Template talk:Forensic science

message: Was this template intended to appear on the page forensic science only, or on all of the other pages listed (e.g. forensic pathology or forensic anthropology)? -RustavoTalk/Contribs 22:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Applicability

message: Is Gil Grissom, a fictional character, really one of the four notable "People of Forensics"?
I didn't know that being a character in a popular television series nominated you for "notable" status among other historical figures.
There already is a link to "The CSI Effect", isn't that enough?
137.238.101.173 (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gil Grissom

message: As per the hidden field. I wanted to add an external link to an upcoming ABC TV Catalyst (Science show) dedicated to forensic science - the show is also available for download. It covers DNA testing to solve a 4000 y.o. murder, advances in drug forensics; a collaboration between US and Australian forensics, and a story that will be of enormous interest to Australians on the alleged murder of a national icon. Who will give me permission to add this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.176.173 (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links Request

message: This template is very wide. I'd like to suggest  conversion. --Geniac (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vertbox 

message: Why isn't he in the notable persons section? ThuranX (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *FWIW, I don't know why there is a "People" section in the template at all, especially since there is an extensive listing on the main Forensic Science page.  I think this section of the template has very little value and should be removed. — RB Ostrum. 15:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bernard Spilsbury]] 

message: Further to my comment dated July 11, 2011, I am requesting feedback about a proposal to remove the 'People' section from the Forensic Science sidebar template.  
Rationale: 
#there is no need to (partially) duplicate information that is given in the main text.
#the listing is incomplete and inclusion is subjective.  For example, why list only these people? Are they pioneers or significant in some other way?  How does one know who should or should not be on the list?  
#even if the title was to be changed to something more specific (such as 'pioneers' or 'notable persons'), replication tends to produce inconsistency.  For example, as of July 28, Juan Vucetich is listed in the sidebar but he is not in the article text. 
I was tempted to act on this according to WP:BB.  However, as I expect this move to be a bit contentious, I would like some discussion before acting.  Any comments?  
— RB Ostrum. 14:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed removal of 'People' section 

message: Customisable images encouraging the sidebar user to find "different and better image... for a specific article subject" seems unusual for a sidebar, which usually has a single generic image related to the broader subject. Putting a unique image in the sidebar like this has three obvious problems:
* There is no caption to explain what the picture is of (the image on Forensic polymer engineering is intriguing but unexplained)
* The 55% of readers viewing the article on mobile will not see the image, meaning that many articles on this subject will have no lead image at all for them
* A specific photo can make the navbox appear to be about a different broader subject (glancing over the article without reading carefully, the ladybird anatomy clipart on Forensic entomology makes the navbox look like it is specifically about insects)
Should the "image=" option be removed and replaced with the same default skull image wherever this sidebar appears? --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Arriving back here to say something else three years later: yes, it should, per WP:NAVBOX () Belbury (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose removal of customisable "image" field 

message: Is :File:Punuk.Alaska.skulls.jpg the best image to use here? The skulls depicted aren't part of a crime (the caption on Commons says ). An image of a fingerprint (such as :File:Teerahertz near-field array for μm-scale surface imaging.png) might look better, and could be cropped to be a slim banner. Belbury (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skull photo