Template talk:General relativity sidebar

message: I am removing the category link from this template.  Instead of being an aid, it is a nuisance.
* Item: A bug in this template missorted a number of these entries (as noted above)
* Item: The black hole page, which is the main page for :Category:black_holes is forced to also be part of :Category:general_relativity.  However, that is made reduntant because the "black hole" category is a subcategory of "general relativity".  This also violates a Wikipedia rule that the main page for a category should only be part of one category, and that is the category that it is the main page of.
* Item: This category link is being overridden for the core pages, which I have chosen to sort differently than by their page name.
It seems to me that navigation and categorization are two different functions and should not be mixed up.  I see templates without navigation where you want to know what pages use it.  In that case having a category for those pages which is populated by the template's use is helpful.  However, this is a different situation.
They happen because you touch yourself at night  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.245.113 (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the category link from this template 

message: I, personally, use the singular because when written in tensorial form, as it usually is, it is only one equation. Besides, the page it links to is Einstein's field equation. –Joke 22:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I roll my eyes at that page being misnamed, and will see about getting that fixed soon.  However, I need to have a redirect at the correct name deleted first.  If you really want to make the artlcle titles consistent, then go ahead and revert my change out pending the title change to the EFE article.  --EMS | Talk 05:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein equation or Einstein equations 

message: The picture should be of E=mc2 instead of what it is now, because E=mc2 is far more well-known. --J4\/4 <talk> 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the picture should be, but if the navbox is vertical, should be about as wide as the box rather than squished to the left ~1/2 of the top region. At least could make the denominator closer to the vinculum, which would allow the whole image to be enlarged to become wider-but-not-taller. DMacks (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Navboxes at the top of the article take up precious screen space that should be used for pictures relevant to the topic's article.  They also imply that the article belongs to only one subject area (and therefore to one particular subset of the editors). They also make the article less readable  by "stealing" the reader's attention from the head section (especially if the navboxcontains a canned picture, which the reader will have to look at before realizing that it has absolutely nothing to do with the article).  Finally they seem to imply that the reader will want to jump to some other article of the series before reading the article he just got to.So please change this navbox to a navbar and move it to the bottom of the article.  (Indeed, please consider whether the navbox is worth the effort.  Isn't its purpose already  served by the relativity article? Wouldn't it be more effective to work on that article rather than on the navbox?)All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both navboxes and navbars (and also categories) can be useful, depending on the circumstances. Which one(s) to use should be decided at each article. Some general guidelines on how to build and improve a consistent navigation system would of course be nice, and I'm not sure what exists to that end. But finding or changing a consensus about this will be a major process, and I don't think getting rid of all navboxes will be part of the result. — HHHIPPO 11:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please move the navbox to the bottom 

message: What is the unlabeled equation?  Is it supposed to mean something to the average reader?
It should be labeled with the name of the equation, or be a link to the page for the equation, or something useful.
As it stands, it's useless, expect perhaps as a shibboleth to identify those smart people who already know what it is.
2601:142:100:DDF5:0:0:0:9508 (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting a link to Einstein's field equations, or just the text (Einstein's field equations) under the equations might help, but on the other hand that could also distract the reader. As this is just a sidebar with an illustration and some links—one of which indeed pointing to the Einstein's field equations article—, and the equation is part of the illustration, i.m.o. it  does not need to be labeled. Compare this with Template:Electromagnetism. Does the illustration by itself mean something to the average reader? Do we have to stick the label (solenoid) under it? - DVdm (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to undo or add another label go ahead. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:General_relativity_sidebar&diff=804285587&oldid=776094871 190.183.246.183 (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I had seen it. No problem. - DVdm (talk) 20:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlabeled equation