This template is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
I have no issue with the icon in the Navbox. It's not intended as a joke and is suitably representative of the subject matter, without being overly gruesome. However, editor Cosprings is imposing personal preferences by repeatedly attempting to remove it. No Wikipedia policies are being violated and it appears to be a yeah or nay decision, so I don't see much room for compromise here. Any suggestions? Regards, RJH (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one "imposing personal preferences by repeatedly attempting" to keep it in. Consider this, if nothing was there, there would nothing to argue about. Instead, here we are. I just think it's ridiculous to put silly little jokes into an encyclopedia, and that's your personal preference. Cosprings (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and if I hadn't put this template together there'd be nothing to argue about. Apparently you're claiming I did that as a joke. As I said in the second sentence, the icon not there as a joke; that's just your patently false interpretation.
Since nobody else has yet objected to the icon, I assume it's purely your preference that is at issue here. There is no policy against decorating Navbox with icons and the template deliberately allows for it, so there can be no objection there. The icon is related to the topic and doesn't not appear to represent an offensive viewpoint. Plainly you regard it as a "joke" because it is an iconic representation rather than a picture. Is that correct? Let me ask you this then: if you were to select a representative image for this Navbox, what would you choose? I'd be okay with reaching a consensus on a different icon as long as it isn't gruesome and is suitably universal.
I am against inclusion of the icon as I dont really see the purpose of the icon. It is at the bottom and is not needed. Not a deal breaker either way, but just adds to page clutter which we are already pushing with all of the other new stuff. I have also noticed as we get towards the end of the month that the amount of information is taking a toll on upload speed. This would be another nail in that coffin so to speak. Sunnydoo (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ToUser:Sunnydoo: I think that you are confusing removal of the Nav Box with removal of the icon. This discussion above concerns whether or not the icon (the little cartoon character drawing of the grim reaper) should remain (or be removed) from the Nav Box. The discussion is not about whether the Nav Box itself should stay or go. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was objecting to the icon. The NavBox serves a purpose and its ok by me. Just dont think there is added value in the icon at the value of all the other information on the page. Sunnydoo (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Your comment seemed to be more concerned with space and "placement at the bottom". The icon does not take much space, and – with or without the icon – the Nav Box still is at the bottom and still takes the same amount of space. That's why I thought that you were objecting to the Nav Box as a whole, not to the tiny little picture (icon) embedded within the Nav Box. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably have used the SVG version, which is only 18 Kb. But no matter. Regards, 18:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
