Template talk:Bertolt Brecht

Poor design?

I removed the picture because it prevented the collapsing of the box. I see it has now been put back. May I ask why? Will the template be corrected? I have no objection to the picture - quite the contrary - but it needs to be properly inserted. If this is isn't done it should be taken out. -- Kleinzach 12:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As there has been no response for my message I've removed the picture again. -- Kleinzach 03:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The picture is properly inserted and follows the model set by others in its class. It is designed to be as it is. The picture is rendered to the size of the box and it is not designed to collapse. DionysosProteus 03:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at the box again then. Top right you will find [hide]. These boxes are collapsible -when they are not obstructed by pictures. Also try to make your tone a little more civil OK? That way you make your own WP experience better, also pleasanter for other people. There is a lot to learn about WP when you are new. Go easy and admit when you are wrong and the learning curve won't be quite as steep. -- Kleinzach 04:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, again you have reverted the picture. Hmm, can you read WP:POINT? Starting an edit war doesn't achieving anything. If you have a case to make, you should make it here. -- Kleinzach 04:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I designed the template to look as it does. I have explained this to you once already. It conforms to the model set by other templates in its class. I have also explained this to you. My 'case to make' was made above. What is it in this you are having difficulty grasping? I understand from experience that you are not amenable to rational discussion - ref: the many, many verifiable sources I have presented you with in the course of our disagreements, none of which you responded to with the like, preferring instead your own unsubstantiated opinions (and you invite me to admit when I'm wrong? Interesting...). I fail to see why I should waste the keystrokes. If you are trying to say that it is the [hide] button that is confusing you, I can remove that; if this is what you're after, please request that more clearly. The template is not designed to collapse - it follows others that do not. If it were, I would have designed it that way, as I did the Hamlet one. The hide button is there as a relic of the original on which it was based.

Furthermore, kindly identify in which part, specifically, of my reply above you detect an inappropriate tone? This is not the first time you have projected a fantasy of your invention onto things I have written that are incapable of supporting it; I imagine this has more to do with a desire to reprimand me on your part, generated in lieu of being able to answer my substantiated points, in which case, take it elsewhere'.

DionysosProteus 00:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, CapitalR neatly solved the problem by making the box collapsible while retaining the picture - and you go and revert it again! I don't understand. What was wrong with his/her corrected version? -- Kleinzach 00:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

See above. Am I being unclear in some way? The revert, like the earlier revert was not 'to make a point' - it was to return functionality and design that had been deleted. DionysosProteus 01:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Functionality? CapitalR is a member of the Infobox Project. I think he understands infobox 'functionality'. -- Kleinzach 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Box should be collapsible

This box should be collapsible. Otherwise it is too large and obtrusive, making pages look ugly and cluttered. -- Kleinzach 05:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The box is not overly large and was designed not to be collapsible. As already explained and as you know full-well. There is not requirement for a collapsible box, the guidelines do not say there is. As already explained, the only reason the original had [hide] was because it was a relic of a stripped-out template. Many of the opera templates and infoboxes occupy more space. Pages with the template look neither ugly nor cluttered. It is designed to offer a one-click link to the corpus. DionysosProteus 05:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The box was collapsible. You removed the ability to collapse it. Why? To make it more prominent? Is that right? But what is the reason? To persuade people to read the Brecht articles? -- Kleinzach 14:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, you appear confused. The box was not collapsible; it only became so briefly in the past couple of days when it was converted. The reasons for the design have been detailed above. I have asked if they are unclear. Your reasoning is incoherent; the template appears only in Brecht articles--no persuasion is necessary at that stage. DionysosProteus 15:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No, assuming good faith, it seems you didn't notice that [hide] was part of the box before it was improved and standardized by CaptainR, a member of the Infobox project. The main point however is that collapsible boxes are preferable because they can be used to minimize clutter. -- Kleinzach 02:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just being silly. Look at the discussion above. Look at the dates. Compare to the edit history. It demonstrates I was fully aware and had explained to you. Really, the entertainment value of demonstrating the many ways in which you are mistaken won't last forever, you know. DionysosProteus 03:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

non-collapsing = design feature??

I am not sure why the original designer of this infobox insists that it not be collapsible. Regardless of whether a guideline yet exists on infobox design, it should be common sense that collapsibility, which gives readers more options, is better. The original designer keeps repeating that his design was intentional, but has yet to explain why it is superior. The lack of collapsibility gives rise to pages like Non-Aristotelian_drama, where the infoboxes take up half the article. I'm reverting to the collapsible version. Calliopejen1 18:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-Aristotelian drama is part of the Brecht project that I'm in the process of expanding into full-length articles. The proportion of template to article is a temporary phenomenon (and only significant on that one article since it is a point of intersection between the plays and theories). I have given an explanation above - it is designed to give a one-click ability to navigate between the plays; it also offers an immediate visual signal that places the play within its chronological context. Kindly explain what the 'more options' given to the browser are, exactly. There are many templates that are not collapsible, and many info boxes (which provide for a very similar function) take up more room. Returning the template to its original functions. DionysosProteus 18:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to the collapsible version for the reasons explained by myself (above) and by Calliopejen1. If DionysosProteus still feels that all theatre/drama navigation boxes should be non-collapsible then perhaps he could raise the issue on the Theatre Project talk page so we can have a centralized discussion on the subject. -- Kleinzach 01:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As I've already explained - do you just not bother to read the talk above? -- I don't think they should all be non-collapsing. But your suggestion that I need to discuss it centrally ignores the reality that there is no requirement to make them such. DionysosProteus 01:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The new box retains all the features of the original - and it's clearly an improvement. What is your problem? Your ownership of this template? There's nothing else. -- Kleinzach 02:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you having difficulty following the reasoning? I believe it's quite clear. That version does not retain all the features of the original, since it collapses. That is far from "clearly" an improvement as the entire discussion above reveals. And again you misrepresent my views--is that the only way you understand how to discuss something? You invite me to contribute to a debate and then complain when I do. You claim to want a debate and then recruit others to make the alterations you want without it, and represent that effort as if spontaneously in support of your position. I don't claim to have ownership, as I have made quite clear before, and as you well know. Yet it remains a fact that you have not contributed to the articles to which the template refers, no? It remains a fact that your opposition to the dramatic element of opera verges on the fanatical, in contradiction to all mainstream definitions (like the OED). Wikipedia is not the place to pursue such a subjective and partial campaign - it's for objectively-citable knowledge supported by the mainstream scholarly community. I've detailed my reasoning quite clearly, I believe, yet you maintain this pose of incomprehension. DionysosProteus 13:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please respect the views of the four editors here who are in favour of collapsible boxes. You are the only person who is against them. -- Kleinzach 13:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

These are people that you have recruited to impose your own idiosyncratic prejudices. I am not against them, as detailed above. Again, and again, and again, you misrepresent my opinions. Please stop that, it is misleading and inappropriate. There are plenty of non-collapsing templates out there, as you well know. DionysosProteus 14:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)