Wikipedia talk:Article series boxes

Comments about User:AlexR/Article series boxes should go here.

An excellent summary of the issues, Alex. I rather like ASBs, but I completely agree with your proposals that a) they should all be landscape rather than portrait, and b) they should go at the bottom of the page. --ALargeElk 16:54, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that, given oblong boxes, they should go at the top, as that is really where they visually look the best. Beyond that, I think I agree with the proposal in general, and can see the case for broad boxes as better than oblong. Snowspinner 17:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

While they would look good at the top, or rather at the right border of the text, putting them on top would intrude badly with the legibility of a text. I keep my browser window at about 800 width, and I use the standard skin, which means I have the menu on the left. If there were boxes at the right side of the text, there would not be too much room left for the text, and if there are pictures or tables in the text, it would lead to horribly looking pages. Also, users looking for a link in the boxes would have to scroll back when they finished reading, which most probably would just not do; therefore the box might simply be wasted. And they would detract from the text itself, even if they don't interfere with the text too much (in a different page setup, most likely).
Which is why I proposed that the boxes should go to the bottom. -- AlexR 06:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

The only time that they should go at the bottom of the page, is in situations where there can be more than one project claiming an article. Article boxes, or what ever you want to call them, which clearly add to the comprehension of text by the public by classifying the article clearly belong on top to the right and below the introduction paragraph. I would propose that images in articles should go on the left so as not to conflict with the boxes. -- John Gohde 17:05, 9 May 2004 (UTC

Correcting for correct terminology, I would have to agree that many ASBs should go at the bottom of articles because they will be replacing all those See other link lists currently found at the bottom of articles. -- John Gohde 19:10, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

What about the other important contexts of an article which don't have a box? They don't become less important because some people don't want to follow the latest fad, or because there are just one or two articles relevant anyway. So the boxes should, in my opinion, no matter how many, go to the bottom, and they will not replace the "See other" section, either. -- AlexR 22:48, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I like your proposal. I'm glad someone took the time to attempt to standardize this sort of thing. Thanks. -Seth Mahoney 02:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Since Alex asked for feedback, here's one Wikipedian's two US cents:

I just happened on the article for Greece, & was a bit concerned about the proliferation of boxes as the bottom of the page. These refer to series on Europe, the European Union, NATO, & OECD. Now, I'll admit that these are all germane to the article on Greece, but they looked incongruous to me for these reasons:

1. Needless repetition At a glance, in these 4 boxes, Belgium is linked to 4 times, & Austria 3 times, neither of which has much to do with Greece.
2. Incongruous Associations In the first box of this group, Europe, there are 4 articles linked under "dependencies". I struggled for a second to understand just how "Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Isle of Man, & Jersey" could be seen as dependencies of Greece -- then realized that although they are subdivisions of Denmark & the UK that, they have identities clearly recognized even by other nations. Yes, I admit the failure to understand was on my part, but I can't help but feel this failure was forced upon me, & that the box should have been better constructed.
3. Structure So even if you ignore my other two gripes or whinges, there is still left this sense that I have over four blocks of data that takes up a lot of space, but doesn't deliver the user much information for all of that space; couldn't we find a way with PHP & the Wikipedia software to integrate all of these links into one box that provides links to the European Union, NATO, & OECD, their flags, & all of the member states? Now that would be very cool, & be something we can wave in the faces of proprietary online encyclopedia manufacturers, & challenge them to top.

Will the last item come to pass? I have a sense that the developers are working hard over existing problems, & that my suggestion justifiably may never reach the top of their to-do lists, yet if this integration could be done, I'd guess most of the resistence to the use of "series boxes" would vanish quickly. And I hope I'm not just presenting another off-teh-wall idea here. -- llywrch 02:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

