Template talk:Asteroid spacecraft

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight This template is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles Astronomy: Solar System This template is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles This template is supported by Solar System task force.

This is pretty non-standard. It doesn't really belong in here. I think it should be removed again, as it's likely to be duplicated in the article body. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You are certainly correct that this is unusual. You could even assert it is inconsistent with most other navigation templates. But then I ask you, "Could this actually be an innovative improvement?" If there is established policy regarding this, then by all means let's remove it here until it can be discussed on the policy page to determine if there's still concensus about it. But if there is no policy, maybe the better path to consistency would be to update many other navbox templates to also include portal links! (As regards your specific comment about it being, "likely to be duplicated in the article body," that doesn't seem likely at all. It's already in the template: why would an editor add it to the article? (sdsds - talk) 03:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As it isn't established convention to have portals in navboxen, while it is convention to put them in the "See also" section, editors who don't closely check the contents of the navbox (which may be collapsed in some cases) will not notice it. And yes, it's possible that this would be a positive change for the project as a whole if all navboxen adopted it, but the best place to advance that suggestion really isn't on random instances of the template. In addition, in this particular case the portal causes an undesirable increase in line height in the template which produces rather a lot of dead air. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across another Navbox that does something similar: {{Mars}}. So maybe the idea is cathing on! As for your other points: you're right that duplicate portal boxes in an article would be a bad thing. But it's only a little bit bad, and it's easily fixed. The good thing (from the perspective of those who believe in the value of portal boxes at all ;-) is that all the articles which transclude the Navbox end up with at least one portal box! I agree something needs to be done about the increase in line height, and will experiment with that. Finally, as regards the idea that some centralized discussion on Navboxes and Portal boxes should reach a conclusion before any action is taken: would anything ever get done on Wikipedia if everyone discussed everything before moving forward with (what they think are) good ideas? Concensus is vital, but we can only reach an informed concensus after we have done some experimentation to gain experience and insight into the various alternatives.... (sdsds - talk) 04:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distinct from the idea of having the Spaceflight Portal box be in the template at all, what do people think about using {{Navbox subgroups}} to put the portal box side-by-side with the image? Too weird? (sdsds - talk) 04:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]