Template talk:Santa Clara Valley attractions

Template too big

Template is too big. Badagnani (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of templates bigger than this. For example, a nearby precedent is Template:San Francisco Attractions. The thing that matters is that the content is relevant. People have made 5 dozen (or more) pages about local attractions and there was no organization or navigability among them. And then some of the size of the template is unavoidable since this is about a large metro area. Ikluft (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the template - great way to link together the SV attractions - but it is big. Could it be configured to be minimized by default? --JaGa (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

MLK an event venue?

Shouldn't the library be in cultural? The Beethoven Center is very small, large performances are hosted in other places, like the Petite Trianon. "Cultural" is a bit of a stretch too but seems the better fit. --JaGa (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the image to make more efficient use of screen real estate. But I'm not convinced that was actually necessary. Pages which seem to have been expanded "too much" by adding the navbox really need content added to the page, not restriction of the navbox. They'll get content over time. I also moved the MLK Library from event to cultural - I had already moved Villa Montalvo the same way earlier. Not all event venues have to be huge so those straddle that line. Technically anything with reservable space is a venue. Ikluft (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Navbox collapse settings and category

I just reverted an edit where the editor set the template to always collapsed (instead of normal automatic collapse when there are other navboxes) and removal of the Category:Visitor attractions in Silicon Valley. The collapse setting is normal - any change will need to be discussed here first since it has been discussed here before. Removal of the category was odd and would also need explanation - the template is a member of the category because it is directly related to the topic. Ikluft (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I set the template to collapse as default since it is too big. Other editors agree as per comment above. I removed the category since templates are not placed in article space. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Only one editor said it was too big. Others disagreed. The solution if the template seems too big next to an article is to expand the article, not mess with the navbox. (The larger issue there is to avoid making explicit formatting to fit any one editor's screen or browser.) There are many larger navboxes than this. I can provide examples. As for the template and category, show me a policy that says that - besides, the category namespace is not article namespace anyway. Ikluft (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

More (and hopefully helpful) info: the category, list and navbox template were made to be synergistic with each other. So they're related by design. See WP:CLN Ikluft (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Three editors say it is too big actually. Two above and myself. As for the category both convention and guidelines say that templates should not be in article space cats. Consider two main groups of people that use WP - readers and editors. Readers want content and editors want the info to build WP. A reader will navigate around WP for info and will discover template within the article. The reader will use the content categories to find related articles. A template is not an article and a reader need not see it in a category. I will remove the category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We apparently don't agree on such a "convention" so you'll have to quote the guideline you claim forces such an action. You don't have consensus so I'll revert the change. Ikluft (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's done. Now please specify which guideline you believe forces or even supports that. Otherwise be tolerant of others whose styles differ from yours, and leave this alone. If you do more rushing into this change without adequate explanation over a known objection, I'll be forced to ask admins for assistance. Ikluft (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CAT for guideline. Also, if you peruse all of the content cats it will be unlikely that you will find any templates. All templates are categorised under Category:Wikipedia templates. You attitude is bordering on ownership of this template. I have taken the time to explain my rationale and you are most welcome to involve admins but you will be wasting everyone's time and you may find that it is your behaviour is questionable. You say "You don't have consensus so I'll revert the change". I can say exactly the same thing but I am not going to get involved in edit warring. I would rather get other edits help out. You say "be tolerant of others whose styles differ from yours". I do not have a style. I use convention and guidelines to determine how I carry out edits. WP should be consistent throughout all of its content. You or I, or any other editor, do not have any right to a particular style. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to WP:AGF - I'm trying to as well. It was fair to ask for an explanation to which I can make a response, and was frustrating not to have background info needed to hold a discussion. (I've never had any proficiency for mind-reading.) I believe you, that you had seen such a convention before. I think that whatever convention that might have been, no longer exists and has not been documented on WP in the 2-1/2 years that I've been here. I have reviewed WP:CAT recently for other unrelated uses, and did again for this discussion even before it was suggested. There are a lot of occurrences of the word "template" there - the only one which provides any guidance related to this situation suggests using the special character "τ" as a sort key for templates to alphabetize them at the end of the category. So I made that change and I'll watch for it in other templates too. I hope this helps explain why this took me by surprise. Ikluft (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal: South Bay or Santa Clara Valley attractions

The term "Silicon Valley" is more of a cultural concept than a metro region. It refers to high-tech businesses networking and collaborating for mutual benefit. Regarding this list of attractions, the place where they all reside is either Santa Clara Valley or the South Bay (which currently has no article on Wikipedia.) The reason for the proposed move is to preserve the sense of a metropolitan region having activities, removing the high-tech overlay which is based on technology and business. Suggestions for the precise name for the move? Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Against This is entirely your perspective, which it seems you are intent on pushing across Wikipedia. Silicon Valley is a real place and recognizable as such. Plus, per WP:Common Name, it is undoubtedly the most apt name for the region this template seeks to describe, as it is by far the most common name used. The local tourist bureau is even Visit Silicon Valley. Cristiano Tomás (talk)!

The thing that is "entirely your perspective" is the notion that Silicon Valley is a real place. That notion is wrong, and you must stop pushing it around Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)