My biggest problem with Greece (Besides the fact that I don't like Greek food) is the painful homogeny of color at the bottom of the page. I think the boxes themselves are all quite well designed. Are there a lot of them? Well, yes. But I blame Europe more than series boxes for that. Snowspinner 03:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

painful homogeny of color - I agree about all that blue! See Wikipedia:Infobox for why each project should be using a different color. -- John Gohde 17:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that it is not impossible at all to have similar boxes below any country in the word; the USA are part of NATO and OECD, too, a box about all countries in North and South America could easily been done (it probably exists already) and there are certainly one or more pan-american organisations, too. You are right, though, that four links instead of four boxes would do just as well, or maybe just the "Europe" box and three links — even thought these boxes are series boxes instead of ASBs. -- AlexR 06:42, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Are you objecting to/proposing any guidelines on regular old SBs? Snowspinner 14:48, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Neither. I guess that there has already been a lot of debate about them, about which I don't know too much. Probably regulating them somewhat would be a good idea, some articles are already rather boxed, so to speak. Probably my policy about ASBs would be at least adaptable, so if somebody who knows the previous debates about them wants to do that, feel free. -- AlexR 22:48, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

---

My US 2 cents worth:

1. I think that ==Content: What should NOT be in an ASB?== is not clear, or perhaps I disagree. I agree that an ASB shouldn't have a huge list of articles. I find some of the geographical ASBs to be ludicrously large and overcomplete (see, e.g., Template:California). However, I think that it is a good thing for an ASB to have a link to a "list of" article. I'll hold up Template:Solar System as a positive example --- it has a list of the 10 most prominent Solar System articles, and then links to two more "list of" articles for experts to browse through. I believe that the "What should NOT be in an ASB" section seems deprecate this, but it may just be unclear.
2. I'm guessing that the thought behind requiring a project for an ASB will discourage random boxes. My fear is that people love random ASBs so much that we'll then be deluged with random WikiProjects! But, since Wikipedia is not paper, maybe this isn't a big issue.

-- hike395 07:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Examples of what not to do can be found at Wikipedia:Topics. Some related discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Article series, Wikipedia talk:page footers, and wikipedia talk:topics. --Jiang 07:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Watch your box

Some people may have a hard time understanding proper box heirarchy : In a case like biology, which has a very detailed list of subfields within biology there is no need to have a biology box there. If its the top link ("articles in the FOO series"), then if it is to have a box, it will have a MORE GENERAL ONE - one that links to higher categories. Biology, then would have a sciences box leading to other equivalent and related. Also, lets call these classification boxes, not series boxes - these arent linear - they are paralell, or related links.

Repeat/summary:

• Top level articles should have a higher level classification box. Use the same Wikipedia:classbox if articles fit within the same classification. Some articles may fit under more than one category.
• As an example, dont put the biology classbox on biology. Use the sciences classbox instead.

-Stevertigo 16:35, 6 May 2004 ((Copy this message everywhere that an understanding of this basic principle is lacking.)

Could you make a sample design of a classbox or two for the more visually minded? Snowspinner 17:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't really understand the need to link my name with people above, especially since I never spoke at all about biology or science boxes, neither for nor against them. Also, if you had read the proposal, you might have noticed that I did make a clear distiction between series boxes which link linear and clearly defined and limited topics, and article series boxes, which are what you call classification boxes. So maybe you should try to get an understanding of another basic principle - read first, answer after you read and understood a text, and don't insult people unnecessarily. -- AlexR 18:07, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

high all! just wandering by. This is a debate that gotta be had. I have a little background in information systems... so contributing some terminology may speed things along. a hierarchy is a form of what maths people call a graph. A graph is a series of nodes (or wikipages!) connected by links. The links may or may not have a direction (parent->child) or may be directionless siblings (see also semantic network). Hierarchies may commonly be either type of (aka classification) or part of (meronomy ?sp). (This is a bit esoteric, but people often get lost in the type/part distinction: a tree may be part of a forest but it is a type of plant .... or a tree has branches, leaves and roots as its part, or gum tree or pine as it's types )...

anyway to keep it simple the following six words are simple enough (egs for tree and Greece), and may aid clarity:

• parent (either Forest or Plant -- Europe or Country)
• sibling (grass, Turkey)
• child
  • sub-type or type (gum tree)
  • part (leaf, root -- Crete, Athens)
• related concept (chain saw, paper -- Ouzo, Greek)

Erich gasboy 19:11, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Lists vs Articles _and_ Blue Boxes NOT!

