Template talk:Clint Eastwood

message: , I was just linking American Sniper (film) to List of films featuring the United States Navy SEALs and saw this template and thought that this group of films was hard to read without any grouping. Why do you not think grouping is appropriate here? Grouping is like doing a paragraph break to avoid a wall of text, and I thought grouping by decade was a standard way to organize this kind of thing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , I've restored the grouping by decade. Rob appears to be retired, so I don't think he'll be responding. What is your current approach to deciding whether or not to group by decade? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , yeah, I've pretty much retired now, but decades were removed per this discussion.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll ping later today the editors who weighed in there to see if they still feel the same. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I am still of the same opinion that the decade grouping just makes the navbox larger, and is redundant to the parenthetical years directly after each film name.  I, personally, find the more compact version easier to read, especially with my screen reader, since there is no WP:LISTGAP. Frietjes (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the decade breakdown for larger filmographies. The discussion that Rob links to doesn't have any consensus either way. A larger navbox can always be displayed as collapsed on an article's page too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm not against structuring navboxes by decade per se; as I concede at that discussion there is sometimes a strong aesthetic argument for doing so. I actually made those comments with respect to . In this particular instance, I don't find either version more advantageous to me as a reader. However, I do think having the year divides and the years in parentheses is overkill. Betty Logan (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grouping by decade 

message: , , , you were in the discussion that Robsinden linked to above. As a reader, I came across this template and found it hard to read without any kind of grouping. I thought for this particular case, grouping by decade improved readability immensely. I know that grouping by decade has been debated in the past, but I think this application is weakest for directors with a small body of films. I think it applies very well here. As I said above, it is like breaking up a wall of text with paragraph marks. Do you still think we shouldn't group by decade, or is there some flexibility for fitting cases like this one? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am still of the same opinion that the decade grouping just makes the navbox larger, and is redundant to the parenthetical years directly after each film name.  I, personally, find the more compact version easier to read, especially with my screen reader, since there is no WP:LISTGAP. Frietjes (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the decade breakdown for larger filmographies. The discussion that Rob links to doesn't have any consensus either way. A larger navbox can always be displayed as collapsed on an article's page too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm not against structuring navboxes by decade per se; as I concede at that discussion there is sometimes a strong aesthetic argument for doing so. I actually made those comments with respect to . In this particular instance, I don't find either version more advantageous to me as a reader. However, I do think having the year divides and the years in parentheses is overkill. Betty Logan (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison