I just created a comprehensive template that groups and organizes all the characters involved in the Young Justice universe. However, there are some people who feel this matter should be discussed before a full wide implementation should begin. As for me, I felt there should be one to help make navigation easier. And since it's a shrinkable template, it doesn't get in the way of anything already posted. Please give your thoughts to this matter. Taikage 09:59, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

{DC Characters}

Like I said here: I wouldn't oppose to put it on a main category, but on every character page is overkill. I can't see how looking through an endless list of names is easier than looking through categories. Not to mention, it is aesthetically unattractive. ― Thailog 11:40, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind one for each respective team, but it's just crazy to have one for every character when you can just go to the Characters cat and see an endless list there. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible 14:22, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

It's not endless, it's relative to whichever characters exist. Also, it's to be on every character and group, not all the pages. I made the templates for both the Fullmetal Alchemist and Gundam wikias. Young Justice pales in comparison to Gundam wikia's. However, if you're about economizing the template, we can separate it by category if you like: One for heroes, another for villains, and whatever things you prefer. Taikage 17:18, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

We've abolished those categories on the grounds of them being black-and-white, so customizing the template to accommodate those obtuse notions is a step back from that. Also, currently we have 234 character articles. I don't want a long list of links on any of them, regardless of them being in a collapsed table. It's very retro if you ask me. We used to have them on Avatar Wiki and purged them for these very same reasons. ― Thailog 17:30, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Some of the groups only list 1 person. Of course it's good to plan ahead, but not with places/organizations that a barely referred to. Like I said I'd support a character template for the most relevant organizations such as the Team, JL, the Light, etc., and with a respectable amount of members, but your first suggestion is just ridiculously long and some of them unimportant, IMHO. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible 17:36, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

This sort of template has been rendered pointless by the "Read more" section to some extent. Also, here we already categorize individuals by significant "groups" and affiliations. What's the point of having a nav template for the Light on the bottom of one member's page if right there there's a link to their category? ― Thailog 17:42, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

I condensed it to the core characters on this template, what do you think? Taikage 17:58, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

{The Team}

The same as before: retro, unneeded, redundant, and unattractive. ― Thailog 18:00, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Well dude, so far you haven't pulled any suggestions, just a lot of negatives. There's also limitations to how the templates can be used, so please be more constructive. If you have better ideas how to use templates, by all means, please make your own adjustments to support your argument. Taikage 18:04, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

It seems like you are under the impression that they will be used. We're discussing here whether or not they are needed, not what adjustments they need before being implemented. I don't have any suggestions to make, because my stance is: don't want to use them. But that's just me. ― Thailog 18:09, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

That's because I've been making templates for many other wikias and all of them felt it was a welcome addition. This is the first time I've encountered resistance over it and I'm here to learn about making things better as a editor. You feel it's redundant and retro? Fine, how can I make it un-redundant and modern? I don't mind nay-sayers and sometimes, agreed, it's not needed on certain wikias due to the nature of its content. If the mass community of this wikia ultimately feels templates are completely unneeded, then I'll make a different contribution. However, I always felt the category list as a lacking index where the templates succeeded. Taikage 18:27, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Probably those wikis don't have an index, which we do. ― Thailog 18:37, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like it Thailog then why is it still on the DCAU Wiki? We even use it here for episodes. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible 19:22, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think it could work ("it" being smaller, team specific templates), but not in this design. It clashes with the overall style of the other templates. --Tupka²¹⁷ 19:30, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the DCAU Wiki, so why they are still used there is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. I see you still think that bringing up unrelated arguments is an effective and productive method of refuting someone's rationale. I'd ask you to stick to the topic.

We use collapsible navigation templates here on the top of episodes and issues to facilitate episode/issue-to-episode/issue navigation, as they are presented in release/chronological order. That's what makes them significant. Categories don't do this as effectively. But for characters, they don't really add anything new. At least nothing that the category tree doesn't do already. Each character page already has all the links to other relevant characters. Why would someone reading "Desaad" need a template on the bottom to take them to "Amber Joyce"? And, again, as for team specific templates, a collapsible table at the bottom of "Vandal Savage" won't do anything that clicking on "The Light" doesn't already do.

