Template talk:Customer loyalty programs
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
- Why has this been moved from
{{Nectar}}? I can see the need for this navbox, but since it has really no relation to the one specific to the Nectar loyalty card, the move seems somewhat odd: I would have said that such a move should have been discussed first, and that if it was, the logical place to do that would have been at Template Talk:Nectar. If there was a discussion, where is it please? Si Trew (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Requested move
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Template:Customer loyalty programs → Nectar — Appears to have been moved from {{Nectar}} and repurposed without discussion. 18:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note this nomination is a bit confusing since the template was not moved from article space. It was moved from template {{Nectar}} which is very different then the article at Nectar which has been there for years. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. The primary meaning of Nectar is the sweet liquid that bees collect!!!!! Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment At the very least, "Nectar" is inappropriate. If moved 'back' it should be to {{Nectar card}} or something. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Split off the new history by SilkTorq into the current name, and the old history into {{Nectar card}}. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems like the template is at the right place now. I think that it's best to keep it generic like this rather than focus on a single card. Gary King (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose This template is now valid and helpful. Under the previous name it did not meet the guidelines in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. SilkTork *YES! 22:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm sorry, yes I meant the move to {{Nectar}}; I was not intending to suggest moving it to Nectar.
- Well the template as it stands might be useful, but there was no need to move it from the navbox for Nectar (and remove that from all the articles that used that navbox), you could have just made a new template. What guidelines do you think it did not meet for navigation templates? I don't see many guidelines there beyond the one that says "Ask yourself, is the subject of this box something that would be mentioned on every article in it?" I think the answer to that would be yes. I'm not claiming it always is, just that it should be. On the other hand, the current use is so open-ended that "They are particularly useful for small and more or less complete sets; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use."; if it lists every kind of loyalty program then that is just going to get ridiculous; Nectar has a limited number of participants, but there must be thousands of loyalty programs.
- In any case, why pick on {{Nectar}} Why not choose, say, {{Star Alliance}}, or any other particular loyalty program? The point is moot; those navboxes lisst members of customer loyalty programs; this one lists the programs themselves (a few of them); both can coexist but in my opinion there was no need to move it, just make a new template.
Si Trew (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Commment. By the way perhaps I should have said in case it wasn't clear; {{Nectar}} is now a redirect to {{Customer loyalty programs}} because the move created a redirect. That, of course, makes no sense; anyone transcluding {{Nectar}} now gets a navbox about customer loyalty programs. As far as I know it was never called {{Nectar card}}, but I've no objection to it being moved "back" there (or rather, the history split proposed above). Si Trew (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.