This template is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects 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.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture 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.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
@Chiswick Chap: as I said in my edit summary, the documentation of {{Navbox}} says that "most of such images don't comply with MOS:DECOR and should be removed at sight". Could you explain why you think the beekeeper image you want to add to this navbox is an exception? What encyclopedic purpose does it serve? Colin M (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for discussing. Let's just see what the oft-cited MoS actually says about icons in navboxes then:
"Icons should serve an encyclopedic purpose and not merely be decorative. They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation."
Mmm, this is not saying that they are wicked, terrible, dreadful, and to be exterminated. It's saying that they should be well-chosen, appropriate, and give a helpful visual cue. Obviously, this one does exactly that.
The purpose of the navbox image is to serve as identification and description of the topic of the navbox, which is certainly an encyclopedic purpose. If such an image is neither identifying nor descriptive, then of course it should be removed. This image has in fact been identifying and describing the navbox throughout its existence, and I'm sorry that I missed its disappearance at the moment someone in an excess of zeal chose to remove it a little while back, or I'd have replaced it immediately, which I intend to do shortly. The image is small, appropriate, clear, and as I've explained, performs its correct function. If that is exceptional and there has been a torrential spate of purely decorative images, I'm surprised, as I don't recall a pile of navboxes getting odd inappropriate images, but if there have been, then this certainly isn't one of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the title of the navbox, "Human interactions with insects", already identifies and describes the topic to the reader, and does so much more clearly than a picture of a beekeeper (which could just as easily signal to the reader that this is a navbox about beekeeping, or about bees).
Then images would always be forbidden, which isn't the case. Beekeeping is a millennia-old and iconic instance of human interaction with insects. More iconic of the domain, hmm. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Chiswick Chap. If template images had to be perfect almost none would ever qualify. If we could fit two images, a very small one of beekeeping and another of a human with flyswatter, that would be better but I think that would be too much. Invasive Spices (talk) 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Let's consider the opposite angle. If the beekeeper image is appropriate for this navbox, then why not add a picture of a grebe to Template:Grebes? Or an image of Nim Chimpsky to Template:Notable apes? Or a page from the Kama Sutra to Template:Sex manuals? There's a good reason that images are very rarely used in navboxes. I don't think you've given an argument for why this case is exceptional. Colin M (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and arguments by analogy, or indeed casuistry, don't convince. What I said above demonstrates that it isn't a matter of being "exceptional" - far from it: all correctly-chosen template illustrations are valid, as indeed the MoS makes clear. The only problem here is your opinion that template images are ipso facto bad, which they aren't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't really engaged with the analogies I presented though. Do you think the example additions I mentioned above would be an improvement? Also, to be clear, my goal here is not so much to argue for my "side". I'm trying to understand your perspective, and give some insight into my own, because I hope we can reach some consensus. Also also, I never said, nor do I believe, that template images are ipso facto bad. Colin M (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, could you explain what you mean by "vandalism edit summary" in your edit summary on Special:Diff/1060572550? I never mentioned anything about vandalism in my earlier edit summary, and certainly didn't intend to imply that that was what you were doing. Colin M (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you press undo or equivalent action, you get an edit summary which it is explained is not to be used except in the case of vandalism.
The message I see when pressing undo is "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." And I did explain my reasons. Colin M (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. It's still (much) better to delete the auto-message.
