"Steve Bennett" wrote
And for navigational ability and visibility of related articles, nothing beats a navbox.
And the capacity to irritate people who can navigate without the intrusion, thank you all the same. One per article is quite enough, and often too many.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 12/3/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Steve Bennett" wrote
And for navigational ability and visibility of related articles, nothing beats a navbox.
And the capacity to irritate people who can navigate without the intrusion, thank you all the same. One per article is quite enough, and often too many.
I find navboxes tolerable when something is obviously one of a small set of related things. I dislike them when someone decides to make a group of topics into a "<whatever> series" when they aren't obviously that closely related. E.g. the first example of it I ever saw, "Wikipedia's Electronic Music Series", which seemed to collect evertything the box's creator thought was important to electronic music. The latter type seem to clash with NPOV, for one thing.
-Matt
On 12/3/06, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/3/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Steve Bennett" wrote
And for navigational ability and visibility of related articles, nothing beats a navbox.
And the capacity to irritate people who can navigate without the intrusion, thank you all the same. One per article is quite enough, and often too many.
I find navboxes tolerable when something is obviously one of a small set of related things. I dislike them when someone decides to make a group of topics into a "<whatever> series" when they aren't obviously that closely related. E.g. the first example of it I ever saw, "Wikipedia's Electronic Music Series", which seemed to collect evertything the box's creator thought was important to electronic music. The latter type seem to clash with NPOV, for one thing.
-Matt
Just spotted a TfD relating to this discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_Decem...
Input from all sides would be nice.
--humblefool
On 12/4/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
And the capacity to irritate people who can navigate without the intrusion, thank you all the same. One per article is quite enough, and often too many.
Let me ask you, what do you see as the basic model for readers finding a given article? Are you focussing primarily on a reader coming to Wikipedia to find information on a very specific topic? What if he just wants to browse? What if he doesn't know what he wants?
Let's take an example, [[Template:Energy Conversion]]. Do you consider this intrusive? Do you not think there is value in raising the visibility of all these topics? Do you not think there is value in showing how many different solar power topics there are compared to only three wind power topics? Had you heard of "blue energy"? Does it make you wonder what "Anaerobic digestion" is doing in amongst energy conversion topics?
I think navigation boxes serve to stimulate interest and lead readers to other, related topics. And if we can stimulate the reader's interest, we can stimulate him to help us, don't you think?
Steve