Talk:Lochs of Spiggie and Brow

Merger
Agree they should be merged.Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Huge areas of white space
As there has been some edit warring going on over the two IBs, I have put the article back to the WP:STATUS QUO of five days ago: to have no IBs in place at all. To have huge areas of white space in an article is crass in the extreme, so if it's best not to have any IB to over come it, then so be it. If someone really, really wants to include one IB with information on both bodies (placed in the usual position of the top right-hand corner), that would be fine. But two boxes with acres of white space? It is a ridiculous way to leave the article. I will advise all those who have recently just reverted without discussion (and yes, that includes me - on the reverting front), there are discretionary sanctions in place by ArbCom over IBs, so stop with the edit warring until a consensus is agreed. Until that point, the WP:STATUS QUO of no IB remains in place. - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, author of the original infoboxes here - I certainly didn't mean to cause this much contention with them! Forgive me if this is a stupid idea (still a newbie here), but can infoboxes be placed on the left of the page? That way you could have Spiggie on the right, Brow on the left, and the main body text down the middle. There'd probably be little white space and it wouldn't hinder accessibility. Thoughts? Griceylipper (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don’t think so. You would end up with text being sandwiched between the two, which is something to avoid (c.f. the restrictions on images on that reason. - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The infoboxes are a good addition, it just needs a solution that has a better layout. While maps belong in infoboxes, one solution might be to move the map from the Spiggie infobox and place it at the bottom of the Spiggie section, which would reduce the size of the infobox and fill the space. The map certainly belongs in the article and as it shows both lochs it doesn't belong uniquely to either infobox. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 11:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Can I just clarify? You want two IBs, plus the map? And what about the image? Or are you thinking of one IB which contains the map and/or the image? Or something else? Looking at the current version of the article on my monitor there are no IBs, just the map and an image, and the map is already into the references (the previous version has a large (but manageable) pice of white space before the references). If IB(s) is/are added, this is either going to create huge areas of white space (as it did here) in the sections, or have the IBs/map/images going way, way past everything, including the categories. Which, of all these, do you think is more or less desirable than any of the others? - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What I had in mind was two infoboxes (with no maps) and the map in the body of the article. I have made the change and self-reverted so my suggestion can be seen in the history. A template before the references and other footer material might be better, although would leave more white space. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 11:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks fairly awful to me. I'm unsure as to why we have two images of Spiggie and why the actual information (below the photograph) for Brow is aligned with the references, sources and external links. (BTW, when you say "template", do you mean clear template?) - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes, I meant the clear template. Put that above the references and the references will be below the bottom of the infobox.
 * It's not ideal. The tall map with the slight misalignment makes it difficult to look good. But I think it's better than lots of whitespace and the collapsible infoboxes violate policy. The infoboxes do include useful information and content is more important than pure aesthetics. Additional information should never be removed because it makes the page aesthetics bad (content+whitespace is better than aesthetic looking nothing). The page layout should be improved in other ways, my suggestion being one. Another way of removing the white space is to add some content to fill the whitespace. There must be something else about these lochs of encyclopaedic interest (perhaps more on the wildlife?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jts1882 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, collapsible IBs do not violate policy - that much just isn't true at all. Anyway, I've not said anywhere in this thread that such a step would be the best one to take. Indeed I've made another suggestion altogether. Aesthetics count highly, not as much as content maybe, but they do count very highly. Rather than the rather lazy-arsed 'shove it all into an IB regardless how palpably stupid everything looks' move, there is not sufficient text in the article at this stage to justify an IB (let alone two) - unless we go to the logical end point and ditch the text and have boxes instead of articles, maybe? The map isn't a good one, so maybe a locator map or similar would be a better step; having three images plus a map in such a very short article is perhaps three items too many anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to explore the option (and for the avoidance of doubt), is this unacceptable? Looks fine (to me anyway) on desktop, maybe won't look OK on mobile. Griceylipper (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I don't think that would be a runner at all, and I'd strongly oppose its inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also strongly oppose it; I'd also strongly oppose one infobox let alone two.  Cassianto Talk  20:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)