Wikipedia talk:Article series/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I wanted the tables to line up with the paragraphs describing them, but I dunno how. If someone can make it happen, that would be scrumptious... Tuf-Kat 22:55, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)


Use a BR clear="all", maybe? Thanks for making this page, Tufkat. I think article series are a great idea, but I think using tables where not absolutely necessary is a really bad idea. We should use this page to consider alternative ways of presenting the links -- Tarquin 23:06, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I tend to agree that tables are bad, but they look great for something like this. The best solution is probably to make the table syntax simpler, so that people like me won't be intimidated into doing nothing more than cutting-and-pasting tables from elsewhere... Or maybe make the series table a somehow different section for editing purposes, so that it doesn't show up on the edit window and confuse writers who want to change the text. A separate edit link could be made to edit the table. Tuf-Kat 23:32, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
Another thought: depending on how you want to define a "series", the country articles (e.g. Australia) are a series. They have an overview of major subarticles (e.g. History of Australia) with prominent links to the subsubject as below.

==History==

''Main article: [[History of Australia]]''

Stuff happened blah blah convicts and drunkards blah

This is good, but isn't as easily navigable for the user IMHO. Maybe this meta-page should point out that the country articles are undeclared series of a sort. Tuf-Kat 23:32, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

How many articles could you have in a series before the tables get really out of hand? Bmills 15:02, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Probably 9-10, then it all fits on one screen, with room to see any other tables (like the in the 'this article is part of two series' example). Above that, you need a meta table. Elde 17:53, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Article Series Must Be Chronogical Series?

Just got this message on my talk page: "I disagree with adding a series box to the UC articles. They don't follow any chronological order. The listing at the bottom is more in line with what is done for EU countries." (See UCLA and Belgium for respective examples.) Do series articles have to be about placing things in a chronological order? I believe they can be any group of articles which has a strong reason to be considered as a group. The Culture of the United States series and the music series being a good example. Let's discuss. Among other things, the navigation listing at the bottom is below the fold and therefore hard to find. jengod 01:58, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

The Jesus series is also not chronological. Both the music series (UK, US) are partially in chronological order, but not entirely. I think the UC series is a great idea -- it's different from the EU example because Belgium has existed distinct from the EU for most of its history, whereas it would be difficult or impossible to discuss UCLA without at least some understanding of the whole UC system. That should be the purposes of a series, IMHO, that is: to provide an easy way to navigate through articles which could not be studied entirely independently (though of course, each article in the series should be able to stand alone...) Tuf-Kat (P.S. I've made some observations of potential difficulties regarding a Celtic music series at Talk:Celtic music, if anyone is interested)
But putting it on top would get in the way of things, especially if Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities table is added. When you have various items loosely affiliated, like with the EU, the listing should be relatively out of the way.
The word series connotes an order. This order is naturally top-down, and alphabetical order is rather arbitary when speaking of the UCs. The UC campuses cannot be called a "series". They are a grouping. --Jiang 02:18, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The series for the "Jesus" article is an artificial series (you are telling the reader to read these related articles in a certain order; this order arbitrary). Esp with the location of some of the tables (i.e. near the bottom), it serves no different purpose than a regular "see also" list. I don't see why it was added.

The individual UC campuses are only related by their affiliation with UC, not so much with each other. What would be the relevance of UC Davis for the UCLA article? --Jiang 02:24, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be argumentative, just debatative ;) but M-W's fourth definition of series is this: "4 : a succession of volumes or issues published with related subjects or authors, similar format and price, or continuous numbering." For techies, I suspect the connotation of series is numerical order, but for fuzzies, it's like an article series, or a TV series, or a Nancy Drew book series. Techie types get taxotables and tables outlining all the details of every tank ever--let us fuzzie types have a little fun. We could maybe change the name for "article series" tho if someone has something better. jengod 02:27, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Let us not underestimate "It's pretty" as a reason to include these things. Pretty is important. Seriously. :) jengod 02:28, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

