From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Constellation in the Northern Hemisphere near Orion and Aries, the second member of the zodiac, its name is Latin for 'bull'. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category astronomy [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

We really need to discuss the rules/guidelines for adding such navigational templates as this:

88 Official Constellations by IAU

AndromedaAntliaApusAquariusAquilaAraAriesAurigaBoötesCaelumCamelopardalisCancerCanes VenaticiCanis MajorCanis MinorCapricornusCarinaCassiopeiaCentaurusCepheusCetusChamaeleonCircinusColumbaComa BerenicesCorona AustralisCorona BorealisCorvusCraterCruxCygnusDelphinusDoradoDracoEquuleusEridanusFornaxGeminiGrusHerculesHorologiumHydraHydrusIndusLacertaLeoLeo MinorLepusLibraLupusLynxLyraMensaMicroscopiumMonocerosMuscaNormaOctansOphiuchusOrionPavoPegasusPerseusPhoenixPictorPiscesPiscis AustrinusPuppisPyxisReticulumSagittaSagittariusScorpiusSculptorScutumSerpensSextansTaurusTelescopiumTriangulumTriangulum AustraleTucanaUrsa MajorUrsa MinorVelaVirgoVolansVulpecula

Wikipedia has way too many of them, and that is what subpages--in this case, Related Articles pages--are for. I do think we should discuss this, but my first take is that we should probably move all such lists of links onto Related Articles pages. I think that if you consider it carefully, you'll see that this the long-term most sensible way forward.

Note that there's no reason that we can't use templates on related articles pages. But the nice thing about putting such navigational links on the related articles pages is that you can make the type larger, and add more "definition"-type information (e.g., where the constellation is located, what season it appears highest in, etc.). See CZ:Definitions too.

I think the main thing that bothers me about navigational templates is that they are an attempt to solve the categorization problem--but it is preferable to stick to just one solution, and ours is, indeed, Related Articles pages. --Larry Sanger 10:57, 14 December 2007 (CST)

Yes, i agree. I think is more organized put all the links in Related Articles too. But therefore we must change the formatation of the tamplates - specifically, on this template (larger type, etc.). What do you suggest? L'Astorina 11:09, 14 December 2007 (CST)

I'd make it look like Biology/Related Articles--use the {{r}} (for "related") templates. --Larry Sanger 11:31, 14 December 2007 (CST)

I agree that Wikipedia articles abuse of templates of all kinds, so much that sometimes they hide the poor quality of the encyclopedic content.
However, I think that navigational templates are very handy when you can keep them on your screen, and easily review all the listed articles. That's the case when a navigational template is set on top of the page (these templates are usually narrow and located on the left side of the page), or when an article is very short (like many draft articles).
Ideally, the navigational template would be in a separate window, always on top of the other windows.
As this solution is not implemented, I suggest to keep an unique navigational template in draft articles, in order to easy the harmonization between articles belonging to a consistent set.
When an article is long enough, the access to the 'Related articles' page is as fast than the scrolling of the article page. So, supposing that the navigational template is set on top of the 'Related articles' page, it becomes useless to keep it on the bottom of an article page. --Patrice Gross 10:01, 15 December 2007 (CST)

So, what do you think of the {{r}}-usage on the Taurus/Related_Articles page? Is it more appropriate than the iau-template? Thorsten Alteholz 13:01, 16 December 2007 (CST)

The {{r}}-usage cannot replace the iau-template, unless you use the r-template 88 times. No, I don't think that 88 lines of text are more appropriate thant the iau-template, which could be more informative: see my suggestions in the following section. --Patrice Gross 12:16, 17 December 2007 (CST)

Organization of the template

Some of these are in the winter/summer skies and usually appear in different directions (N,S,W,E), so wouldn't it be appropriate to create a navigational template that reflects these occurrences? --Robert W King 19:50, 15 December 2007 (CST)

A classic layout is the division between constellations of the Zodiac, northern constellations and southern constellations, like in Constellation#History of the Western constellations. I suggest to keep them in alphabetical order, except for the constellations of the Zodiac, which the order is well known.
A worthwhile alternative would be to keep the current version of the template, and to highlight the constellations of the Zodiac, to make them markers (for example, with a sign, like an astrologic sign [1]). --Patrice Gross 04:31, 16 December 2007 (CST)
Do we really need to copy the Wikipedia template? Maybe we can do it better!? So the first question should be: Why does anybody wants to navigate from one constellation to another?
* To get information on the neighbourhood? This could be also done by an image with clickable areas in the infobox
* To virtually move along the zodiac? This could be done with a small clickable stripe on top of the page
Hey, this is a Web 2.0 project, so why don't we use some kind of flash ticker, controllable by the mouse? Thorsten Alteholz 13:01, 16 December 2007 (CST)
I am not at all suggesting that we copy WP's template (for the record, I *hate* WP templates), but I definately agree that we should have something better. --Robert W King 13:22, 16 December 2007 (CST)

Treeview extension

There's a new extension over at CZ Talk:Treeview Extension (talk page linked) that may offer some benefit to sorting this out. Please have a view ;). --Robert W King 20:08, 17 December 2007 (CST)