Template talk:VentureBros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

should we keed the episode pages links in there or maybe move them to another template or perhaps take them out altogether? -th1rt3en 06:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 'Presented in...' Banner. 2 Triana 3 Pilot 4 Color Scheme

[edit] 'Presented in...' Banner.

Yom claims the banner isn't encyclopedic; which I can actually see, but I vote we keep it for the personality it gives the page. I figure we'll make a vote on it. Umbric Man 1:15 A.M. 26th July 2006

I liked it too, it does give off a Venture Bros. atmosphere. Though I might be biased because I made it :P -th1rt3en 05:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it also. If we rid Wikipedia of everything unencyclopedic, the site would be bare. - DynSkeet * Talk

Added in! I'm pretty sure the other Venture-regulars would agree with puttinng it back up. Umbric Man 12:50 P.M. 26th July 2006

Whether or not it gives it personality doesn't matter. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost. I'm not opposed to making the template colorful and pleasing to the eye, but there's no reason to include a bar that says "PRESENTED IN GLORIOUS EXTRA COLOR." It's just silly and should be removed. Note that Wikipedia is not a democracy. A vote on whether or not users like it doesn't matter; what's important is whwether or not it's encyclopedic, which you all agree it is not. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 20:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Guess what else Wikipedia is not? Lets not stick to silly rules and keep Wikipedia a humorless morass of pricks and sticklers. --Hazelfo

Well, I guess we agree to disagree.

Like I said, I do understand your reasoning, don't get me wrong, and I'm sure you can at least see our viewpoint as well. If you really feel the need to take it down; I shan't argue, but to me it never hurt the page and kept up the spirit of it-something Venture-related, a chuckle for those who get it. I'll grant you did get us in terms of logic in agreeing it's not needed, so I'll take it down, but I always saw it as fun and harmless. Umbric Man 11:32 P.M. 26th July 2006

Ok there seems to be an edit war going on between keeping it and killing it. I for one think it should stay when I first saw it I got a kick out of it. Is is unencyclopedic? No more than anything else, there's a lot of "character" all over these pages. Are we really going to go through with a fine toothed comb and take out everything that's not completely encyclopedic? Having that little extra thing doesn't detract from it, most people probably won't even notice it so why so super serious about taking it off? We're not talking about the end of the world here folks, it's one line that shows at the bottom of the page that when some people see it they get a smile out of it. How is that bad? In other news if you'd actually read that rule you quoted Yom it doesn't really support your point. You're totally misquoting it. The actual quote would be "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy" and we're not trying to make it one. We're looking for consensus if you look here it seems pretty clear that the consensus is to keep it up. I challenge anyone to acutally read that article and say that this should be taken down...That is all. Joroth

No, see, look at this, right below "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy." Wikipedia is not an experiment in rule making. Just because something is a bit "unencyclopedic" doesn't mean that it should be erased. The thing has personality. Let it keep it. Anyone who actually cares about the Venture Bros. would agree. --Hazelfo

I hadn't made up my mind about it before reading this talk page (which I only visited because I was curious about the "controversial" banner.) After reading everybody's comments, and the "What WP is NOT" article, I vote we keep it! Let's face it: even though the banner may not be "traditionally encyclopedic", come on, an article on the Venture Bros. isn't too traditional either. On how many "traditional encyclopedias" will you find an article on a cult animation show's pet robot? -SaulPerdomo 04:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think it should be deleted because it's mostly just confusing. It's really just an in-joke. People not familiar with the significance of the phrase won't know what it means and will just be confused. And I'm not really sure an encyclopedia should breed confusion. El Cid 00:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What are the chances that the person reading the article has never even seen the opening? Any confusion it generates will be very minor at best, we aren't talking about existential agony here. I realize that Wikipedia "isn't a forum for in-jokes", but it shouldn't be completely humorless either. Keep. -DynSkeet (Talk) 12:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I say keep. It isn't harming anything there. It also links to The_Venture_Bros.#Episodes, which describes what exactly the phrase is and its significance to the show, so confusion is kept minimal as a result AND it provides a legitimate use, while at the same time being slightly humorous. --Captain Cornflake 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Piped_link#Intuitiveness says, "Do not use piped links to create "easter egg links", that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on." -- 71.86.121.200 01:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be deleted. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. Andre (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand both sides. Obviously we can let the rules slide a bit for this Wikipedia:Fancruft stuff, and I do apprecieate the humor, but I don't think this is the place to add jokes (there is a slippery slope i think). Even when talking about a non-serious topic we should stay somewhat encyclopedic. My heart says delete but I really DGAF. -- 71.86.121.200 01:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree this time around. I removed it. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the best reason to keep it would be because it adds to the atmosphere of the page without actually hurting the encyclopedic basis in any way. On a side note is there any reason that it links to the episodes section of the page, I think that running gags section would be much more relevant, perhaps even enough to have a legitimate reason for keeping it. Enelson 07:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As great as it is, this is not a fansite. This is an encyclopedia. Delete. Hotdoglives 06:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to cite the D20 Banner, a banner recently on a featured article which includes an image equally offensive as the "Extra Color" and with no real encyclopedic value. There has been no argument about the inclusion of the image nor do I see any reason to remove it. Just as I see no reason do remove a lighthearted image such as the one belonging on this banner. Also, there has been no resolution to this argument, so why was the banner edited? Enelson

[edit] Triana

I added Triana Orpheus after creating a page for her. -CWD 20:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! SaulPerdomo 04:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pilot

Why does "Pilot" in the "Episodes" bar have to link to the Episode list page? There's only going to be the one and it seems like a pointless double link to get there from the box. -- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 22:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I was doing it to be consistant. There's also only one special as well. Also there's another NavBox with all the episodes. -th1rt3en 00:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but there can be other specials later so that one makes sense. This one just doesn't to me.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 02:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well then I was just trying to remain consistant with the other links. -th1rt3en 02:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Color Scheme

I have a problem with the color scheme for the Venture Bros. templates. First off, the black background on the "Glorious Extra COLOR" section makes some of the colored letters hard to see. Second, all the templates for the Venture Bros. articles have that bright red top. On this particular template it's not so bad, but on the episode list template, which has a link, the blue text bleeds horribly with the red background and it's very difficult to read. I think the background colors on these templates should change so that they don't clash with the text. -Captain Crawdad 21:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to white, that looks a bit better. -th1rt3en 07:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)