Template talk:Peter Greenaway

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film This template is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Without adding the years, the thing looks like a garbled mess. It's infinitely easier to navigate with the years and see cleanly and clearly Greenaway directed his films by decade. Look around at other templates. Pretty much unreadable if the years aren't there unless you are dealing with five or fewer films Donmike10 (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see your point at all, it's just regular text and not more difficult to read than anything else. If you look around at the better developed culture templates all over Wikipedia, such as Template:Shakespeare or Template:Elvis Presley, you will see that they generally do follow WP:NAVBOX and avoid unlinked text, as well as only use groups for articles of entirely different subtopics. Being from different decades does not constitute any natural form of division for films, just look at the filmography lists. Peter Greenaway#Films is just a straightforward list without subsections for decades. The decade-grouping-by-default attitude becomes even more illogical when you look at the templates for really large filmorgaphies, for example Template:Michael Curtiz, where single decades contain a lot more titles than most whole filmographies, yet everybody agrees that the decades don't need any additional breakdown there. Smetanahue (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And regardless of this, the template is for the whole topic of Peter Greenaway, so his other works/subarticles, Tulse Luper and Death of a Composer, need to be included as well. The only reason to exclude non-film articles would be due to size, but there aren't nearly enough articles to motivate a split in this case. Smetanahue (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's totally nonsensical to remove the years and decades, but so be it. It's really, really important to you. If you want to remove the decades, that's one thing. Doesn't make any sense, but all good. To remove the years from after the pictures is ridiculous. Now it's just a bunch of floating names with no context. Donmike10 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no additional context because it's just a navigation template. It's a different thing from the filmography in the director's article. I know it's a silly hang-up, sorry about that. But it's for the best to keep the navboxes brief and compact, and put any extra info in the articles instead. Smetanahue (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]