Talk:Web template/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old Talk

Merge with template engine on "Template system"??

Or "web template system". Not on Templating system (google say 20% of the freq. of use of the term).

Web template and template engine remains, in a "more specialized" articles.

Vote yes

See template engine and web template, with the same introductions, same ref. fig., same concepts... convergence make sense. Krauss, 12 June 2006.

Merge with web design

No.

old yes

(Copied in part from User talk:Diberri)

Hello Diberri. In regards to the web template edit, you said > "wikify, stubbify, rm ext. link ad/spam -- probably should merge with web design" Web Template is one of the new topics, I'm working on. I agree the article is a stub and needs more expanding. I don't think the link advert counts as spam however. Most importantly, a web template is totally different than web design. It is part of web design but a template is completely different therefore don't think it should be merged. sid007 08:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The external link you added was for a commercial site selling web templates. We don't need to be advertising for them in Wikipedia.

Regarding merging with web design: the topics aren't equivalent, but they're certainly very related. A web template is a prefashioned design used to build cookie-cutter websites. What more is there to say besides how the templates are themselves designed? And those details would be no different than what's already at web design, which is the two pages should be merged.

If you've got better reasons for why this shouldn't happen, please point them out. But your argument,

Most importantly, a web template is totally different than web design. It is part of web design but a template is completely different therefore don't think it should be merged.

isn't very convincing. Just because you say they're "totally different" doesn't make it so ;-) --David Iberri | Talk 18:54, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

http://www.freeflashtemplates.de Free Templates is actually a commercial site which contains only a few abandoned web templates for download. Suggest to remove this link from list of free web template providers. Cmlau 12:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

NOT Merge with web design

I think NOT is better. krauss 11 Apr 2006.

Etc. comments

Thanks to GraemeL english fast revision. krauss 11 Apr 2006.

Not link spam?

I find the recent edits by GraemeL to be somewhat troubling. I have added the link "Free Layouts.com (http://www.freelayouts.com) to "open source templates" section of this article a number of times. However, each time, GraemeL reverts this edit. My website, Free Layouts.com, offers over 700 web templates free for download (with no catch whatsoever). The website does not have popups (it never has), and it has two spots, clearled labeled for advertisements. These advertisements pay for the close to terabyte bandwidth fees my site pays each month to offer these free layouts. I do not, under any circumstances, sell templates from this website.

The other websites listed in this section use the same exact advertising platform (Google Ads) more specifically: http://www.oswd.org/ - Also uses Google Ads http://openwebdesign.org/ - Also uses Google Ads

Furthermore, a recent website has been added to this page, whose edit GraemeL has not reverted. I added my website again after this website, but my edit was reverted and his was not. The website is: Freeprotemplates.com

Now, freeprotemplates.com forwards to TemplateMonster.com (at least in this article link), which offers absolutely no free web templates. All of their templates are for a fee, and therefore it should not be included in this section whatsoever. Yet it appears as though GraemeL did not pay any attention to this website, and simply saw my free website and removed it.

I do not know what standards GraemeL considers for 'free and "open-source" source', but removing links from a free template provider and not bothering to remove what is clearly an advertisement for a pay-for-template service is, as I said, somewhat troubling. I applaud him, though, in ignoring what is clearly link spam, and going straight for the free resources in his reversions. I guess that's why his "This user is a novice spam fighter." is still at level 1. --68.192.129.81 00:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I congratulate GraemeL by removing the entire link section to deal with the "link spam" of free, resourceful websites. Maybe if we can do this for every article, the issue of link spam will have been solved. Oh wait... --68.192.129.81 00:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverted again

Someone added in the "open source template" links again and I reverted again, and wanted to explain why. This wasn't a judgment on the links--though I tend to be on GraemeL's side on these things, I was just fixing the formatting. I reverted because that edit introduced a backslash in front of every apostrophe and quote mark. It looked like some text editor or script was trying to escape everything, which totally murdered the page formatting. Rather than pick through the whole article I just reverted, without prejudice if the editor wants to try again. Please watch the backslashes, thogh. No guarantee that it won't be reverted again as spam, of course. · rodii · 01:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Theres nothing wrong with this

absolutely nothing!!