Template talk:ScientologySeries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:ScientologySeries page.
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Template This article has been rated as Template-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

ScientologySeries

Contents

[edit] Horizontal vs. Vertical

  • What do others feel about what has been proposed above, a horizontal footer template as opposed to the current vertical sidebar structure? Smee 19:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
    • I have gone ahead and created a horizontal "footer" version, here: Template:ScientologySeries/Scientologyfooter. Please say what you think here, and then if there is a general consensus to changing to a footer style, we can simply cut and paste all of the code back into Template:ScientologySeries, and delete the subpage I created. Then for a few moments there will be a big weird horizontal footer at the top of articles, which will help us to find them and move them down to the bottom. What do you think?? Yours, Smee 21:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
Comments
  • Ambiguous, leaning towards horizontal. - But I do think with the horizontal version, there is plenty more room in the template to make it an expansive, inclusionary navigation box for additional articles... Smee 21:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Horizontal - It looks much better and will make the articles look better. Some of the series on science and on politics have this kind of box and it looks good. Also it seems logical to me that the place to tell people about other articles is after they have read the one they are on. (I still have a problem with the number of articles on Scientology relative to its size and importance, and with their unfairly negative tone.) Wishing you well. Steve Dufour 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks much better and will make the articles look better. - Thank you Steve Dufour, it took a bit of work! Yours, Smee 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment - Let me put this another way, would anyone object to switching Template:ScientologySeries to a horizontal footer, with the code from Template:ScientologySeries/Scientologyfooter, and making it more inclusive? Smee 19:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Horizontal I think the Scientology Series template would be much more appropriate at the bottom of the articles rather than the side. Sometimes the template is too obtrusive and takes away from the actual article. It is a pretty big space hog in the vertical direction. (But if your question is "would anyone object?" then I would say "yes, someone would object" :) Vivaldi (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • So far, the sentiment from everyone who has commented is to switch to a more comprehensive, footer horizontal template. It has been 4 days since I posted this subsection, I will wait a little longer... Comments from anyone else? Smee 16:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment - Since this will change so many pages with possible interactions with page elements, why not do up a seperate horizontal template, change a couple pages over to it to let people see and decide over a few days? BTW, the Raelian series, which was using a horizontal template just switched to a vertical one. (Yes, I did ask about the non-free image in the template. No answer yet.) AndroidCat 16:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Though I like your idea, the reason for changing the code on this template instead of creating a new one, would make it easier for us to notice where the templates are and which ones we need to move, instead of rooting around for all of them. But I will apply your suggestion and create a separate template now... We shall see what happens... Thanks. Yours, Smee 16:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
      • Also, the Rael template is not as comprehensive and big, that's probably why they can get away with a much smaller vertical template.. Smee 17:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
        • Okay, created Template:Scientologyfooter. More expansive, because there is more room and no disruption of articles at the bottom of the page. I will begin to implement this... Smee 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
          • Well, my idea was to see how it looked on a couple of pages before deploying it across the whole series. AndroidCat 17:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Okay, I stopped the implementing. I think I put it on about 17 articles or so. Smee 17:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
  • I think a horizontal template is detrimental to navigation, since many Scientology articles are quite long, and it may not be apparent for the visitor upon visiting the article that it is part of the Scientology series. A vertical one on the other hand is easily accessible by the user, and allows for instant identification. Sfacets 17:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Intriguing. Perhaps I can create a smaller vertical template, for just the bigger main articles, and use that in conjunction with the large footer horizontal template... Smee 17:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
      • That could be an option - other articles such as Hinduism-related ones use various templates (big, small, horizontal, vertical) to aid navigation and also to insure that the template doesn't encroach on the rest of the article. Sfacets 17:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Looking good - perhaps you could even keep the original content, but make each section collapsible by default using Navframes or similar - each section could be expanded to reveal the related links... what do you think? Sfacets 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Hrm, if the default would be for collapsed, and not expanded, that would be really neat. Smee 18:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

The sections automatically collapse once there are a certain number of sections - I have made a quick template here demonstrating how it could be collapsed/expanded - I think another class (not Navframe) would need to be used to get the style right (if the yellow theme + image is a requirement) since there doesn't appear to be a way of over-ridding the default blue colour of the section headers. Tell me what you think... Sfacets 02:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Nice, though it would be preferable for it to look more similar in style to the current one... Smee 03:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Whoa. Very cool idea. I edited the colors and font sizes, can we get a top pic/header?Ronabop 04:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Now it looks much better! Thanks. Smee 04:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
Small vertical template on top of articles...

By the way, for those who did not see it, we are talking about using {{Scientologyfooter}} at the bottom of articles now, and User:Sfacets/scb at the top... Smee 04:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Ronabop, I wasn't sure how to change the colours - looks good! I have added a header and the image (same as the one for the footer template), I think the template is ready to go into use, unless there is anything else? Sfacets 04:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah, one more thing, it is missing a border. The whiteness will blend right into the page and look weird. Compare to the current {{ScientologySeries}} Smee 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Bibliography/Filmography? Ronabop 05:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes, thoughts? The border can be adjusted by changing the value of 'cellspacing' - to make it more or less snug - it would need to be less snug to appear closer to {{ScientologySeries}}. Sfacets 15:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Looks good. Smee 16:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

I replaced {{ScientologySeries}} with the template - everything seems to work - It would be nice to have a small space under the image (line break is too big) - not sure how to achieve this... Sfacets 18:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horizontal vs. Vertical vs. Horizontal with Vertical scaler

Cage fight! Let the best template win! :) Seriously though, If we have *two* templates on every page, that seems like twice as much work to keep both of them current. The whole reason, IIRC, for trying horizontals was the sheer pixel size profile of the vertical. The dynamic scaling template solves that whole thing. Ronabop 05:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Though I do see your point, I still say keep both, and just use the smaller one for the vertical. It is not a disruption of the page, because it's at the bottom, and because it is bigger there is room for it to be more inclusionary than the vertical... Smee 05:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Ideas on making [1] look better? Ronabop 07:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
What are you referring to specifically? Smee 07:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

I much prefer the horizontal only. I think it is much neater than the full-size vertical one, and I think to have it and the scaled vertical one both on a page is just silly. Aleta 02:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aleta. Having two on each page is silly. I think that the consensus is to use the horizontal bottom one. User:COFS already did the work of removing the deprecated box on a lot of pages but was reverted by Smee. As Smee is clearly out-voted here on this, I will revert to COFS via popups to same time. I normally do not use popups for other than vandalism but I am explaining myself here in lieu of edit summaries. Thank you. --Justanother 16:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That would be a highly inappropriate usage of pop-ups. Please instead continue in the ongoing discussion here. Smee 16:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Please don't be silly with the "highly inappropriate usage of pop-ups". It is a wonderful use. No-one but you wants two boxes on each page. I have no idea why you want two. Why do you want two, Smee? --Justanother 16:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Several users worked hard on editing this template to come up with the smaller vertical version, thus it is not a disruption to the articles. The footer template is larger and can be more inclusive, and include more articles, whereas the vertical template can be more of a quick navigational tool. See comments above in other sections on this as well... Smee 16:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Smee. This discussion is like 12 days old. If we count COFS, you are out-voted 4 to 1 on having two boxes on each page.. If you want to start a new discussion at the bottom of this talk page I will hold off, otherwise I am going to revert to COFS as consensus version. Thanks. --Justanother 16:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea. Please hold off, I will start a new discussion section at the bottom. Please allow time for others to respond. Thanks. Smee 17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Free Zone

