Contents

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science/Sidebar

History of Science Project‑class

This page is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the page attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

History of Science WikiProject

[edit]

I just added the History of Science WikiProject to the bottom of the navigation links. If it doesn't really belong there, feel free to revert. --SteveMcCluskey 20:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it, per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.--ragesoss 20:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to update this template to a more modern look using the PhysicsNavigation template (with some modifications in colors etc.). Please see Template:Cosmology for an impression. Wishes etc. are welcome. (Sheliak (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

We're having a problem over at Talk:Science in the Middle Ages about how to deal with non-western cultures in the chronologically defined article on Medieval science which, according to conventional historiography, deals primarily with Medieval Western Europe. It would simplify our problem if the sidebar did not treat Science "in the Middle Ages" as the only article for that period. I suggest modifying the sidebar to retain the eras as presently defined, but add something like the cultural contexts used in the Isis Current Bibliography:

• By Culture
  • Arabic-Islamic
  • Medieval Byzantine
  • Chinese
  • Japanese
  • Indian
  • Jewish
  • Native American
  • African
  • Traditional cultures

Since that would make the sidebar even longer than it is, I also suggest setting each of the sections so it could be hidden or expanded, as desired. I'm not up on coding but I presume someone can handle it.

I don't want to make a change of this magnitude without some sort of consensus. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just traced down the associated articles (or lack or them). Placing the existing articles in the History of Science sidebar might draw knowledgeable editors to improve them and it might be worthwhile to create stubs for the missing articles as points of development. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created a draft revision at User:SteveMcCluskey/HOSSB. It works, yet it's far too long, even though I only listed the cultures for which articles have already been written. Does anyone know how to introduce hidden sections?

I just noticed that the equivalent French page has the kind of links by culture that I was talking about, although it lables them "thématiques". It controls the length by limiting the number of by science section to the major sciences. The other models are similar to the English, except for the Finnish, which has hidden sections. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a month since I suggested this with no comments, so I'll be bold and make the change shortly. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone object if I make this a collapsible template, and by default collapsed? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine to make it collapsable, but I don't think very many articles would actually need it to be collapsed so don't make it a default. Make sure you point out that it can be done in the documentation, Sadads (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea to add collapsibilty as an editor-selectable option. However I'm in general very much opposed to modifying templates in such a way that they will be displayed differently in any articles that have already used them.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 07:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I had a go, then reverted myself. [1] is a version in the history, if you feel like looking William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just stumbled across this discussion, which deals with a problem with the size of the template that has been previously discussed elsewhere. I think we should go with Connolley's latest revision.

I don't see any problem with existing articles, since the template remains on the side as previously. Any further comments? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the support for having collapsibility at least as an option, if not as the default, and in the absence of any objections, I have gone ahead and implemented a modification of WMC's collapsible version of the template. I have added a parameter, startcollapsed, to the template, which will cause it to be displayed collapsed whenever that parameter has been assigned any non-empty value (such as "true", for instance). This means that the appearance of the infobox will not change in any of the 60 or so articles which currently include it. If any of those articles would be clearly improved by collapsing their infoboxes, this can be achieved simply by assigning an appropriate value to the startcollapsed parameter in the template call on those pages.

In this particular case I wouldn't be all that fussed if the collapsed state were to be made the default. However, since this would result in unannounced changes to the appearance of the infoboxes in a large number of articles, it would run the risk of antagonising some editors who might just happen to more fussy about such things.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a big image, and adds nothing to the template. By the way, history of science is a general subject and no image is appropriate in my opinion, so I suggest to remove it. --Z 19:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fine with me. Frietjes (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is sustainability a science? I am not so sure.

Is it a social science? Almost certainly not. Why is it there? Arnoutf (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From looking over the article sustainability, it seems that sustainability is less an investigation of nature (i.e., a science) than it is a response to a set of attitudes and values that its exponents propose concerning the proper use of nature. I'd say delete it as non-scientific. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sidebox format is inconvenient in many articles, taking up much screen space, especially on the right hand side where lead images and other illustrations generally need to go. The format has been replaced in many subject areas by a navigation bar that is placed at the end of each article: this fits in well with not distracting readers, but allowing them to look further easily if they wish; it also allows articles to have several navigation templates when appropriate. I propose therefore to replace the existing sidebox with a navbar, if people are happy with that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the absence of any reply, I've boldly created a Template:History of science and replaced the sidebar version in the articles listed in the template with the navbar version. I'd suggest we also get rid of the sidebar version, but that can wait a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

great, I have moved this one to project space since the only transclusions are in project space. Frietjes (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]