You might want to consider the following two changes to this template:

1. Smaller font for the detail

2. Provide show/hide option

See, for instance, Template:Alibend --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just an observation: The navbox seems a bit detailed compared to typical navboxes and seems to cherry-pick certain things. Specifically:

• The list of companies is pretty cherry-picked (and this section is atypical of most navboxes); there are other comparably important businesses omitted
• The education and healthcare sections are a bit specific for a navbox.
• The media section is very trivial for a navbox.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The companies listed are those which are based in Galveston for whom articles exist.

The ((Template:Laredo,_Texas)) navbox was used as a template in the creation of this navbox template.

--nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 19:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I get it. But I would argue that "for whom articles exist" is not a good criterion. If an entity is important and an article does not exist then it should be created (at least a stub). By the same token just because an article exists does not mean it merits inclusion.

WRT Laredo, I would argue that this is not a great navbox either. For one it is way too long. ((Template:New York City)) is a pretty good one. ((Template:Chicago)) and ((Template:SF Bay Area)) are decent too.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In a small town with a limited number of businesses, especially those of any size, I think the inclusion point becomes moot. If the business article survives based on WP:RS and WP:NOTE, it can probably merit inclusion (based upon the limited number of total businesses).

WRT Laredo, I wasn't discussing the merits of the Laredo infobox, just simply stating the Galveston one was based upon it. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 15:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, whatever. Just suggestions. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]