Template talk:Equidae
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn. |
| NA | This page has been rated as NA-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| NA | This article has been rated as NA-importance on the importance assessment scale |
Do you object if we replace the photo of the Quagga with a color photo of a horse? Montanabw(talk) 23:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Nah I don't mind if you replace it with a colored horse. --4444hhhh (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)4444hhhh
Dug around for some assorted generic images, both body shots and just heads of horses. Which one do you like better? Probably needs to be one that looks good when small. I liked these for being real clear shots and not ugly. Thoughts? (Or just pick one and plop it on the template. I'm OK with any of them--my personal favorite is probably the mare and foal shot) Montanabw(talk) 09:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
.jpg/120px-Mare_and_foal_(Kvetina-Marie).jpg) |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
[edit] huge box, please collapse by default
This navbox is very big. In many cases it will take up more space than the actual text of the respective article. It is common practise to set such huge boxes to collapse by default. I tried to do so but was reverted without a comment. Am I really the only one who thinks that it is too imposing? A navbox should support articles, not dominate them. --Latebird (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends on its purpose. It isn't a deep moral issue with me, but in this case any articles that it dominates probably deserve to be smacked because they need to be expanded anyway. (LOL!) Can you point to the WP page that outlines the standards, though? Here I think there is a case to be made for "Ignore all rules." It's worth a chat, at least. My reason is that the horse articles have a lot of problems with navigation and cross-linking, the box is an attempt to make it easier (and to me, being at the bottom of the page, it is less dominating than those extensive sidebars seen in some other topics. The sidebars, such as those here don't collapse, it seems, and I find them more distracting, personally.) I think we are sitting at well over 1000 horse articles (I have about 800 on my watchlist, and that is after I cleaned it out) and we have noticed a lot of orphaned stubs get created because people don't know what's out there. (The project is now just tagging everything, organizing and recategorization is yet another challenge). A lot of new users don't get it about expanding the box, a lot of new users and kids hit the horse articles (at least if the vandalism is any indication) and in the case of a lot of stubs, it is a useful navigational tool. I guess I don't care a lot either way, I think if expanded it will draw more new users to navigate. And the picture of the horse is just lovely! (grin) JMHO. Montanabw(talk) 20:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I only just noticed your reply, sorry. Your points are valid, of course, and it's not the largest box I've seen yet. A possible other solution for small screen users might be to remove the image. I don't quite see the point of images in navbars anyway, but that's yet another discussion. In this case, on a small screen, the image takes almost one third of the width, which huge empty spaces above and below. Removing it would roughly cut the height of the box by half. Try to reduce the width of your browser window to see the effect. Adding line breaks to some of the labels on the left would result in another size reduction. --Latebird (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I just revised the template. Here's what I did and why. First, I removed links to the categories. I'm not sure if it is official policy or not, but I rarely see links from the main article namespace to other namespaces. The only common exceptions are usually links at the bottom of the template with one link to the main category, and one link to the portal. Second, I removed the species list. I just created a new template, {{Perissodactyla}}, which appears on all of the species pages and ties them all together...so keeping them here would be duplication. Third, I combined breeds, hybrids, and extinct species on one line to conserve space. Finally, I saved additional space by moving some of the articles to the group name (on the left side, rather than the right) and changing some of the links by removing the word horses (where it is obvious and not needed).
- On another note, I'm not sure you should be putting this template on all of the articles within the WikiProject. Usually, a template is only placed on an article if the article appears on the template. So all of the breeds and types of horses articles probably should not have this template. I'd think a new template for horse breeds (grouped by common characteristics, if possible), would be a better option. Having multiple, specific templates would probably be best for easing navigation of the project anyway. Many focused templates are usually better than one gigantic template. --Scott Alter 08:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- What you did works, but oh, my god NO we must not try to make a horse breeds template, oh the fights over how to categorize them- it gives me a headache just to think about it. (:clutching head, writhing in pain on floor:) The fight over which breeds are horses and which are ponies alone is periodically intense. Also, many breeds can fit in multiple categories (the Thoroughbred, for example, is both a race horse and a sport horse). No, best to just refer people to the main list and let it go! As for putting the template only on some articles, hmm. I guess when I see them in other articles I think of them as a navigation tool, the problem, if you happened to have surfed the categories, is that there are probably over 2000 horse articles (more yet if you count all the race horse biographies at WikiProject Horse Racing, which is why we aren't trying to combine with them!) and the categories themselves are a real mess -- once the assessment tags go up, "fumigating" the categories is probably the next push. (Just as an example, both Equestrianism and Equestrian Sports are categories, that's illogical) Until we have a real clear hierarchy of categories, more specific templates probably need to wait. Montanabw(talk) 05:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support Montana on the no horse breeds template. Oh, gods above, I would not want to deal with that. Even trying for alphabetical would get you in trouble... because everyone would try to add "American" to the front of their breed article.... The paint/appy people would scream about being classified as color breeds ... the palomino people would too, the pony breeds would insist they are horses or vice versa, the Arabian folks would insist on being at the front, etc. etc. It would be a nightmare. Where would you draw the line? I think we have what... 150 breed articles on Wikipedia now? Talk about large template! As for the collapsable template, I'm in favor. I don't like templates, honestly, but that's me. I prefer bottom to sidebars. If we have them, I prefer they collapse by default so I don't have deal with them that much. If you know how to make them always collapse, can I borrow you for a couple of bishop ones? Ealdgyth | Talk 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