Wikipedia:Article series boxes policy (proposed) does not appear to be about a specific project, so I will add my own two cents worth and then some.

Article series boxes (ASBs) and the better concept of list series namespaces (LSN) are there to benefit the public at large, rather than the egos of editors. As the WikiProject on Buddhism put it: project boxes namespaces are there to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referncing between articles belonging to a specific project. Depending on the project an ASB could work, but on projects like Buddhism and Alternative Medicine a List LSN definitely makes a lot more sense where the subject is allowed to grow without forcing an ever larger project ASB namespace upon the respective articles.

In short, ASBs listing specific articles is just plain poor hyperlink document design in my humble opinion. ASBs should rather utilize Lists.

Next, I would suggest that you check out Wikipedia:Infobox. Selecting an unique project color and then sticking to it would only help the public use these project ASBs namespaces in articles where there is more than one ASB namespace. In many respects, multiple project ASBs namespaces in articles will be replacing those see other linked lists so often found at the bottom of articles. Having every ASB namespace light blue in color would only serve to confuse the public.

In short, over use of blue boxes is just plain poor hyperlink document design in my humble opinion. -- John Gohde 16:47, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

On a minor note, I just want to point out that you seem to be misusing the phrases "namespace" and "project namespace". Also, I think infoboxes should be considered as being a different beast entirely from ASBs etc. and that consistency over the design of navigational elements is to be desired (my two cents being thrown into the pile).

If an ASB is not a project namespace then please enlighten me, as I have seen plenty of ASBs listed under project namespaces. -- John Gohde 17:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Project namespace is the term used to refer to pages that begin "wikipedia:" as is quite clear from the two pages I linked to above. Where exactly have you seen the phrase used in the context you are using it? - Lee (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Ha, ... Hah, Hah! ScudLee, I have solved your private joke. As you very well know, a bunch of ASBs, or whatever, were listed under Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom messages#Project namespace. You are the editor who moved them! So, at the time that I added my project namespace that usage was in common practice and hence accounts for above original use of the term namespace. I will now study the new location, to see if it makes any more sense. This is what I mean by obfuscation with the aid of science / academia. -- John Gohde 20:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah... I admit I have known about your mistaken use of "Project namespace" for a while, from after I removed several incorrectly placed elements from Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom messages (not just the project namespace section - which is for msgs used in the project namespace). Sorry I didn't inform you sooner. - Lee (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I see what the problem is now. It was my mistake. Beyond infoboxes, custom messages, talk namespaces, and project namespaces there is yet another term called an ASB. Just think that people were complaining about the placement of the CAM ASB, and I did not even know that it was our first ASB rather than just another version of our ... !!! -- John Gohde 19:16, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Having said all that, however, I should point out that in the new MediaWiki software (1.3), you'll be able to include articles into categories, linking the page to an automatically generated list, which should make the need for ASBs redundant. - Lee (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Emphasis on will be. -- John Gohde 17:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, these discussions need to be placed in the context of what will be about to replace the current system. - Lee (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree! What might be, probably wont ever be. And, I am wasting far too much time on unnecessary fine points about meaningless terminology. If I had to consider all that garbage, I would be neuroic without an operation project in under 2 weeks. If it was not operational when they were developed, the chances are that all the working WikiProjects will never bother using the next generation of technology. Thank goodness!!! -- John Gohde 22:16, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Categories are just around the corner, they're already implemented over on the test wiki, you can go and play with them right now. I'm not saying people should just "down tools" because of this, but it does need to be taken into consideration. - Lee (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Either they are operational, now. Or, they are not operational. Categories currently are not operational. And, they may never become operational. And, I for one am not going to scrap the work done in the CAM project todate, even if they do become operational. -- John Gohde 00:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

