This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Please do not monkey with emphasis in this template unless you are an up-to-speed member of the WP:CUE project. We have a well laid-out understanding of what the important cue sports articles are, and why, and how they related to each other. If anyone has issues with this, they should take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 13:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This template's dependence on the Categoryspace to have entries at all for orgs, players and events tells us that we need to create overview articles on these topics! — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
this template is being included on snooker players' articles. Is there a high demand from users to switch from looking at Jimmy White's article to go and read about Novuss? - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the image on this template be changed or simply removed. A chalk with a U.S. flag is inappropriate for an international topic such as this. I'm saying this as a proud American. — D. Monack talk 07:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Gnevin ( talk · contribs) has suggested (and been reverted multiple times on the issue) that this navbox should have no image at all, and cites " Wikipedia:ICONDECORATION#Encyclopaedic purpose" (an invalid link to something that apparently is or once was at WP:MOSICON) as a rationale. However, I see no overall consensus that navboxes in general should never have images. In point of fact, a great number of them do, and the images (icon-sized or, as in this case, a bit larger) serve the encyclopedic purpose of disambiguating between navboxes, most of which otherwise look alike. On pages with several navboxes, the templates simply become visual "noise" of words and words and words, unless there are visual clues as to their purpose (e.g. a cue chalk picture in this case, a UK flag icon on a British topics navbox, etc., etc.) Discrete use of simple images in navboxes is an aid to usability for readers. At any rate, unless there is a general consensus at some centralized discussion point that no navboxes should have images, then continuing to delete the image from this particular navbox, in the face of opposition from multiple editors, is likely to be considered disruptive. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 22:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit ,care to explain how this image helps on auto-collapsed template that is never used with other templates? Gnevin ( talk) 12:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I can think of numerous ways in which this icon could provide navigation and information. Many people do not know what "cue sports" means but will understand immediately and viscerally through seeing the icon that this template relates to billiards in general, whether seeing it as the sole template at the bottom of an article, or toggled on in an article with multiple navboxes. Many articles contain navigation templates that relate to different aspects of a subject matter. A movie article, for example, may contain, all at the same time, templates listing all other movies by the same director, other movies in a series of sequels and other movies with the same lead actor. In this atmosphere, a user who might idly toggle the template on and off even as a tic may learn what the template is about from seeing the icon, or they might toggle all three templates on in an article with many, and then easily distinguish this template from others below, above or surrounding. People don't always read or when they read they don't actually take in the information (think reading a sentence five times while you're deep in thought; you're "reading" but it's not penetrating at all). A person reading a carom billiards article may assume that a template at the bottom is going to focus only on carom billiards disciplines but will be disabused by this overarching icon. A person reading an article on a game like bagatelle, which developed from billiards, but about which even a regular player may not know the billiards connection, might skip the part of the article about the game's development but see this unmistakable icon, only thereby learn of the connection. Hell, a person who doesn't read English might only learn what the templates is about from the icon's presence, where in its absence, the person would never have understood.
So, if all this isn't clear, I'm saying that far from being "purely decorative," which is the apparent standard under which you are removing it, this icon is tainted, polluted, obscene with navigation and information imparting functionality.
One good thing that comes from this thread: it gave me the idea to link the image to the parent article on cue sports and so I have.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 02:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose that the World Championship section be put above the section for the misc. articles like the glossary, the techniques article, and the equipment articles. The former are of far greater average reader interest than the latter. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Please do not monkey with emphasis in this template unless you are an up-to-speed member of the WP:CUE project. We have a well laid-out understanding of what the important cue sports articles are, and why, and how they related to each other. If anyone has issues with this, they should take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cue sports. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 13:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This template's dependence on the Categoryspace to have entries at all for orgs, players and events tells us that we need to create overview articles on these topics! — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
this template is being included on snooker players' articles. Is there a high demand from users to switch from looking at Jimmy White's article to go and read about Novuss? - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the image on this template be changed or simply removed. A chalk with a U.S. flag is inappropriate for an international topic such as this. I'm saying this as a proud American. — D. Monack talk 07:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Gnevin ( talk · contribs) has suggested (and been reverted multiple times on the issue) that this navbox should have no image at all, and cites " Wikipedia:ICONDECORATION#Encyclopaedic purpose" (an invalid link to something that apparently is or once was at WP:MOSICON) as a rationale. However, I see no overall consensus that navboxes in general should never have images. In point of fact, a great number of them do, and the images (icon-sized or, as in this case, a bit larger) serve the encyclopedic purpose of disambiguating between navboxes, most of which otherwise look alike. On pages with several navboxes, the templates simply become visual "noise" of words and words and words, unless there are visual clues as to their purpose (e.g. a cue chalk picture in this case, a UK flag icon on a British topics navbox, etc., etc.) Discrete use of simple images in navboxes is an aid to usability for readers. At any rate, unless there is a general consensus at some centralized discussion point that no navboxes should have images, then continuing to delete the image from this particular navbox, in the face of opposition from multiple editors, is likely to be considered disruptive. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 22:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Fuhghettaboutit ,care to explain how this image helps on auto-collapsed template that is never used with other templates? Gnevin ( talk) 12:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I can think of numerous ways in which this icon could provide navigation and information. Many people do not know what "cue sports" means but will understand immediately and viscerally through seeing the icon that this template relates to billiards in general, whether seeing it as the sole template at the bottom of an article, or toggled on in an article with multiple navboxes. Many articles contain navigation templates that relate to different aspects of a subject matter. A movie article, for example, may contain, all at the same time, templates listing all other movies by the same director, other movies in a series of sequels and other movies with the same lead actor. In this atmosphere, a user who might idly toggle the template on and off even as a tic may learn what the template is about from seeing the icon, or they might toggle all three templates on in an article with many, and then easily distinguish this template from others below, above or surrounding. People don't always read or when they read they don't actually take in the information (think reading a sentence five times while you're deep in thought; you're "reading" but it's not penetrating at all). A person reading a carom billiards article may assume that a template at the bottom is going to focus only on carom billiards disciplines but will be disabused by this overarching icon. A person reading an article on a game like bagatelle, which developed from billiards, but about which even a regular player may not know the billiards connection, might skip the part of the article about the game's development but see this unmistakable icon, only thereby learn of the connection. Hell, a person who doesn't read English might only learn what the templates is about from the icon's presence, where in its absence, the person would never have understood.
So, if all this isn't clear, I'm saying that far from being "purely decorative," which is the apparent standard under which you are removing it, this icon is tainted, polluted, obscene with navigation and information imparting functionality.
One good thing that comes from this thread: it gave me the idea to link the image to the parent article on cue sports and so I have.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 02:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose that the World Championship section be put above the section for the misc. articles like the glossary, the techniques article, and the equipment articles. The former are of far greater average reader interest than the latter. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)