Template talk:Émile Durkheim

Remove the image
The image needs to be removed. The problem with images on small templates like this is that it increases vertical height without adding any navigational value. We've been discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates and although the jury's still out, for the mean time let's look at it on a case by case basis. In this case, the image doubles the height of the navbox, so it is a clear candidate for removal. I'm not even sure what the controversy is other than WP:ILIKEIT or WP:PRETTY. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, please read the 'images in navboxes' link. The image does not double the size of the template (what kind of screen are you using? That may be a major problem with how you perceive templates), and is fine for this size template. Please. To paraphrase Rob, I don't know what the controversy is other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Randy Kryn 13:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "they provide no navigational value, they bloat the navboxes making them less compact, they give WP:UNDUE weight to a certain aspect of the topic, and they often repeat an image that could be found elsewhere on the page, or they show a tangentially related image". I'm yet to see a convincing argument in favour of keeping an image, in fact most editors only seem in favour of images in navboxes as long as it doesn't do any harm.   I'm on a screen 1680 x 1050, with a window open about 70% of the screen size, and the navbox is twice the necessary vertical height.  The image is a detriment to the navbox, and any article it appears on, as its size it makes it clunky.  See others' comments at the prior discussion.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion is still taking place, but you are acting as it your viewpoint should prevail and in the process are doing harm to existing templates. I'm not one to WP:HOUND and follow your edits, the pages I catch that you are removing things are pages on my watchlist and some which are listed on my user page, so please go back and replace images you've removed in the past few days. It looks like you've never edited this template before. The image does not double the size of the template, that's an extreme claim and I can't see how you can say that. Do we have to get out rulers now? Randy Kryn 13:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The navbox rows are definitely twice the height they need to be on my screen, even with the "smaller" image. And I'm still not seeing your argument for inclusion in this specific instance.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * With the image there are eight rows of items on my screen, without it, seven. The image is fine. And if templates are so very small on your screen, if a simple image makes them twice as large, then even that shouldn't be a problem. Small enough either way. Randy Kryn 13:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Without the image, there is a single row for each group with the exception of the third group. With the image, I'm getting a row of white space above and below each group.  So it's about double the height with the image.  It's just clutter with no navigational value.  Still no argument for inclusion that I can see.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Row of white space? I think this may be a problem with your computer or how your screen reads codes, we should have someone knowledgeable in tech comment. Value is discussed at the template discussion, we just have different viewpoints. But that white space may be a problem. The image doesn't add any white space to my viewed sections. Interesting difference. Tech advice from anyone please? Thanks. Randy Kryn 14:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no need for tech assistance. If you stretch a navbox twice as tall as it needs to be, you're going to see blank space when there's no text to fill it.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Dont care about the image in this case because its clear... but will say that the template size is affected by the image to a great extent (causes lots of white space. -- Moxy (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)