You can go and play with them right now on the test wiki where they are implemented. The software running on the test wiki is the CVS version of the mediawiki software, which will eventually replace the current version running the wikipedia, so categories are coming. - Lee (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, though, the CAM ones don't bother me so much. It's the bloated ones that list every article inside them that I dislike. - Lee (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Categories are not going to replace article series boxes, because ASBs have selected articles in them, which is something no category could nor should do. And unless every article with series boxes is linked to every relevant category (don't know how they will be implemented) they won't replace series boxes, either. -- AlexR 22:48, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

You can link an article to as many relevant categories as you like, you can even place categories within categories, forming a tidy hierachy as some have requested. From their description and implementation, they could easily replace ASBs. It seems to me to be a better solution than having three or four of these ASBs cluttering up the bottom of articles. - Lee (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that they can, but it would probably require a strikt policy to get rid of those already existing. --AlexR 23:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Give me a weekend and a shovel, and I'll happily bury them all. - Lee (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

And, I would happily revert your vandalism the next day, the day after that, the week after, the month after, and the year after. -- John Gohde 00:45, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to draw a line under my contributions to this debate. I could easily continue wasting my time responding to your comments, but I'll refrain from being goaded any further. Everything I have said has been made in good faith, and is solely my opinion. Thank you and goodnight. - Lee (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I am familiar with the problem at hand. It is just a matter of me getting all worked up by people of your ilk, over something that will probably not happen at all, that wont affect me in the remotest, nor will even be an issue next week. This project page is a total non-issue. Categories are a total non-issue. Your weekend and a shovel comments were totally uncalled for. I added your name to one of my two world famous lists of famous Wikipedians, long before your tacky replies here. Your behavior is quite predictable was foretold by me on my list. -- John Gohde 01:37, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Proposal One - No Boxes

This concept reminds me of the days when some professions were not allowed to advertise their profession. Even today, the public is supposed to magically pick the best physician out of a mob of possible choices. And, if they managed to chose the wrong doctor, it is all their fault. Oh! If only they had chosen the correct doctor! They would never have gotten themselves into their present mess.

Well, surprise, surprise, surprise ... ASBs came into existence out of the necessity for better navigation. If Wikipedia had a better lightning fast search facility there would indeed be no need for ASBs. But, until that time ... ASBs are the answer rather than the problem. -- John Gohde 20:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, there can be different opinions about that. And I don't see how proper searching could solve the percieved problem that the makers of ASBs intend to solve. -- AlexR 22:48, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Template:NAM

It's my feeling that this is definitively in the category of "boxes that are too large." Any thoughts on the matter? Snowspinner 20:04, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

They will be gone soon, per consensus on wikipedia talk:wikiProject Countries. Please go ahead and remove all non-geographical footers. --Jiang 21:04, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I should probably add that this box is listed on VfD Snowspinner 21:21, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Edit links

I occasionally see people adding [edit] links to navboxes and other templates, but I can't remember seeing any discussion on the subject. Personally, I'm against including them at all. Why? Because:

• The content of navboxes changes very seldom; only when articles are added, deleted, or renamed.
• The content of navboxes isn't simple text, it's code. It usually requires some technical knowledge of HTML and/or wikitext. It's not meant for the casual Wikipedia contributor. If you know enough to edit the navbox's content, then it's easy enough for you to find the template without an [edit] link.
• Although article sections' [edit] links are integral to encouraging Wikipedia content contributions, navbox links are not. Thus, they constitute superfluous visual elements, and should be avoided.

That said, I'm reticent to arbitrarily remove the [edit] links that people have gone to the trouble of adding, without having some consensus to back up my deletions (so please add some consensus to this discussion).

I've developed an improved way to display a navbox [edit] link. Please have a look at Template:History of Russia. [edit] links inside the navbox either looked like another navigation item, or they add a big ugly chunk of padding to the box. So I put an [edit] link underneath, outside of the navbox, by using a table caption with "align=bottom" applied to it. Much less obtrusive. If you must have an [edit] link, consider doing it this way.

Does anyone know how to make the edit link without the little "external link" icon next to it? —Michael Z. 06:31, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)