The fourth definition still uses the word "succession" (they were published in order). The UCs don't have numbers assigned to them. Under any definition, the box gets too much in the way. Although I find them "pretty" in history articles when we have era articles, they just dont seem right with organizations. Listing them at the bottom is easier to deal with, especially when their relationship among each other is not that vivid. (That is, unlike the history series, we would still be fine if we didn't have either and no link to UC Davis existed at the UCLA article.) --Jiang 02:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
There's no reason the series table has to be at the top. I think the one at Culture of the United States is near the bottom, because the first half is all about social structure and such, and not the arts (which is the subject of the series). I agree that the Universities template should be at the top, as it is informative and probably more useful for the reader than a link to Davis, but I don't see what's wrong with putting the series table further down. Non-chronological series are different from see alsos because they are much more integrally tied together -- UC Davis and UCLA are part of a single system, just like Jewish and Christian perspectives on Jesus are part of an understanding of Jesus. If I wanted to know everything there is to know about UCLA, I would need to understand its relation to the other parts of the UC system (e.g. school rivalries, which are common when schools are part of one system). If I wanted to know everything there is to know about Belgium, the European Union is certainly important, and I suppose a bit about other European countries, including other EU countries, but also non-EU Switzerland, for example. Jiang, you haven't commented on the Culture of the United States series -- do you want to get rid of that one too? And what about the partially chronological music of the United States? I do view the word "series" as connoting a chronological order, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that there wasn't one. Ultimately, what's the harm in placing an easy-to-navigate group of links between the UC campuses? It doesn't have to be in place of an informative table, and someone looking for information just on UCLA wouldn't be bothered by its existence. Tuf-Kat
The succession in the definition above refers to order of publication, which doesn't apply to Wikipedia because articles aren't "published" in chronological order, even when they exist in that way. Tuf-Kat 02:45, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
So the definition does not apply at all? --Jiang
Their relationship with each other is that they are all part of the University of California system. Jiang, I'm sorry you don't like it, but I believe there is solid enough reason to group them together. Suggested synomyns for series: group, grouping, collection, array, batch, suite, category. Anybody like any of those? jengod 02:46, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

I am not against listing them as they were listed before - EU style. That style looks a lot better for this particular purpose. The series table is meant to develop a clear ordering for the reader while grouping a bunch of links horizontally does not. The bottom grouping pops out less - if the relationship with each other is that they are part of the same system, wouldn't a [University of California] link suffice? If this grouping of links could be ommitted without much harm, it is better that it not be the first thing we look at. With the history series, a reader would have to jump out of nowhere if the series table did not exist at Mughal Era (many history era articles lack draw on eras before and after and lack clear definitions).

If you read the articles, you will no particular direct link between UCLA and UCD. None of the schools have rivalries with each other (UCLA is w/ U$C, Berkeley is with Stanfurd). The relationship comes only with a central administration and through history (e.g. Davis was originally the "University Farm" for berkeley's school of agriculture). Discussion of this relationship would all belong in the central UC article. But this said, I am not against listing all the UC campuses, just listing them in the series table for aesthetic and functional reasons.

I don't see anything wrong with partially chronological series (like adding a timeline to a history series), but anything non-chronological has to be a very central theme (the series box is not a simple collection of "see alsos") I removed Warsaw Pact and Tsar from the History of Russia series because they aren't historical periods. I agree that the links for Cuture of the United States are important, and given the number of them, the series box may be something we want to add. But given that the UC links fit at the bottom, why not put them there?--Jiang 03:00, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Maybe the difference is if you see it from the point of someone stumbling onto UCLA vs University of California (subarticle vs parent article) -- UC Davis and UCLA and Berkeley are more relevant than the average see also for the University of California article, even if not for each other. I think the "central administration and history" connection is enough to warrant a series, especially since they are part of a single system. Since it doesn't look like we are likely to agree any time soon, let's wait awhile and see if anyone else wants to comment. The issue has the potential of affecting the organization of many articles, and certainly doesn't need to be decided tonight. Tuf-Kat 03:22, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the other campuses should be listed. There's no need to argue for that position. I just think my original listing (having them listed at the very bottom under a thick divider vs. having them listed in a series table) looks better and is less obstructive. --Jiang 03:24, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"University of California grouping" is an unheard of phrase. Why don't I just restore the old formatting? --Jiang

I agree that group is a very poor choice. The old formatting shouldn't be restored because there is no consensus to do so -- at present two out of three people with an expressed opinion like the series, so that should be de facto until more opinions are seen. Tuf-Kat 03:51, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

