Template talk:The Powerpuff Girls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Is this template really necessary? I don't think five elements make a really good template. 08:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Oops. Didn't realize I'd already nominated this just a couple weeks ago. That's what happens when you make so many edits per day. This was really an honest mistake on my part, not a WP:POINTy nomination. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 21:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Original logo's presence here[edit]

How the hell should the PPG template get special treatment, with the logo from the original PPG series being put in the template, while I can see no other template based on an animated series with series logos embedded in them? Classicalfan626 (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Lego games[edit]

The Lego game has over thirty different franchises linked to it would hardly include every single template from them. Removing these types of games from navboxes are common and should be encouraged. The article it links to in question only mentions the franchise ONCE in passing. Therefore not relevant enough or suitable for this navbox.★Trekker (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

So? Again, Super Smash Bros. features characters from over 20 franchises, and each one of those franchises' templates lists SSB on their template, with all of them appearing on the main Smash page in a compressed "Related Games/Articles" template. How is this case any different? Same with PlayStation All-Stars and its franchises. And the fact remains, for as much as you've talked about what is "suitable", you've yet to show any instance where this was discussed and decided upon. (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The Smash Bros article mention Mario and the other franchises repeatedly in detail and they are important there. Never mind the fact that it's blatant "other stuff exists" to bring up in this case.★Trekker (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, for a more relevant example, Disney Infinity. Same genre of game, same amount of presence in the article, and yet it appears in most of those templates unopposed, establishing a precedent. Besides, there's nothing saying that the individual franchise navboxes have to be added to the Lego Dimensions page as a result. (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Those examples are limited to Disney products and therefore more connected and relevant to the article. I personally still feel like it's a rather moronic decision if that game is included on a franchise navebox but I'm not aware of any like that and it's still blatant "other stuff exists".
"nothing saying that the individual franchise navboxes have to be added to the Lego Dimensions page as a result" Yes there is, that is the freaking point of navboxes existing, they're supposed to be bidirectional.★Trekker (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
"I personally still feel" - And there's the rub. Once again, you've shown what your opinion is on their inclusion and what "qualifies", but you've still yet to show any instance where this precedence has been set. Clearly, this debate is getting nowhere, so I'm probably going to call for a dispute resolution to get an opinion from an outside party unrelated to the current discussion. (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Do that please. You're entire argument is based on "other stuff exists" away and I've cited actual explanations for why it doesn't make sense in this specific case. You apperantlly don't even know what navboxes are supposed to be for anyway. But sure, they might side with you, not the first time bad decition has been made instead of following guidlines and logic. The fact that I brought up my personal feelings on it is because if you don't follow guidlines that's all you have, which seems to be what alway happenes whit navboxes. But sure, add back that irrelevant game with no minor to no importance to the franchise. I'm about to give up on trying to make navboxes better, I'm met with this constantly.
If you want a good example (if that's what "consensus" is to you, since you keep asking without responding to my reasonsings), go to any comic book template and see how quick a game like this would be removed.★Trekker (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Look, I'm genuinely trying to be civil, and I want more opinions on the subject beyond one person's personal viewpoint. I want more people to weigh in so we can have a consensus on the issue and an example we can point to in future instances.. But since 3rd-party resolution is off the table, that still leaves us at an impasse. I'm not about to use this as an opportunity to re-add, but I would like more people to weigh in. (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that it should not be included... yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There's a lot of buzz about this from fans, but it hasn't been released. There's at least a small chance it never will be released. Once we have more information we can consider adding it. —Guanaco 17:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)