Template talk:William Gibson

message: From the above conversation the block to a move to navbox formatting seems to be by a single editor over aesthetic differences. While it's certainly a valid opinion that navboxes are less interesting than individually-formatted tables, this isn't a consensus position. In fact, quite the opposite would seem to be true. I'm personally in favour of converting this into a navbox for reasons of standardisation, simpler markup (and hence future maintainability) and for the separation of content from presentation (navboxes can easily be styled through CSS in Wikipedia themes; Wikipedia tables intermingled with raw markup less so). While this isn't a democracy, I think the general weight of opinion lies in favour of using the modern template. Chris Cunningham 10:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Skomorokh is the main editor of the William Gibson related articles, so i think his opinion may carry more weight than some of the other people contributing to this discussion - who don't seem to be involved in those articles. CaNNoNFoDDaTalk 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Brief comment Haven't got time to respond to the specific issues here but just to say I don't claim any ownership of the articles. I am prepared to manually alter anything that needs maintaining if, as in this case, the manual version is superior to the automated. Skomorokh incite 16:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  That an editor has put considerable effort into a particular section of Wikipedia lends him some weight in discussion, but it does not in itself end the debate; especially when the edit in question is not one of content but of mere presentation and maintainability. I've got a lot of experience editing navigation templates, but that didn't give me carte blanche to decide this argument in favour of using a navbox. That's why we're having this discussion. Chris Cunningham 13:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the issues seem to hinge round such, strange ideas as being able to identify things by them "looking" different. Where is the serious nature of Wikipedia in that and also the general thrust of the WP:MOS which in basic terms argues for certain presentational and layout consistency between all articles and also between certain article types. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem…the idea that objects perceived visually are easier to identify individually when they are visually distinct from one another seems is not in the slightest bit strange; it is precisely the basis for visual identification of disparate objects. You're also going to need to appeal to a lot more than a nebulous principle of "consistency". The current format of the template is hardly inconsistent with, for example :Template:Jane Austen novels, :Template:Thomas Pynchon, :Template:Harlan Ellison, :Template:Roald Dahl, :Template:ChuckPalahniuk, :Template:Sergey Lukyanenko, :Template:Works of Lenin to cite just a few of this class of template. Furthermore, a rationale of standardization or consistency with a certain paradigm case (i.e. navbox) could easily be used to eliminate other forms of presentation in the spirit of false consensus in order to enforce conformity to the preferred option of a troupe of vanguardists. The alternative formats should be assessed freely on their merits. Skomorokh incite 19:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a "nebulous principle of "consistency"; that would imply that it wasn't quantifiable, whereas the ratio of navboxen to non-navboxen is verifiably increasing. Arbitrary counterexamples are not evidence to the contrary. The last part of your argument is flowery prose which isn't negatable, so I'm not going to argue against it. So, to summarise: navboxen are easier to maintain than custom wikitables (notwithstanding personal vouching to self-maintain them, which has a low bus factor). navboxen are positively creating consistency across Wikipedia where none existed before (notwithstanding custom WikiProject navbox variants such as template:military navigation, which have not yet been adopted by the project under the template we're discussing). navboxen are increasingly replacing custom Wikitables for navigation template across Wikipedia (notwithstanding random counterexamples). The alternative formats have been assessed freely on their merits and found wanting. Chris Cunningham 21:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So another week's gone by. Any traction on this? Is there any applicable standard for literary articles which might weigh in on this issue? Chris Cunningham 10:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Support Thank you very much for bringing that to our attention. While I think the centre justification is aesthetically simpler and easier to view, I am willing to meet navboxen-advocates halfway. I think I might also split the Bibliography section of William Gibson off into its own article so that Works of William Gibson will link directly. Skomorokh incite 12:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I generally don't like custom attributes on navboxen, better a compromise than nothing. Can we go with Quiddity's version, then? Chris Cunningham 13:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the current version acceptable? Skomorokh incite 13:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A few (now-corrected) syntax nitpicks aside, I'm happy with this. Thanks! Chris Cunningham 15:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a default part of the navbox styling; it helps visually separate the list sections' contents from each other. As a usability enhancement, I quite strongly support its usage. --Quiddity 21:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus here 

message: Is there any reason why there are horizontal stripes of a slightly darker shade covering the Short stories and Story elements sections? Is there a rationale for these? Is it possible that they might be removed? Skomorokh incite 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a default part of the navbox styling; it helps visually separate the list sections' contents from each other. As a usability enhancement, I quite strongly support its usage. --Quiddity 21:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horizontal striping 

message: Bah, the recurring problem of links running beyond the boundaries of the template has raise its ugly head again. Is there a more elegant way than non-breaking spaces to fix this? Skomorokh incite 18:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The series taxonomy isn't really necessary in a navbox. I've removed it, which should alleviate this. Chris Cunningham 00:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still broken for me - "The Winter Market" breaches the right hand margin of the template. Can we use  or something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap 

message: In , User:Thumperward said to "just drop the subcats. this isn't meant to be a taxonmy; it's only meant to get people to relevant links. too much categorisation in navboxen is counterproductive". I believe that proper categorization is very useful, however. What does everyone think? ~ Jafet (spam) 16:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the inclusion of the Sprawl trilogy and Bridge trilogy articles - they are, after all, works of William Gibson. Skomorokh incite 16:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done then. Also rewrote link texts in Miscellanea to be more accurate. ~ Jafet (spam) 03:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, much clearer.--Quiddity 04:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: Discussion on proposed merges moved to Talk:Works of William Gibson Skomorokh incite 17:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story elements mergers 

message: did you see any gibsonian articles impacted with this diff? I just reverted such edit. Gibsonian articles are now normal. Also the edit by DrinkThineCookies has a link to Nіmp.оrg note that it's actually o*n.n*i*m*p.o*r*g for people using Windows-1252 (with no *s) --░▒▓Frogger3140▓▒░ (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching that. I believe it may have been intended to target the Disneyland with the Death Penalty article, which is at WP:DYK today. No permanent harm done, the vandal has been indef blocked. the skomorokh 14:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Warned him for blatant vandalism the day I saw that diff. --░▒▓Frogger3140▓▒░ (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was some big vandalism. --Macbookair3140 (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  blatant vandalism from DrinkThineCookies 

message: I'm not sure quite how it works, but I've thrown together a copy of this template in the Book: namespace at Book:William Gibson. Input and suggestions welcome.  Skomorokh  14:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forked to the Book: namespace