Template talk:London history

message: I think there's a bit of an inherent problem with this template, which is that navigational infoboxes should be for working through a clear series rather than just collecting together related articles (which could be done using a category instead). If you look at History of France or History of Britain, they are for navigating a fairly obvious chronology, geography or series of topics. We don't yet have anything so clear for London (although I definitely think that the History of London article should be split up into its own chronological sub-articles). I think it's a bit confusing to have an infobox linking to articles that just have something to do with London's history, rather than a chronological series of articles or a topical series (like History of London infrastructure, or History of London government). 
I would suggest using this template once History of London has been "sub-articled" as appropriate, and having the chronological list like the two examples. --Dave A 23:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. A breakup of the History of London page would aid a chronological sequence, although presumably the navbox would maintain sub-chronologies in order to break up the various historical topics (i.e. into topical series as well)? Or are you suggesting having the various periods as headings with relevant articles beneath each? DJR (T) (WC) 23:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, excuse me..? I came here in order to trim the box a bit, because it's so huge, and would overwhelm an article that I have in mind. Seeing the above two comments, though, I think I probably shouldn't touch the box until I understand what the discussion is about. Qué, please? Could you repeat that in Simple English? What two examples, where, what sub-chronologies...? ... topical series...? Or even: ...series...? Help me..! :-( Bishonen | talk 10:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Alternatively, could we perhaps have a box that goes from side to side instead of up and down, to be put at the bottom of the page? I'm planning an FA expansion of Great Fire of London, in fact I'm nearly done (see my sandbox), but if anybody's going to insist on turning it into a sideways-squashed appendix of this enormous template, I'd frankly just as soon let it stay in userspace. Er, does anybody who knows how to create these templates read this talkpage? It seems to be all suggestions. Are any changes getting tried out? 
 Bishonen | talk 03:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I'm unfamiliar with the template namespace, perhaps you or someone else could please tell me where I might more prominently post a request for attention to the problem? I really am dubious about putting that sandbox expansion of mine into mainspace if this big guy is the default box for a historical London subject. 
 Meanwhile, I've dropped a note on the talkpage of Djr xi, who created the template, if I understand its History rightly, and asked him to chime in here and/or consider creating the kind of alternative that's been requested. It looks like he's pretty busy IRL, though. Bishonen | talk 10:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hehe, I'm going to put it up wearing this template (not in mainspace yet) at the foot of the page!  I've asked Bunchofgrapes to consider leaving out the Olympics, that fatten it so much for such small gain. Bishonen | talk 12:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - I am indeed the one responsible for creating this template - I must apologise for my lack of contributions to this talk page in recent times - apparently it is on my watchlist but I seem to have been completely ignoring it. Reading through the recent discussions, I think the general consensus seems to be that the template could be editted to be a standard link box for the bottom of the page. While this would be fine, the original purpose of this template was to be a navigational box as opposed to a collection of links. A good example of how similar templates have been implemented are  and articles related to it. Am I right in thinking that the main issue with the nav-box style is its size? If you could give me some examples of this situation, I could attempt tp make some changes in the syntax to try and resolve it. Of course, if it is a major issue then something like [[User:Bunchofgrapes/History of London would be a solution. DJR (T) 14:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've gone live with the bottom-of-the-page version. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And without the Olympics, that's great, Grapes! Thanks for responding, Djr xi. Perhaps we need both? A choice between navigational box and links box, depending on the subject and character of the article? I certainly find the Bunchofgrapes version suitable for my Great Fire page. Bishonen | talk 17:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (It still has the Olympics, now secreted within "Events") —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Using both sounds fine, but it must be kept in mind that there is no real point in having the same links repeated in two boxes on the same page. Bottom-of-the-page templates conventionally provide an indiscriminate and comprehensive list of links to all relevant articles, whereas the navbox style provides more of an overview to relevant and related topic areas. It will be at the discresion of users as to which is more appropriate. I should also point out that articles in the main namespace should not use transclusions from the User namespace as templates - you might want to consider moving User:Bunchofgrapes/History of London to Template:History of London. DJR (T) 17:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, no, Wikipedia having both so that the editors of a page have a choice was my suggestion. Using both on the same page would be box hell, indeed. Bishonen | talk 17:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If you'd read back to the top of this thread, Djr_xi, you'd also notice the whole discussion started because the nav bax *wasn't* providing a chronological or clear series of articles. (Nor do I think such a series is possible for the topic "history of London", really. Also note that the version in my userspace was a sandbox, test version, never intended to be used from the mainspace. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  template 

message: Shouldn't this template have a link for London Underground?? --Midx1004 10:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: London Underground

message: Why is this skyscraper present in a template for London History when it hasn't even been built yet?
EdJogg (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Shard London Bridge]] 

message: Should the London Eye be added? Miyagawa (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structures