Template talk:LB Richmond upon Thames

message: The default state of this template is  explicitly set to autocollapse. This has the effect that, when it is the sole such template on an article it is auto-expanded. This template is now almost 300 lines when expanded which is longer than many of the stub or short articles it appears on so it, IMHO, overwhelms them. I therefore propose the default state be set to collapse but I'm happy to chew it over first. --KenBailey (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the template is getting rather long – mea culpa! One other option might be to create a new list – List of places of worship in Richmond upon Thames and create a link to it under Other topics. This would remove ten lines of text. Headhitter (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think its worth creating sub-lists just to diminish this template but there are other "List of places of worship in " articles out there, so a Richmond upon Thames one wouldn't be out of place. However, even 250 lines would still be longer than a lot of the stub articles the template is used in. What is your view on collapsing the template by default? --KenBailey (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would prefer using subtemplates, since a collapsed template still takes a long time to load in the browser, and dilutes the concentration of directly applicable links. Frietjes (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

text:  we should also be mindful of navbox guidelines, and not include external links. Frietjes (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean, Ken, about the template being overwhelming when it appears on stub articles. I've no problem in principle with the template's default state being set to "collapse", but Frietjes (talk) does have a point. Of course we could always consider a different approach and aim to make the stub articles longer! Headhitter (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  making it collapsed by default seems like a start.  It could be worse, you could have a Fictional characters section like Template:Kolkata topics. Frietjes (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've now changed the state to collapsed – thanks, KenBailey, for suggesting this. Frietjes, I think all the external links are in the Almshouses category. I put them there as placeholders pending the creation (by someone, probably me: they're on my To do list) of WP entries on each of the almshouses; I've already created two. Headhitter (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  the way to encourage article creation is to use redlinks.  Frietjes (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you both for giving this your consideration. I'll keep doing what I can to make the stubs longer! --KenBailey (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, KenBailey, you're already making good progress on that. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Default state

message: The footprint of this navbox is massive, it should either be refactored to include collapsible groups, or split. For example, the number of links in the Places of worship section is enough for a separate navbox. Frietjes (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I've now created a separate navbox for Places of worship and added a link under "Other topics" at the foot of this navbox. Headhitter (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive 

message: sorry my edit summary wasn't all that clear... It is generally not acceped to link from a navbox to a template. So what is happening right now is that if you click the  Hospitals link, you are not taken to an article about Hospitals in Richmond upon Thames but to another navbox template. This is against policy. That is why I removed those links. Does that make sense? --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, now I get it. User:Zackmann08,  I've now linked the template to a newly created List of hospitals in Richmond upon Thames. If I take a similar approach in the other cases where there are links to templates would that be acceptable? Headhitter (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , that works much better. There are still a couple of more. Almshouses,  Local government & Places of worship. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, . I'll work on those three other templates in the next few days. Headhitter (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , sounds great. Thanks for the dialogue! If you have any questions/concerns, please drop me a line. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: All done now, . Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of content