Template talk:Che Guevara

	Biography portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This template is supported by the politics and government work group.

Argentina

This template is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentina. If you would like to participate, you can improve Che Guevara, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles

Image placement

So I recently moved the portrait to the right of the template (result), as it's a bit silly to compress it into a 40px icon. This was (rather heavy-handedly) reverted, along with a bunch of other edits. I think all of these should stand; the image deserves a reasonable airing on the template, and the rest of the changes were fairly simply syntax tidy-ups (along with the removal of the flags from the top, per WP:MOSFLAG, and the removal of the external links as inappropriate for an internal navigation template). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, my apologies if you viewed my revert as "heavy handed" (if there was a way to "light handedly" revert, then I would willingly prefer it). Many templates have an accompanying image at the top next to the title to assist someone in finding the template, thus I believe it is appropriate to have this image on the top of the template. As for WP:MOSFLAG I don't believe the use of flags in this context violates any of the stated policies, but would be open to your policy-based argument if you disagree. Moreover, the only "external" links were those of fellow wiki projects, which I believe constitutes "internal navigation" but again I am open to any rationale that would say otherwise. Redthoreau (talk)RT 23:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way to "light handedly revert" is to pick out the questionable bits and find a compromise edit. Too many editors see the undo button as an excuse to punt compromise onto other editors. "Many templates" violate WP:MOSFLAG; Paragraph 3 clearly states "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason", and merely fighting in a given country or on behalf of a certain cause is not sufficient grounds to require a flag. As for the external links, that a site may be a sister site still doesn't mean it's appropriate for an internal navigation template; navboxen are there for internal links. WP:EL says that external links should be used sparingly, which implies that they should not be added to templates which may see any number of tranclusions onto articles where those links may not be directly pertinent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have previously said, I regret that you viewed my actions as "heavy handed", of note I could have viewed your 'extensive edit' with no discussion or rationale on the talk page as "heavy handed", but I did not and believe you acted in Wp:good faith. I am more than willing to compromise, and in fact more than willing to concede to all of your requests. I believe we have a disagreement on "nationality", as Che was both a legal citizen of Argentina & Cuba. Admittedly, no individual can be a citizen of "socialism" (red flag), but if ever one would classify as bearing that title, he would surely fit the bill. It seems as though we disagree on this point. As for the image, I also believe you are stating that you would like to see his image “larger” as you view the current to be small. As for the external links, it seems that you find the 3 of them at present to (wiki quote), (wiki images), and (wiki source) to be excessive. I don’t agree with this, however is it your view than the existence of even 1 extrenal link is excessive? Or these 3 etc? Thanks and for the record (feel free to revert my revert) if you believe it was unwarranted - while we discuss the merits. Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just start with me apologising for my tone earlier. This is a civil disagreement; thanks for responding in such a civil manner. MOSFLAGS is generally interpreted to mean "if there isn't a very good reason to use a flag then don't" - a title bar in a navbox isn't a very good reason. I'm off to bed right now, but I'll add more later - I don't revert to my preferred version while in an editing dispute as a matter of principle, as I should be able to win arguments on the merits if they stand up. I'm sure we'll be able to come to an amicable agreement here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, okay, here's more.

The title bar unnecessarily emphasises nationality by having flags, including one extranational flag. I think MOSFLAG point three is pretty clear on this - unless there's really good reason to use flags then we shouldn't. Guevera's citizenship is not, in the great scheme of things, especially important/ He's known internationally, so I don't think they're appropriate.
"Che Guevara" is rendered as "CHE GUEVARA" for no good reason. This should be an uncontroversial fix.
The image. We have a high-quality SVG for this image, freely licensed. We have space on the right hand side of the template. Putting it there (instead of leaving it as a smudge on the title bar) seems like a big win for me.
The external links. The purpose of a navbox is to serve as a quick link to other Wikipedia articles. It is not there to replace the external links section of articles; it is not there to send traffic to sister sites. If these links are required on articles, they should be added individually, as WP:EL suggests that external links should be used sparingly at all. I'm fine with keeping the "list of works" link as that is internal.

Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, no worries on the tone, it is only natural in this type of setting to sometimes be on edge as to the motivations/sincerity of the other editor (with whom one may have no past history). As to your above remarks: I will concede your point on the capitalization and with only slight reservation the removal of flags. So please feel free to make those edits whenever you wish. As for the Che image placement and the 'external' links (both of which I feel are appropriate where they currently stand) I would be ok with the 'Solomon-esque' compromise of moving the image, in place of keeping the wiki links which I believe as sister projects are not exactly "external" for all intents and purposes (in fact you can synchronize your log in name with all 6 wiki projects now). If you prefer I would also be ok with eliminating the sister links and keeping the image placement as it currently stands. Let me know what you think. Redthoreau(talk)RT 17:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's go with that compromise then. If others offer their opinions then we work from there. Thanks once more for being so reasonable about this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. I did have a quick question though. The template seems to be malformed now as seen at the bottom of Che (film) and not updated as seen at the bottom of Che Guevara in popular culture etc. Any thoughts on why this is? Thanks. Redthoreau (talk) RT 15:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I messed up the noinclude tags. This should now be fixed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, do you know if it takes time to update? Many of the pages such as the popular culture article still display the old (flagged) version - (at least on my screen). Redthoreau (talk) RT 15:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Purge the server cache. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A great little trick. Thanks. :o) Redthoreau (talk) RT 16:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red color ?

I have taken the “Wp:bold” step of using a red color format instead of blue for the template. I figured I would open up a discussion for editor’s thoughts on this: Better? Too much? Tacky? Who cares? etc - (I still can't tell if I like it to be honest and may revert it myself) Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reverted myself until I hear from others. For those interested in what it looked like "red", just go to history and click on the former version of the page. Thanks. Redthoreau (talk)RT 06:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'd really rather we didn't override the {{navbox}} defaults if at all possible. This is just meant to be a simple navigational tool at the foot of an article - it shouldn't be distracting, and it should be as accessible as possible. For that reason I'm also opposed to the addition of the star in the title bar - see WP:ICONDECORATION. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chris, nice to hear from you again. I agree with not using the red color, hence why I reverted myself after some reflection. It was distracting as that color. As for the star, I understand your point of decoration, but also feel that this particular symbol (red star) more than any other defines the subject. I have seen symbols in many template headings (maybe there against wiki policy) and hence it led me to believe that an identifying mark was ok in some instances (flag, political symbol) etc. Would I be wrong in that assumption? Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the red star is any more iconic than the Che portrait on the right these days, to be honest. I don't think it's a particularly troublesome issue, but I would prefer the title bar to be image-free. I'm happy to hear what others think, though, and won't be reverting it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]