Template talk:The Amazing Race
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Color scheme
I like the previous version (yellow/red/white) better. It is representative of the route marker colors and of the show itself. While the shades of gray "looks professional", it seems rather dull and blah, and doesn't do justice to TAR. Tinlinkin 08:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. I also like the way the old scheme organized the international versions of the show, making it possible to add future seasons without much trouble. Plus it was easier to access those miscellaneous pages like the Trivia page. Can I vote to revert it Sorry when I posted this my browser had something weird with it. Now it looks good HansTAR
- What do you mean easier to access? I can still get to it. TeckWizTalkContribs# of Edits 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Official sites
Why are the official sites necessary in this template? I know Template:ARseasons ([1]) had them, but why now? Navigational templates for Wikipedia should only link to Wikipedia content, nothing else. Tinlinkin 08:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I added them because I've seen them in other show navboxes (like the ones for Desperate Housewives, The OC, and Ugly Betty) and think that they're useful to have. I wrote a few weeks ago on the Amazing Race talk page that I was thinking of adding them, and no one ever responded, so I thought it would be okay. Is there a policy about navboxes that states that external links shouldn't be included? If there isn't, I think it should be acceptable to include them. CrazyLegsKC 13:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- In Wikipedia:Navigational templates, the first sentence gives me the impression that nav templates are intended for navigation within Wikipedia and nowhere else: "A navigational template is often a small list for use in several related articles, without the usual disadvantages of duplication; in particular, editing is done in a central place, the template page."—the list being composed of links within Wikipedia. There is nothing in that page that says external links are not allowed, however. So here is my second reason why I'm uncomfortable with the many external links: most of those links are unrelated for some articles. If I view the TAR 3 article, it would be reasonable to want the link for the TAR 3 official site; it is probably not reasonable to show the official website link for TAR 9 in that article. A similar situation applies if you choose to link to official countries: if you're viewing the TAR Brazil article, why would you need to have an external link for TAR Asia? The example templates you presented probably have a stronger case for EL inclusion as the one EL cited points to a common parent website, and the subarticles can claim that website as their source (although I think "External links" sections are better than ELs in a navbox--the subarticles' sources would be clearer to point out). So I have to disagree here. Tinlinkin 00:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)