Bob Fass is still on the air.

Why? The changes that I made to this template made it be in line with {{ NPR}}, {{ American Public Media}}, and {{ Public Radio International}} - why should this one be different? Almost all of the changing itself was cosmetic anyway; I don't see what is objectionable. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Good grief. How in tarnation did you get your comment posted before I was finished with mine? (see below) Cgingold ( talk) 03:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

This template is a collaborative effort, so major changes should be discussed here first. If the new navbox format is now the Wiki standard, I have no particular objection to implementing that modification. But the other issues need to be discussed and agreed on (or not, as the case may be). Cgingold ( talk) 03:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Responding to issue raised above: The other changes certainly were NOT cosmetic. (Which reminds me -- I wasn't real happy with your skimpy edit summaries, either.)

• Adding four red-linked titles for possible future articles is not "cosmetic". There are literally dozens of Pacifia programs which could potentially have articles -- and no reason to add these or any others until those articles have been created.
• I strongly object to including links to non-Pacifica-related articles in this template. Pacifica has nothing to do with any of those other networks, etc. -- so it amounts to adding a "See also" section to the template.

(I'm posting this before I'm finished so you don't manage to preempt me again.) Cgingold ( talk) 03:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Standards, etc. It seems like that is the standard, as I was saying above. This is how the other public radio navboxes are formatted, all of the band templates, several if not all for media companies (e.g. {{ CBS}}), etc. As far as I'm aware, the preference is for this style of formatting and has been increasingly the case for awhile (as I understand, it began with the bands.)

If you really want to delete redlinks, I suppose I won't object to it; I was just trying to make it as comprehensive as the other public radio templates. It doesn't seem desirable to me to delete them, but it's not worth bickering.

I really don't see why you object to including links to the other American public radio outfits, though. None of them have any formal association with one another (minus the historic connection between APM and PRI), they are simply the public broadcasting in the United States. It seems useful for readers to be able to navigate amongst them (which is probably why they are all linked on one anothers' templates) and they are predicated by a generic link about public broadcasting, which is clearly not all or even primarily Pacifica-related. The odds that someone will get confused and think that NPR is a branch of Pacifica seems pretty slim to me. As for it being a "see also" section, that's essentially what it is - a catch-all for other related articles that might be of interest. Again, this is common on similar types of templates and templates for other public broadcasting outfits. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply