Template talk:Herbicides
In today's world, Template talk:Herbicides has become a topic of great relevance and interest to a wide audience. Since its emergence, Template talk:Herbicides has captured the attention of experts and fans alike, generating passionate debates and conflicting opinions. Its impact has extended to various areas, from politics and society to popular culture and entertainment. In this article, we will explore different aspects related to Template talk:Herbicides, analyzing its evolution over time, its implications in the current world and future prospects. Template talk:Herbicides continues to be a topic in constant evolution, and its influence never ceases to surprise those who delve into its complexity.
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Importance?
Can anyone tell me what rationale was used for which herbicides to include on this list? – monolemma t – 18:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Can we use the way herbicides are classified and organized in this picture?
--Htmlzycq (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Sub-navigational boxes for less important herbicides
There are too many herbicides to reasonably include them all on this. Look at the size of the list of herbicides. How about we keep this navbox for the most important herbicides, and make more specialised navboxes like Template:Aniline Herbicides to go over individual groups of herbicides and include the ones too obscure for the main box?
BTW, I ordered the herbicides in the Aniline template alphabetically, except again putting the more important ones ahead. I intend to categorise the anilides finelier but haven't gotten to it yet. RustyOldShip (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- It will be difficult to get consensus here, I think, but here are some of my thoughts. 1) WP:Navigation template says that the purpose of these templates is to help readers find related articles: that implies to me there should be no redlinks. 2) The same page says that these templates are not currently supported for readers accessing via a mobile device, suggesting we should consider them as less important than in-article links. 3) "Most important herbicides" is a subjective assessment: some chemicals that are no longer available are historically important. 4) If we are going to make wholesale changes to the main template, perhaps we should follow the scheme in the HRAC classification, as suggested in 2019 (above). Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
- Re (3), I agree it's subjective, but I think it's useful to readers to show some more prominently. It's more likely they want to read about pesticides that are (or were) in widespread use rather than ones that were researched for a few years in the 70s and only marketed briefly. Re (4), perhaps. Chemically similar usually means mechanically similar, so I suspect there is not much difference between them. Re (2), I did not know that. Categories work on mobile, right? It might be helpful to add numeric HRAC groups as categories. RustyOldShip (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Nope, categories are not shown on mobile, either (see #9). I agree with you that we can cut out some compounds if our navigation template is getting too big, provided we have suitable criteria: number of years marketed might be sensible if we have the data. Thinking about the readership, I suspect it may be better to ensure that articles mention the HRAC classification into which the stuff falls (with a link to the general article about that group, if one exists). The relevant "group" article is the one with the light blue background in the template nearest the list of its members. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
- Re (3), I agree it's subjective, but I think it's useful to readers to show some more prominently. It's more likely they want to read about pesticides that are (or were) in widespread use rather than ones that were researched for a few years in the 70s and only marketed briefly. Re (4), perhaps. Chemically similar usually means mechanically similar, so I suspect there is not much difference between them. Re (2), I did not know that. Categories work on mobile, right? It might be helpful to add numeric HRAC groups as categories. RustyOldShip (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)