Template talk:Events

I'm gonna have to say that I oppose this one. It's too simplified; if I want to find an event on the template but don't remember its number, I have to slowly search along the links until I find the right one. There's no reason to remove the event titles, in my opinion. Miles (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2012 (EDT)

Yeah, this looks neater and more formal, but ultimetely, not many will know the order of the event matches by heart. It's like when people don't know TM numbers in Pokémon, they struggle to navigate Bulbapedia. Because of how much nicer it looks, I'm going to stay neutral, but others may not be so Memphis. Toast ltimatum 14:38, 25 May 2012 (EDT)

Oppose per Miles, this only helps if you know which event you are looking for. Navigation charts should provide the easily remembered characteristics. The names of the events give much more clue to the memorable parts than the specific number. Elegance only matters if the proof is correct to begin with. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 16:39, 25 May 2012 (EDT)

Oppose - All of the above. Avengingbandit 16:43, 25 May 2012 (EDT)

Oppose because I forget what events are which. ShupaRoeh 16:01, 26 May 2012 (EDT)

Oppose: The current one is better than this one, has the names and looks more aesthetically pleasing. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 22:08, 1 June 2012 (EDT)

Oppose: Per what Miles said. If you don't remember the number, it would be too much of a hassle to try to find the event you're looking for. Unknown the Hedgehog 22:52, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

Oppose, per the gentlemen above. ^—Smiddle my sig is not fancy 08:26, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

Oppose, per Miles, although I do like the simplicity that the proposed version offers. I'm wondering if we could add the Event Numbers to the current Event Match template? Fenyx4 (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2012 (EDT)

Oppose: I like the simplicity, but with the current one, you don't have to scroll over the numbers to find the event; the title's there too. DarkFox01 T C E 20:34, 11 June 2012 (EDT)

Oppose period to whatever this is. ..... The EarthBound 21:24, 11 June 2012 (EDT)