Draft talk:Template:US Presidents

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC about whether the draft is appropriate for a merge[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The merged navbox designated Proposal C on Draft:US Presidents navbox appears to have a rough consensus for implementation. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Eggishorn, this Rfc is an outgrowth of an earlier Tfd conversation: and going by the closing instructions left there by Primefac, now that a "final product" has been completed, the templates identified for merger can be re-nominated (a new Tfd started), with the discussion being should the two templates be merged in "this" way? Drdpw (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drdpw is correct, minus some grammatically confusing punctuation ;) Primefac (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support merging Template:US Presidents and Template:US Presidential Administrations with the result looking like this? Or, something a bit like it?--Nevé–selbert 14:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Conditional support – I think the templates should be merged but the proposed layout is messy. I would approve it if we switched to the column layout envisioned earlier the updated column draft. — JFG talk 15:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • JFG' adding dates to go along with the names is a good idea, but I think that the column version is better that rows. viewed on a 13" laptop. L3X1 (distant write) 12:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Column version is best. Why? Every link on a website is decision. Should I click on the link or should I not click on the link?When you present to someone decisions in rapid fire, they feel overwhelmed and they don’t like it. Having all the links in a small/concentrated is like machine gunning with requests to make decisions. In addition, when you have white space between links, it is easier for people to scroll their eyes through links and to differentiate between areas where the links are located. Lastly, having all the links in one small/concentrated area does look messy/cluttered.Dean Esmay (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Proposal B per Dean Esmay. Also, the column layout looks much clearer to me without all of the blue arrows, as well as being clearer in numbering style (e.g. no numbering of timelines). Alcherin (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • @JFG, L3X1, and Desmay: Thanks for the feedback. Any thoughts on the latest draft here? Added columns, plus made a few tweaks here and there.--Nevé–selbert 12:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no good. First, you shouldn't force a fixed number of columns, because this doesn't fit narrow screens. Second, the "decorative" blue arrows look distracting. Third, I think we should keep the full names of presidents. Fourth, when a particular presidency has no article, let's not link the dates back to the president's page. Fifth, what is the purpose of this exotic markup such as {{0}}{{Cardinal|5th}}{{nb5}} instead of simply "5."? — JFG talk 12:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Navbox with columns is the recommended format, I'm just following what's expected elsewhere. I don't see any problem with the arrows, they're hardly distracting at all, please elucidate. Regarding your fourth point, I'm inclined to agree with you, I just kept them in from the previous design. On the question of "exotic markup", it's temporary. If consensus were to sway here in favour of using ordinals, it would save me time in having to change the draft to reflect that.--Nevé–selbert 12:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, {{Navbox with columns}} is a rather outdated template. My draft uses a regular navbox with contents arranged with {{Div col}}, a modern fluid column implementation which has been recently endorsed at project-wide RfCs about column layouts. For the arrows, I suppose it's just a matter of taste. Let's wait until more people chime in. — JFG talk 16:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have updated my previous draft, using fluid columns, some of your suggestions, and links to new articles created in the meantime; I think that's a good candidate for the merge. Here it is. — JFG talk 17:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I kept the links to the two presidency articles that don't exist, because they actually redirect to the appropriate section of the relevant president's page. — JFG talk 17:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing the latest version compared to the initial proposal shows significant improvement. Each one is cleaner than the previous one. As clutter has declined and organization via design coalesced, I find both reading ease and comprehension increasing. Thanks for your work.Horst59 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For accessibility reasons, we shouldn't use reduced font sizes in navboxes, per WP:FONTSIZE. Doesn't save much space anyway (plus I don't think "saving space" should be a goal in itself). — JFG talk 17:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MY opinion: the shrink doesn't look bad to my young eyes, but I don't see much space being saved, and then per JFG. L3X1 (distant write) 19:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but the presidency links ought to be smaller than those for the presidents themselves. Proposal C is the compromise option.--Nevé–selbert 20:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the presidency links be smaller? — JFG talk 21:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, you made the dates smaller and italics, while keeping president names at normal size (which explains that vertical space is unchanged). Again, why? Just for a style effect? — JFG talk 21:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG and L3X1: Alright, never mind then. Any thoughts on Proposal D? I've separated the presidency links from those of the presidents'.--Nevé–selbert 16:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JFG? L3X1 (distant write) 17:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)17:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Proposal D would defeat the purpose of merging the navboxes for presidents and presidencies into a compact template. There seems to be consensus on proposal B at this time, I'm not sure we need to tweak it further. The RfC will be done in a few days, then we implement the merge, and if people want to tweak it, that will be a new discussion. — JFG talk 03:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be another TFD first before merging the navboxes. A consensus among a few editors on a design is not a broad consensus to merge two. You've "put the cart before the horse" here. Drdpw (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not me: the RfC was an initiative by Neve-selbert. I just helped with the layout. The question whether this RfC would justify the merge will probably be adjudicated by the closer. — JFG talk 11:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To me, separating the years from the president names also loses the ability to easily tell when a president was in office. For example if I wanted to check when the 20th president served I'd have to first find his name (Garfield) and then separately find his name in the cluttered Presidency links. Alcherin (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks for the work. I've lost track of exactly how the versions were designated; as such I like the version presented on April 15 when I last commented. Reading comprehension will rise significantly due to the organization you presented on that one.Horst59 (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my clumsiness and appreciate that people like you are editing. It is version C of which I speak. Please use it. The design and organization is superb. It is infinitely readable and easy to understand.Horst59 (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, I have requested formal closure.[1] — JFG talk 15:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New merge discussion[edit]

Following the agreed-upon process, I have opened a new merge discussion, based on the design RfC outcome, at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 13#Template:US Presidential Administrations. Please comment there. — JFG talk 22:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion was relisted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 23#Template:US Presidential Administrations. — JFG talk 11:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – Discussion was closed and templates were merged. — JFG talk 15:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Template:US_Presidents&oldid=974874101"