Template talk:Name

Well this existed before, I'm in favor of having it, but you may want to shrink it, smaller text, smaller image and float it right to prevent it from being voted for deletion again. 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, what's the necessary coding to do that? Ganondorfdude11 00:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete
Nice job linking back to the old talk, Ax. Nothing has changed since the last one was deleted. Nintendo still isn't going to give us names of various unnamed things. This template is a waste of space on pages and is just one more thing for the software to process that it doesn't have to. Useless clutter on the page. If something doesn't have an official name, we're never going to get one. And technically a large number of articles would require this, far more than currently use it. It's a very pointless endeavor. 16:34, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think its a waste, but the word "conjectural" does imply that we will eventually get an official name. Perhaps we should change the wording to "fan title" or something - this is legitimate, it does help identify things that don't have names by letting users know that it is a fan-made title. 17:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, this needs to be deleted. I've always thought it was pretty much useless. 18:35, February 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I concur with Cip's assessment, it does serve some purpose, but I think the wording could be better. We have articles, several of them events or places without an official title, that do use this, but I have questioned the wording of it up to this point as well. Rather than "conjectural", why not use "unofficial"? As he said "conjectural" implies learning an official title in future, whereas "unofficial" or the like simply mean titles that are not officially used by Nintendo or formed by the fan community. Link87 18:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of what people want to tag with this is stuff that Nintendo is never going to bother naming. It's mostly storyline stuff that Nintendo cares very little about. There are a lot of things that are not marked with this which should be if it is kept. For example: Running Man. Is that his name? No. According to that source there it's just a description he used and not his actual name. We do this a lot. Just apply description, even though ones used in the game, to characters or places. These would technically be fan names. And there are A LOT of them. For such a pointless template, you shouldn't be so selective about what you apply it to. It's one more pointless thing that would have to be on a lot of pages needlessly. We don't have unlimited resources you know. There's only so much processing power available. Pointless.... well... crap just makes things worse. It may not seem like much, but lots of little things like this can add up to a lot. I doubt I'd have to repeat myself again. I've said all there is to say about that. 18:45, February 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying wholeheartedly, things that don't get used or what not building up makes a mess. But still, I think we could use some system of marking things that have fan-made titles, b/c if we don't, users may confuse fan-made titles with official ones. I'm not saying we necessarily have to keep this, but I'm saying some system is needed for that regardless. Link87 18:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a note or something on the pages in which it is the most extreme? Like the Imprisoning War and the like. Rather than through a template. A template like this would encourage less experienced editors to apply it to a wide array of pages. With the wiki's loading time problems in the past, every little thing we can do to spare it's processor a little work helps. A note on the page is one less operation than loading a template. 18:53, February 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * That can work, we just need some kind of means of marking unofficial material or titles. As long as we have some format for it, that should be good. I'd even suggested disposing of the "oversized" label and instead using a note for pages to spare some of the loading time too, but it fell on deaf ears. Link87 22:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Give it a rest Matt, This template is waaay less than most of the tags you've made with debatable use, (size) for one. Don't feed me the logic of putting them up for deletion. The word "conjectural" is legit, it does imply current hypothetical status. Conjecture is defined as "incomplete information, guessing". "Unofficial name" implies that there is an official name somewhere else; or at least leaves it to interpretation. 23:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ax does have a point there. Link87 23:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The word used is not the issue. It's still pointless because no matter how you put it there are too many things that don't have a complete, fully known name or official name or whatever you want to call it. It's still the same. More stuff would have to be marked than is practical to mark. It's not a smart thing to do. 23:33, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Since both sides seem rather unmovable on this issue, perhaps a compromise is in order. I guess rewording it would be something. "conjectural" is a bit too complex a word for our common viewers. Maybe something like "fan title", or something like that. And what about a clarification between names that are pure conjecture and ones that use some description from the games? Because right now it's technically referring to a broad range of things. Where I'm pretty sure us knowledgeable ones are thinking of a more limited set. But there is no clarification for this at all. That was my problem the whole time. 23:52, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that the template used on MarioWiki was a good compromise. It is followed by a short explanation so that reader can understand what a conjecture is.--Knife 01:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Matt, hate to say I told you so, but that's exactly what I proposed earlier (above). Why didn't we just end the argument there? 03:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeezuz dude, be consistent with your complaint, is the word 'conjectural' your issue or not, bc in one post it isn't, then it is, then who-knows. I see no reason to dumb down the wiki on account of your low expectations of our users to check a dictionary. At the most, I'd say it could use a section explaining it between no include tags here. You've gone after a similar template once before, and it came back by a newer user. And that other one you said needed to be deleted for being "ugly". So at this point, I'm just going to assume you have some vague principled issue here, and ignore any further complaints from you on this. 04:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)