Template talk:Aviation lists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This non-article page is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | |
| NA | This page is not an article and does not require a rating. |
Contents |
[edit] "Gumby" box
Does this box really need to be stretched across the whole page? There's not a lot of links in it and it's a poor use of space. In some ways, the X-planes box looks better since it at least is reasonably sized for the amount of content. Askari Mark | Talk 02:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Full-width templates seem to be on the way to becoming standard elsewhere (cf countries and spin-off articles) but I agree that the space could be used more effectively, so have tried reformatting the template accordingly. Meanwhile, {{X-planes}} might benefit from {{Navigation}} and perhaps no bullets... (imagery intended) Yours, David Kernow (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I disagree. Full-width fits with the standard design elements everywhere else on wikipedia pages, like the category boxes and top-of-page notices. While I've always hated that X-planes box, the full-width helps, even though with bullets it looks hideous. ericg ✈ 17:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid there remains such a thing as "too much of a good thing", even if it's becoming the standard. Several page-wide navigation boxes at the foot of every article will look so-o-o-o appealing. With regard to this box, I'm not sure rendering it in two lines is a readability improvement, although the glare of white space is reduced. Is there any way to center the box title in line with the link lines? Right now the title and timeline link appear left-justified together. Askari Mark | Talk 18:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Collapsed full-width {{Navigation}} templates rather than the bunch of uncoordinated templates sometimes seen at the ends of articles seems a definite improvement to me... Meanwhile, however, the misalignment of the title in the titlebar is an ongoing issue (cf, for instance, {{Navigation}}'s talk page) so if you can spot what's been missed or can be fixed...! Yours, David Kernow (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Who said the templates had to be different sizes? I just don't like one size — the full-page spread. Few, if any, templates will ever make effective use of that much space. In fact, one of the things I like best about the templates being smaller than page-width is that they readily stand out as separate from the article itself. That is actually a "professional touch" IMHO. Having everything the same width is esthetically boring. After all, would you like to see the TOC and images and so forth be full-page-width? I see no problem with the trailing templates being "standardized" to something in the 60-80% page-width range. That would make them look more like a "further information portal" — which is exactly what they are. Askari Mark | Talk 22:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Is there a WikiProject or the like related to aviation...? (I quickly scanned Category:WikiProjects but was surprised not to see something...) I'm just thinking where an invite to comment for some folk likely to have some interest might be lodged; I think we need more than three voices! Regards, David (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yes, it's Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft; "Aviation" is a portal. I'll pop the question in WP:Aircraft. Askari Mark | Talk 05:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Here's a rough idea of what multiple non-full-page-width nav boxes look like: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force#AFV navbox. (Ignore the content and specific style, I'm just talking about the esthetic impact of their sizing. I don't care much for the specific style and I think the width might be wider for what we're talking about.) It does make them stand out and without the unattractiveness of different-width boxes. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Should Missiles really be included in Aviation?
They're ordnance, really. Askari Mark | Talk 03:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- No complaints here if their link is removed; does/should it appear on the List of aircraft weapons anyway...? Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Change to collapseable/nav format?
An editor just made format changes without discussing them here, and I've put it back to where it was with a note to discuss it here first. I know there's been a discussion above about the merits of the full-width format, and in that discussion, the full-width format had more support, so I'm starting this thread to continue the discussion in light of my revert. Personally, since nav templates seem to be where other such templates are going, it's more standardized, and looks better than a bunch of varying-width templates at the bottom. Akradecki 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- While I agree with the sentiment of deprecating the use of "varying-length templates", I do think what Karl was trying to do was a step in the right direction (although I still feel the boxes ought to be standardized somewhere on the order of 2/3-3/4 page width, instead of full-page width). I also like ArfonOwen's use of a darker title background as the original color was very hard to see on my flat-screen monitor; however, the particular shade he selected is a bit too dark IMO with respect to the blue-font text, so something midway between might be best. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- I think the CSS system to reduce the width to fit the test would be
width: auto;Would anyone mind if I made this change to the template? Karl Dickman talk 04:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think the CSS system to reduce the width to fit the test would be
-
-
- I'm okay with trying it to see how it looks, as long as you're open to changing it back if it isn't an improvement. Akradecki 05:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Never mind; width only works with tables; we'd have to abandon the {{navigation}} currently used, or else imprison the navbox in a table. Karl Dickman talk 22:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This template should be deleted or made less generic
We have put this template in every airline article where way more than half of the links are highly unrelevant. If you are looking at an airline article why would need to click on any of the following:
- Air forces
- Aircraft weapons
- Missiles
- Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
- Experimental aircraft
- Notable military accidents and incidents
- Flight airspeed record
- Flight distance record
- Flight altitude record
- Flight endurance record
-MarsRover 05:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- This template is actually in almost all aviation articles for a purpose: it provides a highly effective way for a person seeking information on aviation subjects to at least get a lead on it. If the template is irrelevant to an airline article, then just don't put it in. However, don't deny the rest of the WikiProject Aircraft this very valuable tool. Akradecki 06:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO, a template covering the entire spectum of aviation is too wide to be "highly effective". How about three templates (a) commercial aviation (b) military aviation (c) aviation records? It would make the links more relevant to the article. --MarsRover 04:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I can see some merit to that, but this template is so wide spread, I'd suggest taking this to the Projet talk page for a wider consensus first. Akradecki 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I like MarsRover's suggested breakout. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I most certainly agree with Mars Rover and think this template is far too generic and ubiquitous and should be broken up. -- Allstar86 06:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
