Template talk:Scooby Doo

Reformatting of navboxes
Due to the backlash I have recieved, I ought to explain my rationale as to why I am rewriting many of the navboxes placed within category:Fiction Infoboxes. First off, the placement of the navbox themselves. So on many of the pages where these navboxes are used on, the pages themselves are often on the short side, comprising of a few lines of text. Then on the right, there are long, bulky navboxes that generate a heck of a lot of "dead space", or empty room on the page. By my process of streamlining them into navboxes that fit at the end of pages, a lot of this empty space is removed. Additionally, a lot of pages are cogged up with templates at the top of the page, such as, , , etc, etc, so navboxes unnecessarily being placed at the tops of pages is a nuisance. Secondly, the navboxes themselves lack clear outlines, with sections only being differentiated by font size. This makes actually reading the navboxes not the easiest, and I know, as I have poor vision myself. Thirdly, the right-hand side navboxes were only used on templates such as, never on in-universe pages. When one creates a new template, you'll be greeted with the "template type" menu, which tells you that the most "common" type of navbox is go at the bottom of the page. There's a lot of precedent for the tradtional, bottom-of-the-page type navboxes, and frankly, the right-hand side navboxes should've been discussed before their now-widespread implementation. Epsilon  📯 📂 03:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the backlash. I thought, as such navboxes have already been created, it would be best to open up some discussion before any removal or major changes. While I do agree that right-hand side navboxes become detrimental to pages when too much information is added, I think that the graphic of such navboxes helps to both connect and spruce up pages where we have no infoxboxes or images. I also think that such navboxes are particularly useful on the pages of historical individuals - such as Agatha Christie, Charles Dickens and Vincent van Gogh - to list their major works at the top of the page, where it is most easily accessible. Perhaps, with this in mind, we could have two separate templates for such historical figures: one - a right-hand side navbox appearing only on the page of the author/artist - which lists their works (and only their works, not characters, publishers, adaptations etc.); and another - at the bottom of the page/related pages - which includes pages related to the lives of such people (including their works and characters, adaptations of their works, family members, related locations and organisations etc.). I repeat that, in this case, the right-hand side navbox would appear only on the author/artists page and not on the pages of the works contained within. Where applicable, such as on the page for A Tale of Two Cities, we could also have a right-hand side navbox which displays the characters which appear in these works, thus linking character pages to the main book page and providing some much-needed colour for pages where we are unlikely to receive any images.


 * As for franchises, I can see on pages such as Marvel Comics Group that a navbox at the bottom of the page would be better as the current contains a large amount of information and causes a lot of dead space. I only wish that the bottom-of-page navboxes, which currently show up in the old Wiki blue colour, looked as finished as the golden style infoboxes. In this case, I can see the argument for right-hand side navboxes being changed to those at the bottom-of-the-page, but believe the information within should be from DWU sources: any real world information should only be used for categorisation or disambiguation purposes; the line "some categorisation may be based upon conjecture" is intended for cases where we know a certain character or element is from a franchise, but this is yet to be stated in an in-universe source. 66 Seconds ☎  00:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)