Template talk:Nobel Peace Prize
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Splitting in years
I think the old one with all laureates in one template was better. Skinnyweed 14:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. It doesn't change much in terms of space use, and I don't see why we don't learn the successor of, say, Kim (2000) in the box. ~ trialsanderrors 20:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- To quote: "It doesn't change much in terms of space use." Well, it doesn't changed that much. But ten to 20 years from now, you'll see how much a difference a 25-year list contained in a template can make versus one that includes more than a hundred entries. Beside, the 25-year list allows one to cap a template of a maximum of five lines. This is most notable in the Science prizes in which almost always, more than one recipient is named every year. Also, using the complete list especially to those recipients with scanty information (like those of the early 20th century) may look ridiculous on the pages--where the template is longer than the actual text. As for the succession of those belonging to the beginning or the end of the 25-year span, that's the reason that a link is provided below to the other 25-year span, not to mention a list of winners by clicking on the text "Laureates". That means you know who the laureate is before Kim. By the way, "successor" is an inappropriate word--that's the reason why we don't use succession box. As for the decision to continue using the entire list for a template, it is a risk that might involve some administrators recommending it for deletion in the future, not to mention the fact that one day, the template's length will exceed the length of the articles for all laureates.Joey80 06:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think we have to worry now what happens on WP in 10-20 years. The compartmentalization erases the main advantage of the boxes, which is to have a quickly accessible list of all Laureates in one spot. For truly oversized templates, check out this baby. Btw, von and van are part of the surname in German and Dutch. ~ trialsanderrors 06:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Btw, we should preserve the last vote that turned down the deletion request. Do you still have the location? ~ trialsanderrors 06:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- So "von" and "van" are part of the surname... but when you check the category listing down the winners, the category disregards this. As for the page regarding the deletion request, I am not sure if they save it, you better ask the administrator that proposed it or the one that made the final decision not to.Joey80 06:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Btw, we should preserve the last vote that turned down the deletion request. Do you still have the location? ~ trialsanderrors 06:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think we have to worry now what happens on WP in 10-20 years. The compartmentalization erases the main advantage of the boxes, which is to have a quickly accessible list of all Laureates in one spot. For truly oversized templates, check out this baby. Btw, von and van are part of the surname in German and Dutch. ~ trialsanderrors 06:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- To quote: "It doesn't change much in terms of space use." Well, it doesn't changed that much. But ten to 20 years from now, you'll see how much a difference a 25-year list contained in a template can make versus one that includes more than a hundred entries. Beside, the 25-year list allows one to cap a template of a maximum of five lines. This is most notable in the Science prizes in which almost always, more than one recipient is named every year. Also, using the complete list especially to those recipients with scanty information (like those of the early 20th century) may look ridiculous on the pages--where the template is longer than the actual text. As for the succession of those belonging to the beginning or the end of the 25-year span, that's the reason that a link is provided below to the other 25-year span, not to mention a list of winners by clicking on the text "Laureates". That means you know who the laureate is before Kim. By the way, "successor" is an inappropriate word--that's the reason why we don't use succession box. As for the decision to continue using the entire list for a template, it is a risk that might involve some administrators recommending it for deletion in the future, not to mention the fact that one day, the template's length will exceed the length of the articles for all laureates.Joey80 06:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
