Talk:Taurus
We really need to discuss the rules/guidelines for adding such navigational templates as this:
| 88 Official Constellations by IAU |
|
Andromeda • Antlia • Apus • Aquarius • Aquila • Ara • Aries • Auriga • Boötes • Caelum • Camelopardalis • Cancer • Canes Venatici • Canis Major • Canis Minor • Capricornus • Carina • Cassiopeia • Centaurus • Cepheus • Cetus • Chamaeleon • Circinus • Columba • Coma Berenices • Corona Australis • Corona Borealis • Corvus • Crater • Crux • Cygnus • Delphinus • Dorado • Draco • Equuleus • Eridanus • Fornax • Gemini • Grus • Hercules • Horologium • Hydra • Hydrus • Indus • Lacerta • Leo • Leo Minor • Lepus • Libra • Lupus • Lynx • Lyra • Mensa • Microscopium • Monoceros • Musca • Norma • Octans • Ophiuchus • Orion • Pavo • Pegasus • Perseus • Phoenix • Pictor • Pisces • Piscis Austrinus • Puppis • Pyxis • Reticulum • Sagitta • Sagittarius • Scorpius • Sculptor • Scutum • Serpens • Sextans • Taurus • Telescopium • Triangulum • Triangulum Australe • Tucana • Ursa Major • Ursa Minor • Vela • Virgo • Volans • Vulpecula |
Wikipedia has way too many of them, and that is what subpages--in this case, Related Articles pages--are for. I do think we should discuss this, but my first take is that we should probably move all such lists of links onto Related Articles pages. I think that if you consider it carefully, you'll see that this the long-term most sensible way forward.
Note that there's no reason that we can't use templates on related articles pages. But the nice thing about putting such navigational links on the related articles pages is that you can make the type larger, and add more "definition"-type information (e.g., where the constellation is located, what season it appears highest in, etc.). See CZ:Definitions too.
I think the main thing that bothers me about navigational templates is that they are an attempt to solve the categorization problem--but it is preferable to stick to just one solution, and ours is, indeed, Related Articles pages. --Larry Sanger 10:57, 14 December 2007 (CST)
- Yes, i agree. I think is more organized put all the links in Related Articles too. But therefore we must change the formatation of the tamplates - specifically, on this template (larger type, etc.). What do you suggest? L'Astorina 11:09, 14 December 2007 (CST)