Template talk:Sea shell topics
|WikiProject Gastropods||(Rated Template-class)|
I don't really care for the way this box is being used in the upper right on Gastropod shell, Mollusc shell, etc., with the main picture of the shell type being used to the left of the opening paragraph -- I feel this is very disruptive to the normal layout of WP articles. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images says to "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image", and to avoid sandwiching text between images (or other boxes) on opposite margins. Wikipedia:Navigation templates doesn't disallow right-side templates, but Wikipedia_talk:Navigation_templates#Right-side_templates does suggest that the consensus is generally for footer-style templates instead. Overall, I don't feel this template adds much additional navigation help over a "Shells" or "Types of shells" category, especially given that it isn't really a series that needs to be in a particular order -- see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates for guidelines for using the different types of navigation.
I see a couple possible solutions. This would be my order of preference:
- discontinue the template and use a category instead.
- move the template down below the first image in the upper right, like the History of Vietnam template in Nanyue.
- change the template from a right-side template to a footer template, per Wikipedia:Navigation templates.
- alter the template so that the first illustrative image of shell type (with caption) appears within the box, replacing the Paua.jpg image used there now (this is more common in an infobox than a navigational template, though).
- Hi Catherine. I accept you find the template very disruptive and not normal, and that must be disturbing. However it is not actually a violation of MOS, just a variation of the MOS default position. And the brief discussion you linked to here is confined to just two opinions and refers to sidebars which are 300 px wide. I agree those sidebars hog space and are unsightly. I do not agree that applies to the current template, which is only 100 px wide. This is more a matter of preference than a violation of MOS, and perhaps part of your distaste is that you haven't used them much before. Personally I like them and find them convenient. The style is certainly used elsewhere on Wikipedia, for example on Royal Navy, train, ocean habitats and fishing articles. Similar side panels are installed on 900 fishing articles, and user traffic counts have increased dramatically, particularly with the more obscure articles. Also, the articles about Wikipedia itself make extensive use of right navigation panels. Anyway, seashells is not my area. I popped the template in as a spur of the moment impulse because it made it easier for me, but I certainly don't want to impose anything here. My apologies if you are offended. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Catherine, I am a species of seashell expert. Like you I am somewhat uncomfortable with the use of this particular template, but for different reasons: I was not sure the template was useful as it was originally composed, and plus the content seems odd: rather arbitrary and amateur-seeming. For the time being I am trying to see if the template can be kept, added to, and made more useful, but ultimately, if I can't see that the template is really going to "earn its keep", then I will be in favor of deleting it and going for categories instead. The point of a template is to make navigating to relevant related articles much easier and faster to do; if this one can help considerably with that then it might be able to be an asset. If not then it is just taking up space. Invertzoo (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. This template does not contribute a sensible overview of the subject and instead feels very eclectic and krufty. I am putting it up for deletion. If there is no further objection one full day from my deletion notice I will proceed to remove this template. Craig Pemberton (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is mutation on this template? -Craig Pemberton 04:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am not really sure? I will look through some of the history to see if there is a reason. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 04:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)