Template talk:Albert Pyun
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Grouping
[edit]@Robsinden: why did you revert my edit? Pyun has made dozens of films, and it is much easier to find the link you're looking for when the list is separated by decade. Daß Wölf (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- We don't split director navboxes arbitrarily by decade. This was decided a while back. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is really hard to navigate, though. It took me some time to find the films I was looking for, which is why I had split it in the first place. Daß Wölf (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. Decade splits actually make things worse on small screens. Grouping by decade forces a vertical height on a navbox, rather than letting the navbox find its own equilibrium. Some of those groupings could only have 1-2 films in them, making the split uneven. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what screen you're using, but I've tried it on everything from 1920 x 1080 to mobile phone, and I think the grouping makes an even bigger difference on small screen sizes. On 1920 x 1080, the navbox is four lines of text, whereas on 1024 x 768 it turns into a wall of text. The grouping is about 10-20% longer in that case, but I find it much easier to navigate because of grey-white alternating backgrounds, even if one doesn't know when the film one is looking for was made. Daß Wölf (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I do not recall a decision to not group by decade. (MOS:FILM#Navigation says nothing on the matter, either.) I only recall issues with doing the grouping with a very light body of work. As a reader, I find that grouping by decade is helpful for templates like this with a substantial body of work. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- I can't find the discussion, but nearly all director templates had their decade splits removed after the discussion. Standard formatting of film director navboxes does not now include decade splits. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've found this, but I'm sure we had additional discussions somewhere. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- I do not recall a decision to not group by decade. (MOS:FILM#Navigation says nothing on the matter, either.) I only recall issues with doing the grouping with a very light body of work. As a reader, I find that grouping by decade is helpful for templates like this with a substantial body of work. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what screen you're using, but I've tried it on everything from 1920 x 1080 to mobile phone, and I think the grouping makes an even bigger difference on small screen sizes. On 1920 x 1080, the navbox is four lines of text, whereas on 1024 x 768 it turns into a wall of text. The grouping is about 10-20% longer in that case, but I find it much easier to navigate because of grey-white alternating backgrounds, even if one doesn't know when the film one is looking for was made. Daß Wölf (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. Decade splits actually make things worse on small screens. Grouping by decade forces a vertical height on a navbox, rather than letting the navbox find its own equilibrium. Some of those groupings could only have 1-2 films in them, making the split uneven. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is really hard to navigate, though. It took me some time to find the films I was looking for, which is why I had split it in the first place. Daß Wölf (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)