Template talk:Rough Draft Studios
In the world of Template talk:Rough Draft Studios, there is a great diversity of approaches, ideas and opinions that can generate an extremely enriching exchange of knowledge. This is why it is crucial to delve deeper into the different aspects surrounding this topic, in order to understand its impact on today's society. From its origins to its future implications, Template talk:Rough Draft Studios has become a point of interest for academics, professionals and the general public. Through this article, we will seek to explore the various facets of Template talk:Rough Draft Studios and its relevance in the contemporary world, offering new perspectives and reflections that contribute to the enrichment of the debate around this transcendental topic.
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | This template was considered for deletion on 13 July 2013. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
Related companies
Ok, so, perhaps "related companies" should be defined -- or renamed. "Related companies", I would imagine, would be limited to companies having worked with RDS or on the same project as RDS. Whether all the currently listed "related companies" fit this description, I don't know. It just seems a bit over-length. Just throwing that out there. -- Chickenmonkey X sign? 17:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Navboxes should consist of links between articles that a reader would be likely to want to go to from the article they are currently on. Navboxes should also be inclusive enough to encompass the whole of a subject without becoming watered down with extraneous links to articles which may have a loose connection to each other. The "related companies" group is not needed and has consistently been increased to overpower the other information contained in the template. Therefore, I think the "related companies" group should be discarded. Does anyone disagree? Chickenmonkey 21:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Coloring of the template
There have been a couple of recent edits adding "darkorange" coloring to this template. I contend that this is a gratuitous use of coloring, and is entirely unwarranted. As such, it goes against current Wikipedia policy on color use. Perhaps a discussion on this issue can be had here, instead of pursuing an edit-war. Chickenmonkey 23:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)