Template talk:Integrate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Two problems

There are two problems that I noticed(or maybe I read it somewhere(not sure)). We might want to change the words "Main text" to something like "other sections" or something since we are trying to make this template more usable and new users might not understand what main text means. Also, it might not be best to say "this section could be improved" since we are basically telling people to remove the section. It doesn't entirely make sense. --Kyle(talk) 23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Good points all around. I changed the wording to fix.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
00:36, September 11, 2007
I think this template should be for general integration. I don't think it should be limited to just trivia. --Pixelface 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what other situations call for integration, but if there are any, then sure, it can be used for general integration as well.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
01:33, September 11, 2007

[edit] Third problem

There does not have to be a list at all.--Svetovid 10:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be a bulleted list, but when we want to encourage integration it's because of a list being present in some form. We wouldn't be tagging a section of bona fide prose.
Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
11:42, September 11, 2007

[edit] Template Previously Deleted

I was looking at what pages linked here, and I discovered that this page was recently deleted in July 2007. I can't seem to find an older version of this template, but from the discussion it looks like it there are some already used templates that seem to suit the purpose.

So I don't know. Currently, all of the pages that use the integrate are talk pages, and since the page was created as a response to the Template:Trivia perhaps it might be better to fix the problems there rather than create a new template and hope it catches on. --Nick Penguin 06:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently no pages use it, although some refer to it.Rich Farmbrough, 16:27 16 September 2007 (GMT).
The original version duplicated {{merge}}. Circeus 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

I agree my original redirect was improper. I'm loath to have a template go through WP:TFD when it can be redirected to the template it duplicates. I believe the proper template to redirect to was {{Cleanup-laundry}}. Any thoughts? Circeus 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That would seem to be the more logical place. This template isn't (currently) being used on any actual articles, but I think it's intended purpose is to remove trivia-type lists. --Nick Penguin 17:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the cleanup-laundry tag is basically saying the same thing, but there are other concerns. Why not redirect {{Trivia}} there as well? One of the goals here was to have a slim tag that could be placed directly within a section, but that wouldn't be as obtrusive as the trivia tag. The cleanup-laundry template is even bigger than the trivia tag. No articles currently use this template because it's new. If it doesn't catch on at all after a couple months, or if the trivia tag itself is changed to consist of only one line (as is currently being discussed there), I'd support a redirect.
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 21:53, 09/16/2007
What has this to do with the template? Right now, I'm dealing with this ({{integrate}}) template, and I don't want to get into the whole trivia quagmire (there's a revert war right now at WP:NOT about that). This page is certainly not the proper page to discuss the fate of {{trivia}}. Circeus 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This tag was made in response to a significant number of votes to "keep, reword, and rename" the trivia template to "integrate", at its recent TfD nomination. I created this as a compromise, seeing that a change in template name for {{trivia}} didn't seem likely.
Equazcion • argue/contribs • 22:49, 09/16/2007
Forking the existing template by creating a completely redundant tag is not a solution. It will merely confuse editors who won't know why there are two tags for exactly the same purpose or which one they should choose. I like this style, but either there is consensus to use it or there isn't. There is absolutely nothing to gain by having both styles (thereby encouraging edit wars over which appears in a particular article). —David Levy 20:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)