Template talk:Alexander McQueen

Splitting the collections

Please stop splitting the collections per "period". The split is arbitrary and unnecessary. This is not a large group, and the year is given for each collection, and there is no defined "period" in his career anyway. You can't justify a split because you "think the split looks tidier". --wooden superman 13:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The man created thirty-six collections in his lifetime, so it actually is a large group in total. The navbox will therefore continue to get larger and visually more cluttered as I create more articles in the series, especially since many collections have awkwardly long names. You may want to read some more about McQueen if you want to argue that "there is no defined period" in his career; his early work is clearly distinct from his mid-career and later designs.

Finally, there is nothing policy-based prohibiting a navbox from being split up for reader utility - you argue that I can't justify a split because I like it, but equally, you can't justify removing it because you don't. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

36 is not a large group. The article does not split into eras, if it did there might be a justification to split, but I'd still argue against it. We don't split the career of artists arbitrarily in this way, no justification here either. It actually makes the navbox larger if we do. --wooden superman 22:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think 36 is a large group; I do, especially when the titles are often quite wordy and we're also including season and year. I have visual processing issues and it's much easier for me and users with similar issues to parse large groups of links when they're broken up for readability. There is nothing in the Wikipedia:NAVBOX guidance that prohibits splitting navboxes up for ease of use. You are arguing your own personal preference here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're veering on WP:OWN here. There is no justification to split this relatively small group by an arbitrary "era" of your own choosing simply because you like it. Splitting the group into subgroups actually makes the navbox larger. --wooden superman 11:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know where you're getting 36 articles from, there aren't even 20 in this group. Even less justification to split. --wooden superman 11:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly not reading a single thing I'm saying, because I actually have clearly established a reason to split, and it's reader utility for people with disabilities. Let me quote myself, but I'll bold the important words to make it easier for you to pay attention: "I have visual processing issues and it's much easier for me and users with similar issues to parse large groups of links when they're broken up for readability". The fact that you keep harping on about the size of the navbox indicates you're not actually comprehending the fact that the issue is the large unbroken mass of links, not the size of the navbox.

Secondly, and again, this is another indication you're not reading what I'm writing, is that my first reply to you clearly reads "The man created thirty-six collections in his lifetime". That's where the number comes from. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally thousands of navboxes with larger groupings than this, this has never been an WP:ACCESS issue before, this is just you arbitrarily splitting for your WP:OWN preference. --wooden superman 12:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal preference against a split is not policy. Point me to the policy that says navboxes cannot be split up. I'll wait. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal preference is an unnecessary split against common practice as I have pointed out in the examples below. What makes you or this navbox the exception? --wooden superman 12:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia inherently has a large degree of flexibility built in. We don't have to do things precisely the same way every single time if it provides utility to do things a different way. In the absence of a policy that says otherwise (and there isn't one, I checked), your insistence that we do things your way is just as arbitrary as you claim mine is.

In this case, I have made it clear repeatedly that there is a valid reason to do things the way I have been doing them, which is that it makes the template actually usable for me, the primary user of the template. Try to have a little bit of consideration for the human on the other side of the keyboard, and stop dismissing my concerns about usability because you're hung up on your desire for consistency. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment "me, the primary user of the template" is textbook WP:OWN. --wooden superman 13:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consider filmography navboxes, for example, such as {{Ingmar Bergman}}, {{Woody Allen}}, {{John Ford}}, or {{Mack Sennett}}, where we have far larger groups that are not broken down into subgroups. Or how about something like {{George Washington}}? There's no reason to treat this any differently. --wooden superman 11:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with woodensuperman, at least for now until there is a much larger article collection. Definitive periods would be fine if well-sourced and accepted as dividing lines, as with Picasso's work and other examples, but this navbox would be fine for reader usage without the good faith OR period differentiations. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to add the redlinks to bring it up to the full 36, considering they all meet GNG and I intend to make them all anyway. I'm also happy to make the division based on years instead, if that would be more acceptable, but I cannot see any reason why my concerns about usability/readability are being ignored. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, years, if adequately sourced, could work once the entire collection is fleshed-out, but no need now for those red links. I haven't worked on many fashion navboxes, is it normal to differentiate between seasons or could those be left out for sake of brevity? Thanks for taking on such a large group of topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A split by years or decades is still arbitrary. We deprecated the splitting of filmography navboxes by decades years ago, and it isn't common among other arts navboxes either, see {{Hans Holbein the Younger}}, {{Hieronymus Bosch}}, etc. --wooden superman 13:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, this is the only fashion navbox for a single designer, and he's the only designer with enough individual articles on collections to require a navbox. For a fashion collection, the season and year is important information. Leaving it out would be like leaving out the year for movies or albums in terms of omitting context. (Leaving that out would also make it that much harder to navigate - again, usability issue.)

I appreciate your gratitude, but it's extremely frustrating to be working in a relatively obscure topic area and to have someone else come in and start telling you to make changes without any policy basis, especially when those changes impact my ability to make use of the navbox. (If you're wondering what I'm using it for, I frequently refer back to the other McQueen articles when writing, and being able to pick them out of the navbox easily makes my life a great deal less frustrating). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't omit the year/season, we just don't need to have subgroups when the year is shown in each entry. And have you considered using a sandbox for referring back to the other articles? --wooden superman 13:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I use a sandbox to navigate when the navigation template is right at the bottom of the articles? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you seem to be having accessibility issues with navboxes in general. --wooden superman 13:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously wasn't having accessibility issues with this one until you showed up :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even with thirty-six articles, it's still not real justification for a split. This is still a small group. If you are really having accessibility issues, then this is an issue you will have at all navboxes (you must have a serious issue at {{Fascism}} for example), so should be considered on a wider level rather than singling out this navbox. And please consider WP:Write the article first before adding redlinks. --wooden superman 13:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I do! That navbox looks like a pile of blue to me. If I needed to use it on a regular basis, it would cause me a great deal of difficulty. Same with the George Washington one that you linked above. But I'm not trying to change those because I'm not working in those areas and I don't need to use them. This one I use, and this one impacts me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe drop the seasons and keep the years? Would you both be fine with that (granting that the 'period' designations are not yet, or possibly never, needed)? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no issue with leaving the seasons in, although we don't need the key and the daggers (which are being used inconsistently anyway). --wooden superman 13:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I obviously have little knowledge of the fashion industry (aside from recently thinking of the name of a possible future article: "Sentimental hats"). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The key and daggers are not being used inconsistently. They are used on the first appearance. In any case, the debate has never been about whether or not to keep the seasons in or out. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]