Template talk:Cw

Why? Why on earth do we have this? Please to kill, along with the CP, WP, UC, etc. ones. 10:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're joking, right? Those templates are one of the best features of RW, letting it act as a hub for finding information on a particular subject. Unless I'm missing something and there's some other template we should be using. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Not sure I agree with you there. Given how many of our articles are written in SPOV, it might provide some measure of 'balance' to provide a link to whatever it is we are refuting. Why shouldn't our Andy Schlafly article point to the 'alternate universe' of CP, or our Great Flood to CreationWiki? I agree that it's not worth linking to WP, or UC, but there are still topic-specific links that can be made. -- PsyGremlin  10:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They are proliferating like cockroaches. I'd like to see them all killed except the internal "fun" one.  Do you think people are incapable of overcoming our snark by using Google? "Balance" can be provided via "External links" sections pretty easily.  10:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. I'd like to see more of them. I remember suggesting ages ago that there should be one template for all the various sites but that's the only change I'd make. It's definitely worth linking to WP because it's more likely there'll be a balanced, accurate article there. The CP/CW etc links offer the alternative point of view. I prefer the templates over external links because they look better and offer a nice, RW-specific standard for accessing other sites. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see your point, really. We write what we write here, from our POV.  A link to CW to provide "balance"???  We are the "balance", not them.  10:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I said the WP article would probably be more balanced. The other sites offer an alternative. I don't understand why you want to delete these templates - I think they're one of the most distinctive parts of RW, and among the most useful. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP uses them for linking to other Wikimedia projects, but in the external links section. We should at least move them there instead of the top of the article. -- Nx  / talk 11:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "one of the most distinctive parts of RW, and among the most useful" I think that's really pushing it. Linking to WP (or here, CW) is the most useful thing we can do?  11:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, actually. RW has many merits, but factual accuracy and unbiased reporting aren't among them. Linking to WP is a useful function.
 * I really can't believe this is being considered. If you want to do it I'm not going to make a big deal, but I think you're making a mistake. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

THIS ISN'T ABOUT WIKIPEDIA! It's about this stupid template that links to CreationWiki. For those who are paying attention! 12:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Please to kill, along with the CP, WP, UC, etc. ones", Human, 10:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC) –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So your whole point is to discuss an aside rather than the template at hand? Killing with fire now.  12:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that you want to kill all of them, including the WP one, it's not an aside. I agree with SR that the WP one is useful, the rest I don't particularly care for. -- Nx  / talk 12:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to start a thread in the Forum or Saloon Bar to gauge how the community feels about these templates in general. 12:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's an old discussion about this in some archive, probably SB, where we decided to create a merged template or something. Use the forum this time. -- Nx  / talk 12:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c)I like all the templates, but the WP is the most useful one. RW makes a very useful hub: it has its own articles that offer one point of view, links to CW, CP etc for the irrational POV and to WP for a (supposedly) NPOV. Yes, this could be done in the External links section, but it's too easy for links to get swamped down there. I agree that if an article has all the CP, WP, CW, UC, Uncle Tom Cobbly and All templates it'll be too crowded, which is why I still think it's a good idea to combine them into one, but I definitely think that deleting these templates with no replacement is a mistake. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cw is useful sometimes so we can link to their nonsense, but I don't think we should link to UC, and CP can go die already. -- Nx  / talk 13:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But do we really need a template for the four places that ELs to them make sense? 13:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? Personally, I'm in favor of something like the bullet point list in ext links with a small logo of the site instead of this template, that was one of the ideas in the previous discussion. -- Nx  / talk 13:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So rewrite these stupid boxes into single lines that can be accessed by the template like:


 * CreationWiki has an article about this page


 * Instead of just being a dick. Why bother with their logo? 13:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not possible to just rewrite these templates like that, we'd have to reposition them into the external links or see also section (another thing that should be discussed and done consistently) -- Nx  / talk 14:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely they can be rewritten, getting rid of the "position right" stuff??? Yes it would be work, to move them first, then rewrite them?  14:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'd like to see some discussion and agreement before we go around editing tons of articles. -- Nx  / talk 14:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case, "tons" = "six". And this template sucks ass.  15:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about all of these, including Template:wp -- Nx  / talk 15:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know I brought up all the others, but this talk page is just about this crap template. Let's take things one at a time, I guess.  16:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. I'm inferring that this one exists because it followed a pattern set by the WP, CP, UP ones & others; & since some people are objecting to all of these, & some just to some of them, it would be a good idea to discuss how to proceed with them in general (but not on this page; preferably the Forum).  Personally, I'm OK with these templates as long as they're used sparingly, in cases where another wiki's article is recommended reading, rather than just pointing out for the sake of it that another site has an article on the same thing as we do.   01:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)