Template talk:Morrissey

Splitting singles

I created Template:Morrissey singles back in January, figuring the sheer size and bulkiness of this template was good enough reason to boldly split the two. As I said in my latest edit summary, the singles section is a massive block of text taking up about as much space as the rest of the sections combined, and just having a list of 51 (at present) links all in one block does not make for good navigability. There's also plenty of precedent for this type of split; just searching "intitle:singles" under the Template space provides plenty of results, such as The Beatles singles, Lenny Kravitz singles, and Reba McEntire singles. Woodensuperman has made their disagreement clear, however, and so I'm bringing this to discussion now (though Woodensuperman should've done so ahead of me per BRD, but regardless). Does anyone else agree with me that this is a worthwhile split, or with Woodensuperman that the template should stay wholly together? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our readers are better served if all the links are in one place so everything can be navigated together, and we should only split if absolutely necessary. I don't see a justification here, 51 entries in a group is not all that many really. Also by splitting by albums in the way you suggest we lose the continuous chronology. There is also plenty of precedent for NOT splitting these navboxes by singles, see Template talk:Pink Floyd#RfC: Should the Pink Floyd singles template be restored? for example. --wooden superman 08:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the {{Lenny Kravitz singles}} split is ridiculous. It's only missing four links from {{Lenny Kravitz}}, so the split is completely pointless. --wooden superman 08:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only picked Kravitz as an example because it was one of the first that came up in the search. What do you mean by "only missing four links"? The template contains dozens of links to different singles.

I'm not so sure a discussion with just four responses that weren't even all no votes is the strongest consensus achievable, and Template:Pink Floyd is even larger than this one. I would've voted yes in that discussion had I been aware of it for the same reasons I support this split. I really don't see your case that it's better for navigation when the size of the template is as cumbersome as many of these get, and when the separate templates can still be easily included in all the same appropriate places without issue. The only difference made is that there's one more "show"/"hide" button to click on than normal, but surely one more click is worth the difference in legibility. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel strongly about the way I chose to split the singles, that can be negotiated. Reba McEntire's has them split by decade, and while those groupings are still a bit too bulky for my liking, it's definitely a massive improvement over having them all in one massive block. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you merged {{Lenny Kravitz singles}} into {{Lenny Kravitz}} there would only be four more links than there are now. The video albums and his family.

Grouping by decade is arbitrary, and should be avoided. Like I said, keeping the singles in a chronological order, and in the same place as all other articles related to the topic is the preferred outcome, so readers can navigate between, say, the singles and the books from the same place. This is not so cumbersome that separate navboxes are needed as demonstrated by the {{Pink Floyd}} navbox. --wooden superman 10:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: WikiProject Music, WikiProject Templates. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]