no one will answer my questions or my comments... Chardrc 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

did everyone die or something.. why isn't anyone responding anymore.Chardrc

What more would you like to know right now? The games can't be included due to an asinine policy that's currently under heavy dispute, as has been stated before. It was okay to list these games before because said asinine policy did not exist yet (Or AMIB had yet to lay down his totalitarian rule over this template). MarphyBlack 12:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

what i don't get is why no one will discus anything on that highly debated guideline anymore.. but i guess this is the wrong place to be talking about that so i will shut up.. Chardrc