Wikipedia talk:Article series boxes

Comments about User:AlexR/Article series boxes should go here.

An excellent summary of the issues, Alex. I rather like ASBs, but I completely agree with your proposals that a) they should all be landscape rather than portrait, and b) they should go at the bottom of the page. --ALargeElk 16:54, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, given oblong boxes, they should go at the top, as that is really where they visually look the best. Beyond that, I think I agree with the proposal in general, and can see the case for broad boxes as better than oblong. Snowspinner 17:37, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

While they would look good at the top, or rather at the right border of the text, putting them on top would intrude badly with the legibility of a text. I keep my browser window at about 800 width, and I use the standard skin, which means I have the menu on the left. If there were boxes at the right side of the text, there would not be too much room left for the text, and if there are pictures or tables in the text, it would lead to horribly looking pages. Also, users looking for a link in the boxes would have to scroll back when they finished reading, which most probably would just not do; therefore the box might simply be wasted. And they would detract from the text itself, even if they don't interfere with the text too much (in a different page setup, most likely).
Which is why I proposed that the boxes should go to the bottom. -- AlexR 06:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The only time that they should go at the bottom of the page, is in situations where there can be more than one project claiming an article. Article boxes, or what ever you want to call them, which clearly add to the comprehension of text by the public by classifying the article clearly belong on top to the right and below the introduction paragraph. I would propose that images in articles should go on the left so as not to conflict with the boxes. -- John Gohde 17:05, 9 May 2004 (UTC

Correcting for correct terminology, I would have to agree that many ASBs should go at the bottom of articles because they will be replacing all those See other link lists currently found at the bottom of articles. -- John Gohde 19:10, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other important contexts of an article which don't have a box? They don't become less important because some people don't want to follow the latest fad, or because there are just one or two articles relevant anyway. So the boxes should, in my opinion, no matter how many, go to the bottom, and they will not replace the "See other" section, either. -- AlexR 22:48, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I like your proposal. I'm glad someone took the time to attempt to standardize this sort of thing. Thanks. -Seth Mahoney 02:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Since Alex asked for feedback, here's one Wikipedian's two US cents:

I just happened on the article for Greece, & was a bit concerned about the proliferation of boxes as the bottom of the page. These refer to series on Europe, the European Union, NATO, & OECD. Now, I'll admit that these are all germane to the article on Greece, but they looked incongruous to me for these reasons:

1. Needless repetition At a glance, in these 4 boxes, Belgium is linked to 4 times, & Austria 3 times, neither of which has much to do with Greece.
2. Incongruous Associations In the first box of this group, Europe, there are 4 articles linked under "dependencies". I struggled for a second to understand just how "Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Isle of Man, & Jersey" could be seen as dependencies of Greece -- then realized that although they are subdivisions of Denmark & the UK that, they have identities clearly recognized even by other nations. Yes, I admit the failure to understand was on my part, but I can't help but feel this failure was forced upon me, & that the box should have been better constructed.
3. Structure So even if you ignore my other two gripes or whinges, there is still left this sense that I have over four blocks of data that takes up a lot of space, but doesn't deliver the user much information for all of that space; couldn't we find a way with PHP & the Wikipedia software to integrate all of these links into one box that provides links to the European Union, NATO, & OECD, their flags, & all of the member states? Now that would be very cool, & be something we can wave in the faces of proprietary online encyclopedia manufacturers, & challenge them to top.

Will the last item come to pass? I have a sense that the developers are working hard over existing problems, & that my suggestion justifiably may never reach the top of their to-do lists, yet if this integration could be done, I'd guess most of the resistence to the use of "series boxes" would vanish quickly. And I hope I'm not just presenting another off-teh-wall idea here. -- llywrch 02:38, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest problem with Greece (Besides the fact that I don't like Greek food) is the painful homogeny of color at the bottom of the page. I think the boxes themselves are all quite well designed. Are there a lot of them? Well, yes. But I blame Europe more than series boxes for that. Snowspinner 03:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

painful homogeny of color - I agree about all that blue! See Wikipedia:Infobox for why each project should be using a different color. -- John Gohde 17:08, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain that it is not impossible at all to have similar boxes below any country in the word; the USA are part of NATO and OECD, too, a box about all countries in North and South America could easily been done (it probably exists already) and there are certainly one or more pan-american organisations, too. You are right, though, that four links instead of four boxes would do just as well, or maybe just the "Europe" box and three links — even thought these boxes are series boxes instead of ASBs. -- AlexR 06:42, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Are you objecting to/proposing any guidelines on regular old SBs? Snowspinner 14:48, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. I guess that there has already been a lot of debate about them, about which I don't know too much. Probably regulating them somewhat would be a good idea, some articles are already rather boxed, so to speak. Probably my policy about ASBs would be at least adaptable, so if somebody who knows the previous debates about them wants to do that, feel free. -- AlexR 22:48, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

My US 2 cents worth:

1. I think that ==Content: What should NOT be in an ASB?== is not clear, or perhaps I disagree. I agree that an ASB shouldn't have a huge list of articles. I find some of the geographical ASBs to be ludicrously large and overcomplete (see, e.g., Template:California). However, I think that it is a good thing for an ASB to have a link to a "list of" article. I'll hold up Template:Solar System as a positive example --- it has a list of the 10 most prominent Solar System articles, and then links to two more "list of" articles for experts to browse through. I believe that the "What should NOT be in an ASB" section seems deprecate this, but it may just be unclear.
2. I'm guessing that the thought behind requiring a project for an ASB will discourage random boxes. My fear is that people love random ASBs so much that we'll then be deluged with random WikiProjects! But, since Wikipedia is not paper, maybe this isn't a big issue.

-- hike395 07:17, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of what not to do can be found at Wikipedia:Topics. Some related discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Article series, Wikipedia talk:page footers, and wikipedia talk:topics. --Jiang 07:26, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]