Template talk:Camouflage/Archive 1

Reason for template creation
Hi, the only other available camouflage template was Template:Camouflage, which is "right" side oriented. I wanted to created a bottom oriented template, which is cleaner for articles. IQ125 (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Gosh. It's in use in many articles, and we wouldn't want to switch them all over. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, right side oriented is now passe at Wikipedia, most nav boxes are bottom aligned, it is much more effective and looks better in an article. There are cases where both types are in use.  I believe the bottom oriented nav box is the way to go on the articles I have created.  Thanks IQ125 (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There are valid arguments to be made on both sides, on usability and other grounds, which cannot be dismissed on grounds of fashion ("passe", outmoded, yesterday's style). Two considerations here: we have many articles with the existing navbox, so boldly changing one or two articles to a style inconsistent with the rest isn't the ideal approach; and in a relatively sharply delineated area like camouflage, few of the articles involved have or need any other navbox. Clearly articles should not have many side boxes; there is no special reason to object to a main sidebox if an article also has a bottom bar; clearly also, if most or all articles have multiple navboxes, one would want them all as bottom bars, but that isn't the case here. I'm happy to maintain the existing position that the side box provides quick and convenient navigation in a tightly-grouped set of articles; in other situations, other means of navigation may be preferred. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The bottom-oriented nav box is now the standard at Wikipedia. It is the best solution, because something has been done in the past does not mean it should be done in the future.  We can have both styles, if you choose.  For the articles I have written the bottom-oriented nav box works best.  IMHO, The other camo-articles would look better with a bottom-oriented nav box.  W:Navboxes states: There are two main varieties of navigation template: navigation boxes (or navboxes), designed to sit at the very bottom of articles, and sidebars, designed to sit at the side of the article text. The two are complementary and either or both may be appropriate in different situations. In other words, there is no Wikipedia policy that states that all related articles have to use the same nav box orientation.  My final words on the matter.  IQ125 (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No, we certainly should not have both styles for the same purpose among the same group of articles, whatever policy may have failed to say: it just isn't a good idea. The aesthetic considerations ("look better with x...") are endlessly discussable and basically a matter of personal taste, and I haven't heard of any WP policy ("standard") on the matter. However, since (whether I manage to persuade you or not) there are grounds for using bottom bars - whenever there are multiple navboxes, which could happen - and more people who are familiar with bottom bars are likely to come along in future, I am minded to change the existing template to a bottom bar. I will use the "standard" (default) colours to make that bar as unobtrusive as possible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The policy allows both, it is not for you to decide. The colours are fine to me; however, if you would like to "suggest" a new colour scheme on the talk-page I would be happy to discuss, I am easy going on a colour scheme.  If you are suggesting to change all camouflage articles to a bottom-oriented navbox, the same as the one I created, I would definitely 100% support that, but not a side oriented navbox for the two articles I have created.  Thanks IQ125 (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh good. I am suggesting a bottom bar similar to the new one, but with default colours - I can't see any reason to use anything else; and I can't see any reason not to include all the articles that are included in the old sidebox, so I suggest we basically apply the 'bottom' treatment to the existing 'side' box. I also think we should include both the new cam pattern articles, not just one of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, if you are saying you are going to have a bottom nav box only in my article, then please feel free to change the colour scheme to the old colours. I am easy going about that, I felt that being a camo-article that green would be appropriate, but I can live with a colour change if it brings a happy conclusion to this matter.  Please note that a lot of the camo patterns are *not* included in the sidebar, so I used the default link.  If you are not going to add *all* the camo-patterns, which will be a lot of work, I would suggest using the current link in the bottom-bar, you can have the final decision on that issue.  Thanks and good luck -:)  IQ125 (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)