Like I said before, I don't mind adding this template to categories, but I oppose adding them to characters. ― Thailog 19:41, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Example(s) of the first time? Well this time they are relatable. It seems that it's acceptable on one wiki your a part of, but it's unnacceptable here. It just seems like you're digging your heels in simply because you happen not like. Taikage is generalising as much as he's trying to specify, but I'm asking why can't we have the team template's like the DCAU Wiki does. It's not like you haven't used the DCAU Wiki as example of how you would like things to be here too such as a quotes template. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible 21:31, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Example. And since I'm sure that you'll ask what that has to do with this: you responded to Tupka's remark with what you thought to be a double standard. The exact same thing you are doing here: pointing out (what you think to be) contradictions or flaws in someone else's rationale, instead of sticking to the topic, being objective, and providing your reasoning. Is your reasoning that we should use these templates because we used them in the DCAU Wiki? Another example of off-topic "flaw"-pointing.

Relatable or not, it is ir-re-le-vant. Why? Because I always make a point of not importing ideas verbatim from my other haunts. The character templates, for example, were modified from the ones I did for the MAU Wiki. The episodes templates are just as different, and the appearances template is entirely new. So, just because I may like or think something is a good idea here, it doesn't automatically mean I'll like it somewhere else, and vice-versa. And please, don't make assumptions of what I think, nor that I base my decisions on my preferences. I didn't like the personality and physical description sections and still capitulated to the majority.

I've already made my case about this. In fact, I'm the only one who even bothered to support my position. No one else has explained why these particular nav-templates are needed. Not without addressing my arguments at least. Do we need these templates because they will look good, or because they'll be useful (more than the category index and general groups categories, that is)? ― Thailog 22:17, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Your example was quite a few months ago and the only reason I brought that up was because you're always so quick to jump on people who upload images, when that image didn't have any license itself, and I didn't know it was temporary since you didn't say that would be the case. I'm sure you didn't think you had to. Why? Because you're above the rules and thought you needn't bother? I don't know. "I'm the only one who even bothered to support my position"? Do you know how egotistical that sounds? Like yourself I'm only voicing my opinion and was only trying to be helpful with what could be done instead, like my previous suggestions. Did you read those two words correctly? I said an opinion & suggestion like so many other times that you or I or anyone else can rightly do, I wasn't enforcing or demanding it, I was just saying what could be done and giving an example of where it's used. I'm starting to get redundant, but the point is it sounds like your biting my head just because I'm not 100% against this like you are. I don't care if it's done or not as you obviously don't, but there's no need to get testy just because a gave an idea. You don't like it, then ok, let's just move on to the next topic. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible 03:34, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of harmony, I'll ignore that little jab about me thinking I'm above the rules. As for you just voicing your opinion; that was true until, for some reason, you decided to question my opinion based on the DCAU Wiki conventions. Do you realize how abrasive that is? Egotistical or not, it's a fact that I did present a reason for my opinion. Several actually, and yet, without doing the same for your partial support, you took up the role of second judging mine. And this happened after I've said my piece and moved on. This has gone off-topic long enough, however, and it will be my last comment on this. In the future, please try to be less counter-productive in your reasoning. As you can see, it leads nowhere. ― Thailog 11:12, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure this response will give you further reasoning to accuse of being something I'm not. Take this as a "jab" or not, but you don't care or see things from my point of view because you thought your first response should of ended the discussion not wanting anyone else to voice an opinion which I'm entitled to. I didn't question you at first, only until you just wouldn't consider my other option which I've said half a dozen times already is that we could have a team template, not the character template, but a team template like at the bottom of Superman's page on the DCAU Wiki. He even has TWO for crying out loud. Taikage suggested one option and while you think it's irrelevent, I was only suggesting a different route to go. Maybe if you had just said no instead of arguing that I was bringing up something irrelevent which like I said wasn't because it was a different option, but it is still related to the same topic of a type of character template, only replacing "character" with "team". I'd rather you just stick to the topic and say no rather than get dictative (which is obviously because of your position) and accuse me of being whatever. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible 11:41, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Thailog is not dictating anything. Let's clear that up first. Second of all, Thailog's first response in no way shot-down the proposal, and nor was it a blunt no. It definitely left the discussion open to other opinions. And if we could please refrain from making personal attacks, well that would be lovely. But onto the matter at hand. I agree with Thailog, it is overkill to have every single character in one drop-down navbox, however, I do see the merit in templates for a select few categories where it could be useful, such as a way to identify those that work for and with the Light; i.e. the big seven (Vandal, Ra's, Lex, Brain, Klarion, O-M, and Bee), and all their other associates (SportsM, Chesh., Riddler, H. Strange, etc.). I can also see its merit for the Justice League and Team, including former members. Whether or not the Team and League could be one template or two is for later discussion. So to recap, I oppose the current proposal of this huge character template, but support the creation of a select few amount of templates for certain categories. Rassilon of Old ^{(Wall - Contribs)} 11:52, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Let the record show that that is precisely what I opposed and supported to begin with. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible 12:11, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Rass, but obviously there's some kind of miscommunication here and I need to set the record straight. APFP, before you reply, should you choose to, I invite you to re-read the entire discussion. Firstly, I don't see how my first response could be construed as a definite statement to "end the discussion". It was an opinion; the discussion continued, and I kept on elaborating on my reasoning. Secondly, not only did I consider your option, but I also replied to it. And it was my first direct reply to you before you started nitpicking. Please, re-read it. All my other replies were to Taikage. Thirdly, my last contribution to the discussion was "[I] don't want to use them. But that's just me." (my emphasis). The last bit evidently leaves the door open for more opinions and states I've said all I had to say. Then, you started with the whole "then why do you use them on DCAU Wiki". That's when the discussion started to go off-topic. Finally, how is that my "saying no" without augmenting would not be "dictative"? Wouldn't that be viewed as me trying to shut the discussion down?