There was no consensus to change it. Majority != consensus. Please elaborate on how the table is better than the original listing. I don't see the point of this. --Jiang 03:59, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There's no consensus on anything to do with article series. I think the table is better because it promotes interlinking between articles that are part of a whole and is by far more attractive than the other format, which stuffs the links at the bottom of the article, below barely relevant see alsos, external links and lists of famous alumni. I'm not discussing this anymore tonight. My opinion stands, and we are simply going over the same ground repeatedly. I am asking you not to revert the articles so that others can compare the format of the campuses and EU countries for themselves without going into the page history and because thus far, most of the people who have expressed an opinion like the table. I agree that a majority is not consensus -- if you want to revert to prove that two out of three people do not constitute a consensus, go ahead. I don't engage in edit wars. Tuf-Kat

I will revert half so that it can be properly compared. --Jiang 06:41, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Compare UC Berkeley with UCLA. --Jiang
Dude, revert your heart out. I don't actually care that much, I just thought it looks better. Whatever makes your toes tingle. jengod 08:30, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
This discussion is more important than whether or not this particular series is a good idea. What guideline/rule/policy do you (Jiang) propose? (i.e. what should be added to this meta-page to explain why certain groups are not an appropriate candidate for a series?) Tuf-Kat 02:39, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want the series table to be abused and used as another form for a regular see also list. For there to be a series, most of the articles must have a logical chronological order. The country template (listing "main article:..." under a general topic) is ideal for that situation. Keep links where they belong - not off to the side of the page. --Jiang 06:12, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"For there to be a series, most of the articles must have a logical chronological order." I have to say I just don't agree. Articles that have a thematic connection are prime for the article series table. The table series idea basically adds a dimension to Wikipedia--it's an inter-article Table of Contents where before we only had intra-article TOCs. jengod 06:05, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in here for what it's worth. A chronological connection would be ideal, but probably does not have to be necessary. I think there does have to be a "thematic connection" between the articles though, as you say. However, the UC campuses have no real thematic connection; they're all fairly independent and are simply linked by one, large high-level administration. It's like the 50 U.S. states and the U.S. as a whole or the provinces of Canada versus the whole of Canada. The connection between the individual UC's just isn't that strong, so I think the less prominent formatting at the bottom of the pages is better. This basically amounts to a more elegant form of a list of "see alsos" for all the UC articles. --Minesweeper 03:01, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Article Headers

Per Jiang's changes to Major English dialects pages like American English, another question is:

Should the head section of an article series box say something like: This article is part of the History of the United States series or be reduced to something like History of the United States.

I prefer the former. I just think it looks better. Also, the vast majority of existing series articles have this format. Thoughts? jengod 05:27, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

No significant opinion, but, on a related note, the English dialects that have articles but aren't part of the "major dialects" series could become a supplemental article a la Music of Washington. For consistency, I prefer the old method, but I don't see either one as being more attractive or useful than the other. Tuf-Kat

I changed it becuase "This article is part of the major English dialects group" sounds very awkward. While the individual articles in the US history series are part of a series, the articles in the dialects box are a listing. They do not make up all the English dialects. "Group" is also not a term used regularly for reading material. You can all a set of documentaries a series or a set of books, but you don't ever see the same used for "group".

Likewise, "the University of California group" makes it seem that "group" is part of the official UC name while we are really talking about a group of articles. --Jiang 06:12, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "group" is very bad. I'm not sure what makes you think that series are being abused to glorify certain see alsos. IIRC, you said you had no problem with Culture of the United States, which isn't chronological in the least, and neither is Jesus, electronic music, European colonization of the Americas or heavy metal music. I think series work well to help guide a user around to various articles that are part of a broader subject. It improves the cohesion of the encyclopedia, and promotes a grander view of making groups of articles more complete and more in sync with each other. I agree that they are particularly useful in chronological series, but I don't see why they should be limited to that. Tuf-Kat

I do have a problem with the "Jesus series". Even if it is to be kept, it ought to be renamed to something different. Views of Jesus? The heavy metal music series is acceptable if it includes all types of heavy metal. Does the culture of the US series encompass all components of American culture? If not, then the series is a bad idea - it implies something that is not true. --Jiang 17:47, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps all of the above is true, but I think the article series train is already its own momentum now, as does much with Wikipedia, and people are gonna do what they feel is best for the articles they edit. I think the best we can do is try to keep the article series a clean and well-lit place. If you don't like the series thing as a rule, perhaps a whole other paradigm needs to be cooked up. As it is, I like my assertion from before that the article series is basically an inter-article TOC to supplement intra-article TOCs. jengod 03:11, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)
That is what a category system is supposed to do. I in fact very much so dislike the whole article series idea and wish I would have opposed it earlier - most of those dam boxes contain no useful content that pertain to the article itself. All they really do is push real content (such as images and tables of data about the subject) down while only being useful for navigation. A much smarter way to do that is have a list on a parent topic, such as biology, and link the word biology somewhere in the lead section (usually as the second word: "In biology, ... "). Or better yet, make the subject area part of a WikiProject and have a more limited set of navigational aids (see carbon and Battle of Lützen (1632)). I think footers are much less harmful and think that many of these series boxes should be converted into them. --mav 07:55, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Except that a category system tends to become a tree, at best a simple one, at worst a complex crosslinked and exception filled one. Unless every article contains uplinks and downlinks, you cannot traverse the tree, and you end up with endless sterile 'list of articles about mollycoddling' pages. (And on those pages you still end up with the need for up, down, and cross links.)
Of course the boxes contain no useful content, because they are meta-data, not content. When you are organizing something as simple as a Star Trek episode guide, or an E.R. fansite, simple methods of categorization and navigation suffice. When dealing with something as complex as the material here at the 'pedia, that is no longer true. T
The problem with simple links, as you propose, is that they all bear the same near zero weight. A trivial link appears on the page identically to an important link. Elde 09:37, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Actually, a proper category system would be more complex than a tree, because an article can belong to two categories, neither of which is a subcategory of the other. This is one of the main flaws in this idea: people are trying to force articles that are linked in all sorts of complex ways into arbitrary one-dimensional sequences. The reason why the material here is interconnected in complex ways is because subjects in real life are interconnected in complex ways. Making up series and saying, "This is the way it all fits together," is a gross oversimplification and thorougly un-NPOV. Organising links within NPOV text is the best way of organising them, because it doesn't promote editorial opinions on the way subjects are linked. -- Oliver P. 01:33, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Organising links within NPOV text is the best way of organising them, because it doesn't promote editorial opinions on the way subjects are linked. Any method of organizing links is inherently POV. Once can choose to make or leave out a link utterly without fetters. Elde 08:55, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
And mixing metadata with content is really bad database design. Thanks for giving me another reason to dislike these boxes. There is still the very important issue that these boxes push real content down on the page. Also, a well-designed category system could be used to create these boxes in the sidebar that already exists on every page. Not too hard to code a "series:Foo" metadata tag. Again, footers would be a better compromise until we get a category system. --mav
If we were designing a database, that would be a valuable point. But we aren't. We are building an encyclopedia, that is filling in a database. I doubt that there is such a thing as a really well designed category system, Yahoo! has been at it for years, and their system is an absolute horror of redundancy and cross-links. I've worked off and on designing category systems, and even for topics much simpler than what the 'pedia plans to cover, such rendundancies and cross links are impossible to avoid. I agree, the boxes should be relegated to somewhere other than the top of the page however.Elde 08:55, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Advice wanted

I'm toying with the notion, If we ever reach the position where the server improves enough to take it on, of creating a Poetry series. This would be a bit different from the history-based series idea because relationships between the various pages would be looser and because there are a lot of pages. Does anyone think this is workable? Bmills 13:52, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Might be good -- would the articles in the series be poems/poets/genres/something else? All of the above? What would the table look like? Tuf-Kat 18:00, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
That would be great. What topics did you want to include? jengod 03:50, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

I was planning to use the Poetry page as the base page and add, at least, national poetries and poetic movements and groups. These should provide enough links out to individual poets and poems, I hope. I'm a bit intimidated by the table and it clearly will not go in chronological order. What do you both think? Bmills 12:58, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like an awfully long table, but it might work... Can't hurt to try. Tuf-Kat 19:21, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

I've made a start, and done something a bit different by linking to article headings to help keep the table under control for now. Bmills 15:49, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC) And a groups and movements series as another way of controlling size. Bmills 16:41, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See my comments about the content of the series at Talk:Poetry. In addition, the title of the article where the table is (in the table) should be de-linked, bolded, and have gray background (which the poetry series does not). Let's keep all the formatting consistent. There is also no need to split "This is part of the poetry series" into 2 lines when one line would not cause extra horizontal expansion. --Jiang 17:42, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
B, my impression is that the Poetry groups and movements series "works" but that the Poetry series is all over the map and becomes the glorified "see also" situation that Jiang feared. Maybe the Poetry domain needs either more time to grow or a smaller ambition footprint? Also, Jiang, I'm going to add: "In addition, the title of the article where the table is (in the table) should be de-linked, bolded, and have gray background (which the poetry series does not)." to the main page as one of the initial guidelines that (I hope) every can/has agree(d) on. jengod 09:09, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)
My only complaint is with the title. National Poetries just doesn't sound right at all. Poetries by nation is better, but only marginally. I encountered the same problem when I made List of cultural and regional genres of music, and never came to a solution. Maybe there isn't one. Tuf-Kat 22:27, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

