Template talk:Zoos

Capitalization in title
There seems to be some disagreement about the use of capital letters in the title of this template. I cannot find a Manual of Style entry for template titles; if there is one, can someone please point me in the right direction? Lacking that, all I can do is look at other similar templates. There is a mix of approaches. In other Biology navigational boxes, some use title caps, for example, Anura and Carotenoids and some don't.

Is this just a drive-by template edit or is there an ongoing discussion somewhere about it? If it's just random, I think you should leave the template the way it is unless there is a compelling reason to change it. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk  20:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I just don't give a rat's ass. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk  20:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Placement in articles
Per WP:SERIES and practice elsewhere on Wikipedia, I think this template should only appear at the bottom of articles listed in the template. However it appears in dozens of articles on specific zoos, aquaria and aviaries. While this could be useful, such an article always contains a link in the first sentence to Zoo Aquarium or another member of the series. From there a reader can easily find the navigation box and explore the rest of the series.

Should we encourage people to remove these from non-members of the series when editing those articles? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Content and order
Suggest removing the row Animals as it doesn't fall in the category Zoos, and unnecessarily increases box size. Topics would be easier to find if ordered alphabetically. Elekhh (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Six years late, but I removed it. Thanks. —  Earwig   talk 01:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Animal sanctuary
Animal Sanctuary could be listed among "other topics". Earl of Mar (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's already listed under "Types of Zoos," which I think is appropriate. Donlammers (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussions
This template and its use was discussed on WP:BIDIRECTIONAL navbox requirements in December 2015. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

On my talk page you can read the request to submit the navigation template Zoos, and all zoo pages again, and I feel reluctant to do so, since I simply cant evaluate the outcome of consensus discussions regarding this template.

And I would like to ask the users who participated in that discussion in December 2015, what do you interpret as the outcome, which consensus was reached? Dan Koehl (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * my reading of the conclusion is that (1) a bot should not be dispatched to remove all bidirectional-violating transclusions, but (2) the zoos template should not be added to articles where it would violate bidirectional unless there is consensus to do so. Frietjes (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep, if it's not in the template, the template should not be on the article. Here's a similar consensus for another project.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 20:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not? Consider the case of a rare cancer.  Do you think that people reading about Grandma's Rare Cancer would actually be uninterested in the articles that are linked in Tumors?  Even if there's no more specific navbox?  To the extent that navboxes function as a sort of ==See also== section, I think it's very appropriate in a circumstance like that to include a navbox on a page that isn't listed in the navbox itself.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on this, but since navboxes are "to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia", and do function similarly to see also, why is that not an argument for just including links in see also when they're relevant but the topic isn't part of a navbox group? (or otherwise to expand a navbox or create a new one)? &mdash; Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason why not is enshrined in WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. We should only break the guideline if we agree a consensus to do so on the talk page of the article in question. Anybody wanting to argue the principle needs to take it to the guideline's talk page. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes to placing it back on the zoo, aquarium, aviary, zoo association pages, etc. Took two weeks to put them there in the first place awhile back, very appropriate for the pages since they are all on the lists mentioned on the template. Projects have the final decision (decided after the discussion linked above) to place a template with lists on those lists, I believe, and if so then they should be replaced and enjoyed by interested readers. Randy Kryn 20:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WikiProjects have no rights to make any decisions about article content. Every editor's equal when it comes to determining consensus, regardless of whether the editor is a self-declared member of a group.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup. WP:Local consensus cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. And, WP:bidirectional is a community-wide consensus.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is misleading. Immediately after the BIDIRECTIONAL guideline we are told that, "Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." So the wider consensus is to build local consensus for each individual instance of transclusion. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been expanded to the Wikipedia navigation template as "Proposal to clarify BIDDIRECTIONAL". Randy Kryn 23:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of the result of that discussion was that there was no support for using bots to enforce the BIDIRECTIONAL guideline, but that as a guideline, BIDIRECTIONAL had consensus, subject to reasonable exceptions where rigid enforcement doesn't make sense. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 20:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on the lack of objections at the end of this discussion, I think we might be able to sidestep this whole debate by changing the shape of the navbox and placing it towards the top, rather than at the end of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

, I was confused as to if there was now a consensus or not, and now it seems you may come up with an alternative solution, which sounds intersting, but can you explain more exactly how you mean? Dan Koehl (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but wouldn't it be better just not to sidestep the issue, have an in-project discussion agreeing to put them back, and just give the readers the best possible template? It seems that there is no consensus to exclude lists from having templates if the project agrees to it and maybe sets limits. It'd be foolish for the sports pages to include a template named "Sports" on every page on the lists of sports, for instance, but this zoo template has been the central template discussed as an example of how adding it to the lists on this template is reasonable, educational, and would not clutter the pages. Zoo pages rock (there was a discussion awhile back about creating a "Zoo media" template linking to films, television shows, and other artforms about zoos. If anyone is still interested why don't we make it a project of the project? I'd be willing to play on that one). Randy Kryn 22:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Dan, I mean making the template look like psychology sidebar. It's often placed at the top of an article (if there are no infoboxes or lead images) or in at the top of a relevant section.  I think that the template change is pretty simple.
 * Randy, if "in-project discussion" means "excluding editors who don't participate in WP:ZOO", then the answer is "it's against policy". If your goal is to give readers what's best, then a sidebar (more visible, easier to read) may be better than what we've got now.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:WhatamIdoing and User:Randy Kryn, I think that psychology sidebar makes a lot of sense, and for the benefit of the reader, they will notice it, long before they reach the end of the page, where the Zoo navigation template used to be. Dan Koehl (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Most zoo pages have lead and secondary images, or should, and what you are proposing - a sidebar - would likely have to be collapsed or it would take up too much room to justify using it on all zoo pages. Side-templates create clutter, especially on short pages with several images, so could only fit on some but far from all zoo articles. The zoos template, on the other hand, gives the full picture at one glance, has the benefit of not-cluttering up the text, and arguably would fit well on every page. Maybe if WhatamIdoing creates a side-bar template we can see how it works, but I think we may find that the drawbacks I've outlined will show up quickly. Randy Kryn 03:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you give me at least until day after tomorrow Randy Kryn, I could work on a sidebar integrated into the Zoo infobox, with some content visible and some content collapsed, which may be a compromise. But if WhatamIdoing is prepared to work on a suggestion, please do, so we have more to choose from. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice, good luck with those. I've been taking a quick look at some of the zoo pages and a sidebar would only work on longer pages without many images, which in the Wikipedia zoo collection would limit its use. So maybe the Zoos template on shorter pages and what you're suggesting on longer pages? Will be interested to see what the designs look like. Randy Kryn 04:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I see two alternatives with the pictures; either they associate to some text, which in such a case will make the page longer anyway. But if not, if the pictures are just there as entertainment, they can be placed in a gallery atthe bottom of the page. That would give place for a side bar. But Im really not sure, but worth to try anyway. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)