Template talk:LB Richmond upon Thames

Default state

The default state of this template is currently 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)

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)

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)

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)

we should also be mindful of navbox guidelines, and not include external links. Frietjes (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

the way to encourage article creation is to use redlinks. Frietjes (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

Well done, KenBailey, you're already making good progress on that. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Massive

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)

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)

Railway stations etc

User:Adam37‎, your edit yesterday gives particular prominence to railway stations, "demoting the rivers, streams and islands below more important groups". But I would argue that, as they have existed for only the past 150 years, the railways are far less significant. As a navigable river, the Thames has been a transport route for millennia and its bridges have enabled travellers by road, on horse or by motor transport to cross it. And the islands are distinct geographical features which, along with the abundant areas of open green space, make Richmond upon Thames such a unique location. I feel your edit, although well-intentioned, distorts the template to perform a purpose for which it was not intended. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a guide to current travel facilities: Wikivoyage already provides that function very well. Headhitter (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is somewhat valid and so I will consider promotion of those articles but you lose 'track', if you will forgive the noun, in your argument of the fact the stations were at position #2 in the list and had repetition of virtually every district as a consequence. A natural conservative in scholarly matters I am inclined to agree with you however a scholar would glean far more from any of the articles now fully named above rivers now (given that most are tiddles or culverted ditches without cultural consequence save for the Longford river (which I have explained is a non-navigable canal which is rare for its length in such half 'built up' parts of the world), note I have demoted railway stations into the icons they deserve and which imports where the tube runs which here is an influential stay on development (ah, what an aesthete and green fan I am too, every city need space to breathe). I like your point in that most stations listed are also just minor stops, with the many more distant stops being prioritised (uniquely in the SW quadrant) and so far from listing them all out like some great metropolitan link, they are in fact unlike Bracknell etc. not sustainable for totally intensified/expanded development (or so runs the further public policy joined-up thinking). I think a third opinion will be useful. Of course the idea that people take 'Fulwell as a place' is also for example debatable most people there defer to the more traditional Twickenham (or west Twickenham/Twickenham Green if they must), Teddington or Hampton Hill, saying one lives in Fulwell is like saying you live in Mornington Crescent when you don't live on that street... I don't propose to depart from any majority view at all.- Adam37 Talk 19:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

On reflection I think the islands at least (although now therefore to be divorced from locks, bridges and the lifeboat station which have always been at the bottom) might go up in the list, if there is of course WP:CONSENSUS. Just because the list was set out in a certain way does not make it logical or inscrutable. Though I recall vividly a BBC London article promoting the case for building a whole new apartments village on Platts Eyot and with all the environmental catastrophe that would involve (most people will want to drive on roads which are nearing clogged level anyway and the natural perks you so laud will just be lost) so all I can say is it is wrong if you think putting such petty bits of geography more properly ascertained from maps at the top of a list is not going to be detrimental – it will be. I'll put it in the middle to avoid arguments.- Adam37 Talk 19:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Putting "Islands" in between "Theatres" and "Museums" and "Theatres" is so completely off the wall that it can only be considered WP:VANDALISM. I therefore plan to revert all your edits. Please don't make any further substantive changes until you have thought them through carefully and discussed them on this Talk page. Headhitter (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you not see Eel Pie Island following Eel Pie Hotel thus. Sorry I thought it was a genuine compromise WP:AGF. I see you approve from the above not putting so many railway stations right near the top and actually liked them being smaller. You need to go with the flow headhitter and allow WP:BOLD improvements otherwise you are just entrenching the railway stations as something quite special when they can be far more normalised! Basically the template as it was was not very good and you have just undone all my hard work. How kind!- Adam37 Talk 21:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

So yes the islands bit in the middle was a little illogical. But not vandalism. The definition of vandalism is by its very nature to destroy or corrupt and I am not in that business.- Adam37 Talk 22:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

So the template as it was was "not very good", User:Adam37‎. And you accuse me of being unkind? I think your comment was very rude. And how is listing the islands in the middle of the list only a little illogical? As for combining railway stations with districts: 1) Kew is not the name of a railway station; 2) Barnes Bridge station is more central to Barnes than Barnes station is; 3) Fulwell has the same status as North Sheen – it's a former district, not a current district name. Headhitter (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:KenBailey, I'd welcome your views. Headhitter (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of the other LB templates headline with Districts, Attractions then Parks and Open Spaces. Stations are usually mid-way down at least. There is reasonable variety between them depending on the characteristics of each borough and the pool of article resources each has. This may reflect their pedigree more than any consensus but I don't see a justification or advantage from deviating radically from the 'neighbours'. I like the addition of icons in the stations section though, it conveys useful information in a concise manner that would merit adoption across the other LB templates IMHO. In terms of understanding a geographic area, my preference is to start with the landscape and, figuratively, build on that. --KenBailey (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response, KenBailey, and for your comments, wise as always. I've no problem with making changes to the template but they do need to be thought out carefully. Starting with the geographical landscape makes a lot of sense. I agree with you that the station icons are an improvement but that districts and stations should be kept separate. I know that other London borough templates use "Attractions" as a category but I have a problem with it; a point I successfully argued on the talk page of the entry for Kew Gardens, where it was agreed that "Attractions" should be changed to "Features". Wikipedia is not as tourist guide! Headhitter (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm keen to build upon this consensus across all London districts and will consult more widely. I was pleased to see the idea I carefully thought up of icons conveying so much information in a small space has been well received. My one weakness being too bold in matters I am passionate about, putting for example river (and little stream) demotion into an edit where I should certainly have discussed that first. It would of course be irreconcilable to have icons without place names next to them – User:KenBailey agrees with my reasoning this would be a welcome improvement and, indeed, we ought to continue this discussion on the category talk page.- Adam37 Talk 14:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Adam37, I still believe that districts and stations should be kept separate, and there seems to be a consensus on that. But, as I previously said, the station icons could be a useful addition: I've reinstated them, so let's see what the response is. Headhitter (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought a welcome improvement, certainly this would be undeniable in any other culture. The response is likely to be a little disapproving, with respect to my fellow dons, my English wikipedians contributing to this area (I am not secretly referring to the two above).

They, often, tend to in fact heavily favour opaque too big or small quasi-districts e.g. 'Southwark' (really rarely used anywhere there as too imprecise more of a historic interest), 'Summerstown' (I mean a community/large estate but certainly not a proper district) – well there are too many to mention that overlap and come-and-go, I would have thought more recognition of the obvious overlap and dual purpose of the names of stations and proper districts in one section (OBVIOUSLY with surplus category/categories for other districts or stations wrongly named (there are not that many I hasten to add)) in many boroughs would end this acute problem! If you think I am so blatantly wrong then I suggest you write a sturdy letter to all community organisations naming themselves after a local station so it seems more than a rival name, of whatever sort, and I think you shall all come to many thousands. Adam37 Talk 21:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of content

@Headhitter: 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)

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)

Headhitter, 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)

Thanks, Zackmann08. I'll work on those three other templates in the next few days. Headhitter (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Headhitter, 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)

All done now, Zackmann08. Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Link and transclusion mismatches

This template is transcluded by many articles that are not linked in it.

So, it needs to be evaluated whether more artcles should be linked, or whether the template should be removed from those unlinked articles.

Personally, I think the template is big enough.

I'm adding {{check completeness of transclusions}} to the template for any volunteer well acquainted with London and Richmond to pore through articles.

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)