The Free Zone is described as a group of ex-members of the Church of Scientology who continue practicing Scientology as it had been published before Hubbard's death (or per other reports as published before 1978). In any case it is a public group of people practicing Scientology. It is an illogical entry in a list of individuals. Thus: I moved 'em to "public groups". Misou 05:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Smee, wouldn't it be nice if we two chickens could agree on something? Misou 05:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Group of "people", unrelated to the public Scientology groups - thus it belongs in the "people" section. Smee 05:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
You are making fun of me. Got one free now, ha. Misou 02:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Misou here. I don't think FreeZone belongs in people section. I think it belongs into a groups section. It is a Scientology-related group even though they aren't supported by the Church of Scientology. Vivaldi (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Right. Misou 02:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. I moved it from the controversy section to the people section. It seemed to be less controversial than other Scientology topics. :-) Steve Dufour 16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, okay, sounds good. I know when consensus is in the other direction. We'll leave it there for now... Smee 16:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] RfC

There is an RfC up and no discussion here. There is supposed to be discussion first. Was it a joke? See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. IvoShandor 12:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • It is done. Smee 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC).
    Has never started, actually. Misou 02:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see the archives. Thanks. Smee 03:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
Well just make sure it gets removed from the list. IvoShandor 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

Jarren70 16:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC) How accurate is this information in these articles? They seem kind of one sided and opinionated to me. They don't seem to show true facts, or the facts seem incomplete or taken from unscrupulous or negative sources.

Jarren70, the "information" in most of the articles is based on the works of a handful of very active opponents of the Church of Scientology blindly spread allover Wikipedia by quite a number of dupes. The damage is done and you are invited to to do your homework and get the scale back to neutral position. COFS 03:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (Don't forget to sign your comments with four ~'s)

[edit] Template waste

Discussion attempt: Most Scientology-articles currently have TWO indexes, no matter how short they are. I think this looks trashy and I propose to take the vertical box out and leave the footer in. Any comments? COFS 03:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree to get rid of this one. The [show] links make it hard to navigate. –Pomte 03:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok to get rid of this one. I think the box breaks the article and reading flow (doesn't look nice either). Misou 02:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Placement of Vertical & Horizontal templates

Comment by User:Smee
  • Please comment here on what you think regarding the placement of the vertical and horizontal navigational templates. The horizontal footer template is built to be more inclusionary/expansive, and include a wider breadth of related articles: {{Scientologyfooter}}. The vertical template was previously a taller version (previous taller version), and was reworked by User:Sfacets, User:Ronabop, and myself, at User:Sfacets/scb, and then transferred to {{ScientologySeries}}. The two templates will be useful to exist in tandem on articles. On longer articles such as L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology, Church of Scientology, they are useful navigational tools. Smaller articles will later be expanded upon over time. The templates serve different purposes, and the vertical one was reworked specifically so as not to be obtrusive. Smee 17:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
Further comments
  • Support vertical and horizontal, per reasoning above. Smee 17:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Oppose two templates on each page. I think Smee is beating a dead horse here. Already discussed at Template talk:ScientologySeries#Horizontal vs. Vertical vs. Horizontal with Vertical scaler with certainly User:Aleta and perhaps User:Ronabop opposing two templates per page. User:COFS made a whole bunch of edits to remove the vertical box as that seemed to be the consensus but Smee reverted his edits. Then again discussed Template talk:ScientologySeries#Template waste with COFS yet another editor, User:Pomte, voting against two boxes. So, counting me, I see like 4 or 5 against 1, Smee being the one, and now we have to discuss again. Oh well. I oppose. --Justanother 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose two templates on each page. Confirmed. It looks awful and unprofessional! Keep the footer, get rid of the other box. COFS 17:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support vertical and horizontal. On the larger articles, I think it's useful for navagation to have the small one at the top and the complete one at the bottom. On smaller articles, stub-size and slightly larger, perhaps only the vertical one? AndroidCat 19:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose two templates on each page. This is too much, especially with short articles. Misou 03:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/i/Template_talk%7EScientologySeries_5c1a.html"