Template talk:Thermodynamics sidebar

message: Have a good look at this; it looks quite good, i think. Maybe User:JCraw will make changes to it?
James S 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - WAY too large, but otherwise kind of neat. The font size should be less than or equal to the text size for the body of the article. These navigational templates should not be obtrusive - they should not appear more important than the text. Also, this kind of thing should be discussed by more editors than just us. I will try to bring some more people in on this. PAR 06:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Template 

message: :It's a bit big, yeah. I think smaller fonts would make it a treat! 
 J O  R D A N [talk ] 13:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the beakers and chemicals are more thermodynamic. How about this? PAR 15:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I really like the current template with the same font size and no graphic because screen space is often at a premium for me. Having said that, if the other boys and girls in science are doing something similar with their templates then I guess people into thermo should also, but I'm not sure that's happening. Imagining all the entries in Template:Thermodynamic_cycles with that font and a graphic and a shaded box makes me cringe. I want templates to be small and unobtrusive so I'll use them without resenting them. Flying Jazz 00:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Never mind then. Personally, that box ALONE makes me cringe. J O  R D A N [talk ] 09:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Flying Jazz - Any new template must not be wider than the present template. A bit longer, ok, but only by 20-30  pixels. Font size should not be smaller than present. Things should be vertically aligned, not centered, so if somebody is searching an alphabetic list, their eyes don't have to dance around. Other than that, anything to make it look better is ok with me. PAR 13:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bit big.. 

message: Hi,I appreciate your willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.  However, topic sidebars are a really bad idea.
:*A sidebar generally messes up the layout of the article, and is a terrible waste of precious screen space, that should be used for images relevant to the specific article.
:*No one navigates Wikipedia through sidebars.  Readers get to an article either because they typed its name in the search window, or because they clicked on a link in the body of another article.  In either case, those readers are obviously interested in that article, not on some general discipline or category to which that article has been assigned.  Those readers who are interested in the latter will go to the article on that general topic; not to some specific article under it.
:*Therefore, if a reader is looking at the head section of the Mars article, the one thing that we can bet that he will not do next is click on the "Planets" sidebar to read the article on Jupiter instead.
:*Therefore, sidebars are largely useless. The time and stress that is spent creating, updating, and inserting sidebars is wasted, and should be spent instead in writing and editing the useful contents of articles.
:*Moreover, an article often belongs to two or more topics.  Even Jesus belongs to the topic Islam. Pointless strife -- and double waste of screen space -- occurs when editors from two or more different Wikiprojects want to add their sidebars to the same article.
So, please, turn this template into a navbar, to be placed at the bottom of the article with other navbars.Or just retire it altogether.  I am sorry to say this, but it will not be missed.All the best,--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please turn it into a navbar at the bottom of the article