"National poetries" simply links to [[poetry]]. Then we have "poetry" listed in the middle of the table. Having two links to the same place in one table is just plain confusing. And why at the middle and not the top? Why at all? Shouldint the series contain articles of the same specificity? The general topic belongs on top.

When making such a "series", one should anticipate all the items that should be included. It is fine to leave red links in the table. But if we were to do this for the poetry "series" (by adding all the countries in the world), we would have an entire column of red links, likely significantly longer than the article itself. I think the "National poetries" series as it is, is a net loss. --Jiang 00:26, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm liking the National Poetries series myself. In fact, I suggest you go for broke and switch the [[Poetry of the United States]] link to [[Poetry of the United States|U.S. Poetry]] so that it matches with Irish poetry, Slovak poetry, etc, schemes. This should evolve nicely. I eventually see it splitting into something like a group of series: European poetry, Ancient poetry, Asian poetry, etc. jengod 03:15, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

Msg for article series

It would nice if there was a way to use a msg to create the boxes for articles series. The main problem is probably that the usual model highlights the present article, something the probably can't be done with {{msg:series_US_history}}. -- User:Docu

There is now an ability to use {{msg: for series in which the self-link to current article is bolded, but not linked. It used for the History of Sweden although the table formatting is not consistent with the formatting addressed here, and I created one for Electronic music, using the format designated here. Should we have a standard name, like series_<series_name> e.g. series_electronic_music, rather than use the name of the top-level article? --Lexor|Talk 09:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I like the Electronic music series format better than the Swedish one, which just looks weird. I don't think having a standardized title for the mediawiki message will be that useful, since these are not likely to be used that often after their original introduction. It would be nice if they were intuitively titled, butthat would probably be more trouble than it's worth.
For the top article, I write "This article is an overview of the history of Sweden". I think this is better than "is at the top" or "is the parent article of" and the other variations people have used. Does anybody agree that this should be standard? Should there even be a standard?Tuf-Kat 18:01, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
I agree that "an overview" is a better than "at the top", I think we should start making at least some guidelines and recommendations towards a standard. We have gone through the phase of collecting current practise, I think it's a good idea to codify it a little before it gets too balkanized. I will put messages on the pages that use the "Swedish"-style Seriesbox (we should probably have a name for it), with a link to this page, and start the discussion. --Lexor|Talk 09:52, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

At this point I think that some form of standardization has a bigger value than the actual styles proposed. Styles, layout and coloring does not generally harmonize anywhere on Wikipeda and I think that this will need to be adressed "globally" at some point, plauseably by css classes or similar. At present I think that the grayish header on the proposals makes the table seem dull rather than sober. -- Mic 11:35, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Examples below:

This article is an overview of
the Electronic music series.
Electronic Music
Musique concrète
Industrial music
Synth pop
Techno music
House music
Trance music
Drum and bass

Parent article series box:


v • d • e
Electronic dance music • Genres

Daughter article series box:


History of Sweden

Scandinavian prehistory (-800)
Viking and Middle ages (800-1521)
Early Vasa era (1521-1611)
Emerging Great Power (1611-1648)
Swedish Empire (1648-1718)
Age of Liberty (1718-1772)
Absolutism of Gustavus III (1772-1809)
Union with Norway (1814-1905)
Oscarian era (late 19th century)
Industrialization (1870s-1930)
World War II
Cold war Sweden
Post-Cold War
Topical
Military history

Other example:


Style sheet definition for article series tables

The box on Lists_of_people looks better on some browsers than others. If there was a way, it would be nice to define a default in the style sheet that would work for most. -- User:Docu

Hybrid Infobox/Seriesbox

I have created a hybrid Infobox and article series box at User:TUF-KAT/Fun with tables to improve navigation among the major topics in Greek mythology. Tuf-Kat 20:56, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

