I swear zdnet and Ziff Davis were once the same company, but are now seperate. The ziff davis company website has no reference to ZDnet or being owned by cnet or cbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.137.147 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 20 August 2008
The template looks kind of ugly to me... External links are not nice either.--Kozuch (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I removed the extlinks. These have been added back as plain text, in addition to rather pointless sub-categorisation. Both of these should be revertes, as the point of the navbox template is to link people to things, not to serve as an index or repository of information. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Just came across this conflict in random wanderings. Can I suggest that the inclusion or otherwise of these items should be based on whether there is any reasonable likelihood of a corresponding article being created? I think a navbox like this one (that consolidates very specific information on a particular topic) can and should have redlinks in it if those redlinks meet with Wikipedia:Red link. As an example, I created this template of award winning short stories even though some of the links are red and think it was right to do so. It invites people to create the relevant articles and I think that is a good thing.
- I don't know enough about the topic in question to know what the solution is here, but don't think the issue is completely clear cut either way and requires some thought as to whether the proposed links are useful or not. It's a matter of balance, not absolutes, and a discussion of which links it would be useful to include based on the Redlink guideline has got to be better than the revert war that seems to be going on.
- I agree with the removal of the external links, though. GDallimore (Talk) 15:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Navboxen are for navigating existing articles. Setting them up before the articles have been created isn't really building the web so much as it is implying notability without evidence. I'm planning on restoring the all-blue-links version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I have left a message here: User_talk:Ramu50#Template:Ziff_Davis asking for reasons as to why one or more of those links might realistically support an article. On the basis that nothing is urgent, can I suggest giving Ramu50 a couple of days or even a week to reply, and then make the revert to the bluelink only version. If nothing is given to support the current redinks, I would support their removal, and will happily do it myself. 82.211.95.178 (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC) (GDallimore not logged in)Reply[reply]
- It's not just the existence of redlinks; it's the excessive subcategorisation beyond that which is required for usability. Even with the redlinks, some of the current groups contain less than five member links. We should aim to consolidate these if vertical space allows it, which was the purpose of my edit. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I've removed the redlinks in the absence of any indication that they might be notable topics. If you think the template needs a tidy as a result, feel free! GDallimore (Talk) 14:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I've re-collapsed the groups sot that they contain a sensible number of member links each. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I personally feel that topics without an article should be kept as a simple text, notables one can be kept as red links if wish to promote the expansion of template. But simply eliminating all of the non-existent one doesn't solve anything. --Ramu50 (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In terms of notability, MyDigital (2,119) and AppScout (61,000). The numbers indicate current ranking in Alexa (as of Oct 15, 08). Even AMD is only at rank 40,000.
CIO Insight research survey is recognized by major enterprise Red Hat and Citrix.
PDFZone
--Ramu50 (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Then try writing articles on them. I don't know how many times it needs to be explained to you across different discussions that the point of navigation boxes is to navigate between articles; it is not to provide tables of information, or map out an entire project. Navboxen are just collections of links, ideally organised such to make those links easy to navigate between. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Perhaps you need to read the Navbox guidelines. I think you're both taking this to extremes. Plain links and lots of redlinks isn't appropriate, but neither is culling the template entirely of potentially useful links, even if the articles haven't been created just yet. There's a middle ground and, when I get a chance, I'll gather together the info Ramu50 has kindly provided and we can work out where that middle ground is. GDallimore (Talk) 21:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Oh, I can't be bothered. You're both acting childish. GDallimore (Talk) 11:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- WP:NAVBOX explicitly advocates making templares short and avoiding non-blue links. I don't see what's so "childish" about disagreeing with your assertion that we have to find a "middle ground" between a template which follows the guidelines and one which doesn't. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your collpasing methods doesn't even work for the template. Web and IPTV are totally different topics, it would be way more mature to collapse magazine and web, since both of them are news reporters or Gaming and IPTV since they are Web 2.0. Chris Cunningham you keep claiming you have want smaller template, yet none of the template I've seen you showing any knowledge of it. --Ramu50 (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Changing "Web" to "Internet" would have fixed that. But I see you've reverted the entire template to your preferred version again, so collaboration with you is evidently pointless. I'll see whether there's consensus for an administrative injunction to stop this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go ahead and find an adminstrators, can't even accept a suggestions. By the way the I was already experimenting with infobox yesterday to see if it will work better, but too bad you are too narrowminded to even accept any suggestions.
By the way this action of yours isn't called a "preferred" versions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ACapital_punishment&diff=245063306&oldid=245061726. Load of crap.
Also I've seen you editing a lot of documentations template, that you are not involved in before. So who is the one that is being disruptive by editing things that you have no knowledge of and yet you claim to have expertise on. You don't even think before you act.
Just because I really hate reporting people to adminstrator to people that doesn't I have less knowledge than you. I've been learning how to do HTML, CSS, php, vbscript, gaming design and acutally made an encyclopedia of contributions made by gamers contribution on forums since 12 years old, what have you got to say about your contributions to the gaming industry. You have no respect for the industry.
When I convert the template, I acutally try to followed the same format from the original template. The other links that weren't actually from Ziff_Davis#Current properties and I try to add it accordingly. Also you are the only one who is editing to whatever you feel like it, since I don't seen you contributing any information to any of the existing article in the template, while I already was contributing at July 2008 [1].
You are a jerk that mis-use the status of being at Sun Microsystems.
--Ramu50 (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added a new row for notable individuals within ZD. For some reason it does not appear to be showing up on pages. For now I only have one, Dan Costa, a page I found while doing New Pages Patrol. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]