I have been attempting to create these boxes in the emerging standard of article series (aka seriesboxes) which is not a standard I have invented. The format here has been used on many such pages such as the History of the United States, History of Albania and other various series. It would be best if we could keep these boxes consistent (like infoboxes). From your changes I am right to conclude that:
- You think the format for Article series is too bloated, in which case, fine, but we should discuss this on the Article series talk page, so we can have some kind of consistency (in fact on the Talk page are several designs that occupy significantly less real estate); or
- You are considering these boxes as qualitatively different from the other boxes such as the various History of... series, and are proposing a different standard for boxes like genetics, organelles, perhaps disciplineboxes ;-) (since they are more discipline-oriented than the history series), or perhaps they should be more like the page footers, again we should probably hash this out of the Talk page for article series.
Either way, it would best to have some of internal consistency to the formatting of these boxes, and some rationale for deciding what kind of format to apply to them.
- Every one of these boxes are placed on different page types so I don't see a need to enforce conformity on that point (it would be like trying to make all WikiProject tables look a like - no sense in that). But yes I do think that these boxes are bloated and way too self-referential -- so I made a minor change that made it less bad. I also dislike their placement in such a prominent place in articles - IMO they should be footers and actual content-containing tables and images should go at the top of articles. Navigation links can then become part of a content-containing table (examples: carbon, Battle of Lützen (1632)). --mav