MediaWiki HOW-TO Page

For those of us who don't yet know how MediaWiki msgs work, is there a how-to page? jengod 18:30, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Not really, but there is Wikipedia:MediaWiki namespace. The important part for this discussion is the "custom messages". You can create a custom message, just like any other article in a namespace, by typing MediaWiki:NAME. Put the text you want there. To place the text in an article, type {{msg:NAME}}. This will display the text in the article, but the source code will continue to read {{msg:NAME}}. Any changes made to the message in the MediaWiki namespace will be displayed anywhere the message is placed. You can also type {{subst:NAME}}, and that will be replaced with the message itself -- this method allows it to be changed at the article edit window, and does not reflect any changes made to the message in the MediaWiki namespace. The latest wrinkle is that any self-links in the Wikipedia, such as this one are changed into bold text automatically. This way, the same mediawiki message could be used for all of the articles in a series, and the computer will automatically bold the entry for the article in question instead of creating a self-link. Hope this helps... Tuf-Kat 19:39, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Standard for seriesbox

A number of recent article series boxes (I propose seriesbox as a shorthand, in analogy to infobox) which use the MediaWiki namespace, tend to use a format which looks more like a table of contents box (right), and less like the original article series boxes (left).

This article is part of the
Electronic music series.
Electronic art music
Musique concrète
Industrial music
Synth pop
Techno music
House music
Trance music
Drum and bass
Style #1


This article is part of the
Electronic music series.
Electronic art music
Musique concrète
Industrial music
Synth pop
Techno music
House music
Trance music
Drum and bass
Style #2
This article is part of the
Electronic music series.
Electronic art music
Musique concrète
Industrial music
Synth pop
Techno music
House music
Trance music
Drum and bass
Style #3
This article is part of the
Electronic music series.
Electronic art music
Musique concrète
Industrial music
Synth pop
Techno music
House music
Trance music
Drum and bass
Style #4



My preference is for the style #1, over style #2, because:

  1. It takes up less real-estate and is less obtrusive since it uses smaller text for the intro article, and uses a bit less space between the text and the box.
  2. It is less likely to be confused with a table of contents for the article (different background color and style).
  3. It is more common wikipedia-wide for article seriesbox than the more recent style.

I think it would be useful to codify this as a loose guideline/standard, before these start proliferating too much. --Lexor|Talk 10:20, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Style Poll

  • In favor of style #1:
  • In favor of style #2
    • Dori | Talk 14:25, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC) It looks much better IMO.
  • No preference/mix
    • UtherSRGI like the thinness of #1, but the color of #2.
      • I added a style #3, perhaps this would work as a compromise. --Lexor|Talk 22:54, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • In favor of style #3
  • In favor of style #4

I still prefer the color and style of #2 above the others (which are all the same in style/color). Make #2 the size of the others and that's where I'd vote. - UtherSRG 01:27, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Style #2 uses the same background color as the table of contents (TOC), because it actually uses id=toc from the CSS stylesheet. I think that seriesbox should be a different color to that of the TOC to ensure that it isn't mistaken as a TOC. If you could suggest an alternative color scheme that is more to your liking but isn't identical to the TOC color scheme, that would be good. --Lexor|Talk 04:26, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. I prefer the others over style 2. --Jiang

Text Poll

  • Call the top article "the parent article of the XXX series"
  • Call the top article "an overview of the XXX series"
  • "This article is part of the XXX series"
    • UtherSRG - Look at Same-sex marriage for why the other options don't work as well. (They all work, this works better, IMO). Scratch that. It's because I prefer using wiki msgs for this, and differentiating between parent articles and children articles makes that not possible for the parent article. Let's say someone develops an article for Same-sex marriage in Fushal (kudos if you know where that is). The link would have to be added twice, once to the parent's list, once to the child list. The better solution has one message that works for both the parent and child articles.

Borders

Is it my screen or am I the only one to use the Cologne Blue-skin? Either designs have large black borders (similar to.. ) which are anything but pretty. If you use boarders, I'd prefer that they have the style "border-collapse: collapse;". -- User:Docu

BTW I had tried to edit the standard one at Lists_of_incumbents, but without much success. The result looks different depending on skin and browser. -- User:Docu

Discussion on meta on generic CSS classes

Some discussion arising on IRC has resulted in some discussion on the meta wiki which might lead to support for global CSS styles, see: Generic_css_classes_for_content. --Lexor|Talk