Template talk:Ontario politics

polibox or navbox?
User:Number_57 and myself have been debating whether or not it is appropriate to make the Canadian provincial political boxes sideboxes instead of navigation boxes at the bottom.

I am not sure if this is the right change to make. I have done an up to date sidebox here: User:WayeMason/sandbox but on pages here, here, and here, just for three examples, it will create a layout conflict or make the page scroll down way longer for the infobox then there are text, or likely will be text given the subject. While it looks better, I am not fully convinced it is more functional. It WOULD bring the provincial political boxes in line with the national political boxes world wide. Yours, genuinely on the fence... WayeMason 16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel that it's always better to discuss it first. I prefer to have it on the bottom. GreenJoe
 * The standard for "Politics of" templates for both national and sub-national entities is for them to be sidebars. See Category:"Politics of" templates. Number   5  7  16:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The standard in Canada is to have it at the bottom. --GreenJoe 16:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am all for standards as far as it goes, I do notice that Template:Politics_in_the_United_States is a navbox, though the US States do not appear to have politics boxes as we do. Just because a lot of people do something doesn't make it a required standard.  However, I do think it looks better and offers cleared navigational help to have it on the side.  I hope this debate can be about what works best rather than competing about "this is the way it always has been" WayeMason 16:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think sideboxes are superior for three main reasons:
 * They provide context at the start of an article, rather than the reader having to get all the way to the bottom to see the whole set of Politics of Ontario articles
 * Being at the top of the page allows for easier navigation
 * Some of the articles are getting cluttered with too many boxes at the bottom.
 * I should also point out that one of the editors who standardised the Canadian set has said that sideboxes are a good idea.
 * Number  5  7  17:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer sideboxes. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 09:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As the support appears to mostly for sideboxes, I shall restore it to that. Number   5  7  13:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2 - 1 is hardly a decisive margin. I suggest a RFC. GreenJoe 15:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I made it 3-1. Number   5  7  16:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who feels that too many articles on Wikipedia are infested with superfluous templates, my own view is that sideboxes are generally too intrusive. A sidebox is fine where the template provides key context to understanding the articles.  However, this template is fine, but is hardly essential.  It belongs at the bottom. Skeezix1000 15:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I got here via the Canadian Wikipedians' noticeboard. My vote is for the bottom. It's more aesthetic, and puts the template close to the See Alsos and the categories which are similar types of information. Cheers, Kla'quot 15:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to ask, what looks better? this or this. Number  5  7  16:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The second one, because clutter is reduced and it allows for better opportunities to introduce images into the article. Skeezix1000 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)