Talk:House of Assembly of Jamaica

Politics of template
I really can't see any justification for it being removed. This is an article about the politics of Jamaica – it's completely relevant. "Looking crap" is not a valid rationale. I will ask for a third opinion. Number  5  7  21:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't you read our page on navigation templates? It says "They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value". This is way too huge, and is stretching the size of the page. Page design is important. You are making it difficult for readers to read this page. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:51, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I set the template to state=collapsed. The real problem is that our categorization system needs to be revamped, and in lieu of the Foundation doing anything besides raising money for their warchest, editors have taken to using footer templates as a way to display a different layout of the relevant categories, in this case, Category:Elections in Jamaica and its subcats. I think once you understand the systemic problem regarding categories and footer templates, then you can be better equipped to tackle it. Viriditas (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the sidebar, not the footer template. It presently remains removed. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. In the case of Politics of Jamaica, instead of navigating categories, editors are trying to navigate articles.  I dislike those series templates as well so I'm glad it was removed. Viriditas (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is WP:IDONTLIKEIT really a valid rationale here? It's a navigation template for articles related to Jamaican politics. Very disappointed with the quality of debate here. Number   5  7  19:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Number 57, when developing articles, you should focus on content first, template accouterments second. At no point should series templates and footers ever interfere with the article development process. If and when they do, they should be immediately removed and only added back in with consensus. Viriditas (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But the template is in no way interfering with the article development – it's not stopping content being added. This is simply a case of WP:OWN and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Number   5  7  19:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I believe two editors have told you that it is interfering. If you can't focus on content, try to find something else to do. Footers and series templates should only be added when the article is substantial, and if disputed, with consensus.  We don't need stubs with footers and series templates. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's not interfering in any way whatsoever. You not liking the way the template looks is doing nothing to the article content. Your whole argument is based on IDONTLIKEIT, and it's very disappointing that an experience editor is using this rationale. But anyway, I'll start an RFC and get wider input. Number   5  7  20:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The use of uncollapsed footers (which I've collapsed) and large, unwieldy series templates (now removed) on a stub are not appropriate to the layout nor do they facillitate comprehension and readability. Editors who are solely fixated on adding templates to stubs and poorly developed articles against consensus should be kindly asked to spend their time elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think I'm "solely fixated on adding templates", then I suggest you look at. I'm interested in this article because I created the Jamaican general elections, 1677–1863 article (which is about elections to this body), and plan on expanding it and potentially separating it out into individual elections to this body. As for the comment about asking editors to spend their time elsewhere, I find your attitude appalling. Number   5  7  20:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't noticed, the only "appalling" attitude here is coming from you, with the reverts, the attacks, and the accusations. You may want to get control of yourself before continuing further down this path. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I would say trying to get an article you created deleted because you don't like subsequent edits to it by other editors, or suggesting that editors should leave articles alone because they disagree with their edits to it is far worse than trying to argue against those things. Number   5  7  20:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC
Should the Politics of Jamaica be added this article? Number  5  7  20:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes The sidebar is a navigation template for articles related to Jamaican politics. It was removed because the article creator didn't like how it looks, which I don't believe to be a valid rationale for content removal. Number   5  7  20:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? You're starting an RfC over the placement of a sidebar on an article that is more or less two sentences long? Have we all lost our God-damned minds? Page design is important, and you are ruining this page and making it hard to read by dominating it with a template that has more text than the actual article. Please stop this utter tosh. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am soliciting outside opinion because unfortunately I don't think a constructive debate is possible with editors who have ownership problems or think IDONTLIKE it a valid rationale. As for "utter tosh", I would think your attempts to delete the article yesterday because you didn't like someone else editing it were far beyond anything I've done here. Number   5  7  20:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no "ownership" problems. I don't give a damn about this article, and I regret ever creating the stupid thing. Never again will I read any books about Jamaica, I can assure you that! I was going to expand it, but now it is tainted by the stain of dried blood. It has nothing to do with "not liking" anything. It has to do with readability, our guidelines on navigations templates, which I linked above, and pure common sense. Given that you apparently lack such sense, this is clearly a waste of time, and a prime example of the bureaucracy we don't need here. The fact that you need an RfC to justify your placement of a meaningless template on a stub that no one is even going to visit is ABSURD. If you want to place the God-damned template, do it. I don't give a damn. I'd rather you just get it over with, rather than drag it out through this absurd piece of nonsense that is supposed to be an "RfC". RGloucester  — ☎ 20:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have no ownership issues, why did you try and get it deleted because you "refuse to be associated with poorly designed pages".? Number   5  7  20:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a matter of principle and propriety. Do you wear muddy frocks when you go to fancy dinners? RGloucester  — ☎ 20:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't go to fancy dinners ;) Number   5  7  20:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Quoting Not_everything_needs_a_navbox, "before you know it, the article suddenly is more template than article". JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Clearly this deep vertical navbox is unsuitable for very short articles. If you want this navigation information on articles this short, please provide a horizontal alternative. That should have a link to this article if it is to be used here. See for example and  for an example of complementary templates with guidance for their use in the documentation.I did think of adding Politics of Jamaica to See also, but that deals only with contemporary politics, with no history section, no link to this article and, being completely unsourced, would lower the quality of any article which links to it. --Mirokado (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, per Mirokado. Navboxes are helpful, but that's partially because they're generally collapsible into little horizontal boxes that don't get in the way.  Sidebar templates such as this one should be used only on articles that are longer than the template (unless it's a core article, one of the ones linked by the template itself), since they overwhelm the article itself.  We ought not add this article to the sidebar, since it's about current institutions and recent elections; adding this article to the template (as a former legislature) would be just as silly as adding Charles II to the sidebar as a former monarch of Jamaica.  Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. I think adding big boxes of stuff to very small articles and stubs makes them cluttered and actually harder to follow - it's like the reader's eye doesn't have an instinctive place to settle. (The footer thing is fine, but any big side boxes should wait at least until the article is more developed and bigger). Neatsfoot (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Concur with the above. I have had some similar concerns myself about excessive templates/infoboxes/tables in various election articles, like European Parliament election, 2014 and United States Senate elections, 2014. While some users obviously do a very fine job in providing a lot of numbers, maps etc to the articles, it is in my view a problem that in some of these articles text almost have to be squeezed in. I have been thinking about starting a general discussion on how to get the right balance of text and various templates; boxes and tables in these kind of articles. Iselilja (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The bot sent me. Templates are useful navigators but placing it here would only create an ocean of white space, which as editors know is a distraction for the reader. Surely there's a nav box for the bottom that would suffice. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)