Template talk:The Maze Runner
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
Category
[edit]@*Treker:, @Woodensuperman: This is where you discuss stuff, instead of edit summaries. Have fun. Kleuske (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, per usual, the person who urghes discussion when they don't get it their way is the last person to arrive.★Trekker (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Do you want to discuss?
[edit]Or is it just typical buzzwords to get someone to give in to demands?★Trekker (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- In answer to Treker, who seems to want to create a hostile environment from the start [1][2][3]: The reason it is your responsibility to start the discussion is because you made the bold addition. It was reverted, so you must discuss. That's how WP:BRD works. Also, it is not "standard" for navboxes to contain a category link. They appear on some, not on others. This is something that has been creeping in over the last couple of years. It is usually completely redundant, as the pertinent articles will be in pertinent categories, so people using category navigation will find the articles that way, people using a navbox will find the articles that way. Also, a WP:NAVBOX is "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia." Categories are not articles. --woodensuperman 16:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Lol, "bold edition". Also, the only actual rule related to a navbox is that it needs to be bidirectional, which categories can be, so your literal description there doesn't matter in practise. Please come up with something better if you're even bothering to humor me by pretending to actually wanting to have a discussion. You just removed my first attempt at talking with no explanation. Tired of dealing with this Wikipedia bureaucracy. It's sickening. It's genuinely sad that people get to edit war tag someone they're edit warring with. It's pure scare tactic. Now another older editor ha already taken your side since this is how it always seems to go here. - Vomits - Pointless to even try with this shit anymore. Your entire argument up until this point has been "oh I feel this" and "oh I don't like how this looks" (without real explanation), instead of trying to have some kind of consistency or being helpful. Why is it "cluttered" huh? Can you prove that it is? Will people really actually have a hard time reading this navbox with that link there? Will they? Really? Doesn't matter what I possibly say, you're just going to tire me out with your incessant arguing over nothing and then the other editor is going to take your side and vote me down or wear me down with nagging that lasts for days. The old drill. Bye.★Trekker (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Woodensuperman on this one. navigational boxes in article space are for navigating between articles in article space. we don't need tangential links to category space. if someone wants to visit the category, the link is right below the navbox in list of category links at the foot of every article. Frietjes (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
- Lol, "bold edition". Also, the only actual rule related to a navbox is that it needs to be bidirectional, which categories can be, so your literal description there doesn't matter in practise. Please come up with something better if you're even bothering to humor me by pretending to actually wanting to have a discussion. You just removed my first attempt at talking with no explanation. Tired of dealing with this Wikipedia bureaucracy. It's sickening. It's genuinely sad that people get to edit war tag someone they're edit warring with. It's pure scare tactic. Now another older editor ha already taken your side since this is how it always seems to go here. - Vomits - Pointless to even try with this shit anymore. Your entire argument up until this point has been "oh I feel this" and "oh I don't like how this looks" (without real explanation), instead of trying to have some kind of consistency or being helpful. Why is it "cluttered" huh? Can you prove that it is? Will people really actually have a hard time reading this navbox with that link there? Will they? Really? Doesn't matter what I possibly say, you're just going to tire me out with your incessant arguing over nothing and then the other editor is going to take your side and vote me down or wear me down with nagging that lasts for days. The old drill. Bye.★Trekker (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)