Also, I take offense with insinuations of me being "dictative" or "authoritative" just because I'm argumentative. Especially since I'm not here in an admin capacity. I'm voicing my opinion like any other user. Now who's accusing whom of something he's not? Please forgo the preconceptions you may have of certain individuals when participating in a debate and don't infer subtextual nuances from their words.

For the last time, I don't care how many nav-templates Superman has on the DCAU Wiki. He might have twenty for all I care—that doesn't bind me to immediately accept that implementation on every wiki I edit.

As for the topic a hand, I oppose the use of the proposed or any form of character navigation template for the many aforementioned reasons. To sum up:

1. We have an extensive category indexation system that facilitates character navigation.
2. Such templates would be placed close to the categories links on the bottom of the pages, thus rendering them redundant.

That is my opinion. ― Thailog 17:12, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think there was a miscommunication from my end just because you were the only other one responding as well and the fact that you're admin here (no matter what "capacity" you think you're taking in this debate, so I don't know what you mean by that) who was saying no just meant that was it end of discussion despite the fact that yes you did say it was just you. I also think it would of been helpful, to me at least, if you had addressed who you were talking to in the first place because I wasn't sure, you know? *I'm just being honest, I'm not being rude, okay?* -- Anythingspossibleforapossible 18:28, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Usually, when a reply is indented it means the poster is replying to the message that immediately proceeds it. All my replies were addressed to one single person, but I understand that doesn't always works that way (in the profile image changes for example when indented replies sometimes are not addressed to anyone in specific, but to the proposal in general). So, if that was the source of discord, then I apologize too.

Acting on an "admin capacity" would be "upholding policies". It would be the case had I said "this proposal goes against our policy X, so it won't happen." From now on, please interpret admins replies as simply replies, unless they are accompanied by a policy citation. Opinions are just that, and yours have the same weight as those of admins. And btw, upholding policies is not exclusive to admins. ― Thailog 19:59, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

DC Characters category, in a DC Comics show?

I don't see any Marvel, Image, Zenescope, Archie, Harvey, or Disney characters in here. Why the need to categorize? Zergrinch 11:53, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

What was the question again? -- Anythingspossibleforapossible 12:07, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Zergrinch has a point. This template is implying that characters other than DC Universe characters (plus the miniscule amount of original characters) appear in the show. Which obviously, is incorrect. Rassilon of Old ^{(Wall - Contribs)} 12:11, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I understand, and of course that wouldn't be necessary. Not even "Young Justice characters" would be, but I don't see how people would question whether or not the characters in this program are related to Disney or the other companies mentioned. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible 12:17, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

Anythingspossible, the template being proposed classifies characters into a category called "DC Characters". I feel it is unnecessary, because every named character appearing on this show is a DC character. By having that category, you are implying there are characters that aren't DC characters. Unless of course we want to classify characters into Fawcett (Captain Marvel), Charlton (Captain Atom, Blue Beetle) or Vertigo (Madame Xanadu). Zergrinch 12:24, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'm I accessing this wiki on another wavelength or something? I'm not implying anything, and I'm not even the one who created the template to begin so blame the proposer not me. Also, if you'd look above at my second response I was infact agreeing with you, but you're stating the obvious and apparently haven't seen the 2nd proposed which renamed it "Young Justice Characters" which is also redundant. I think it was added to begin just because of the very fact that they're DC characters in a DC Comics show. Go figure. :P -- Anythingspossibleforapossible 12:41, April 24, 2012 (UTC)