Template talk:Forestry

Forestry Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of forestry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This template is nearing 'maturity', I think. Always room for further development. (For one thing, there are many underlying links to categories rather than articles. Indication of prospective future articles in need of development.) In its current form, this navigation box emphasizes different types of/ approaches to forestry. As a high-level guide to Wikipedia forestry articles, this is a key template for WikiProject Forestry. If anyone has thoughts/ suggestions for further improvement and development of this template, please discuss here. Input from more scientifically oriented forestry perspectives would be especially welcome. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting pretty big, maybe too big. Maybe the image robs it of horizontal space too. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anna, Yes, I have (both of) those concerns, too. One thought is to put a few more things on the bottom bar. It may be possible to do some editing/ streamlining, too. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the bottom bar plan. Your layout is pretty darn good. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This template does seem to have gotten too large! To lay a foundation for addressing some of this, I've created a new forestry events category and added a link to it on the bottom bar. Several events now included in the 'Events and initiatives' group can be deleted. Beyond this, I am wondering about removing or removing the last two groups, "Laws and organizations" and "Events and initiatives". Further thoughts? suggestions? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a couple more steps towards resizing this template, incl. adding a few more things to the top & bottom bars, & refocusing group6 on "Laws and governance". I remain uncertain about whether the last two groups are important for this template, but am leaving them in for now. Input welcome! Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay (and I'll rest here), I've collapsed these last two groups now, with initiatives now included in a new category that is linked on the bottom bar, and laws and governance merged into ecology & management. Have I gone too far? For now, the result is a streamlined template, with broader, rather than more particular article links. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks fine here! Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking Outline, Index, and Forest areas might better be in an above line. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for the suggestion. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, there's a fair amount of whitespace above/below the image, so I'm thinking a second similarly-sized one (i.e. width 150px) placed above or below it might be worthwhile. If anyone agrees, any suggestions as to candidates..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's such a big navbox, we ought to consider removing the image altogether just to see what that's like. Anna Frodesiak (talk)

Here's what it would look like:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point – especially, I imagine, on smaller screens – so I've now removed the image. If no image is unpopular, though, then, as above, I'd recommend two rather than just one (or, if only one, placing it in an embedded Navbox so that the space it would otherwise leave empty may be used). Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Yes, I think it's better now without the image. The cons outweighed the pros. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]