Template talk:Archbishops of Canterbury

Needed?

Somebody said that this might not really be needed. I thought about and I think it should go. What do you all think, esp. in light of the new Archbshop box? SECisek 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I kinda like being able to see at a glance where one archbishop fits into the history. A succession box limits you to immediate neighbors; and a see also link taking you away to a big multi-page list is clumsy. Doops | talk 20:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Good enough. SECisek 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way it can default the template so it loads collapsed, at least until we fill out most of the articles? I would be bold but I don't know how to do this. Some of the stubs are crushed with this at the bottom of the page.

I also updated for usage consensus for the time periods so we don't have to go through that all again. -- SECisek 22:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrapping

Hmm, it seems that Rowan Williams is always ending up on his own line at the bottom of the template, after George Carey ·. This is odd because there is plenty of room on that line for the text. I have changed font sizes and have tried in both IE and Firefox and cannot figure out why. Thx. — MrDolomite • Talk 00:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Current layout

The collapsed state is consistent with other templates for English Church hierarchy and make for a better fit on stub and start pages, which many of the Archbishops still are.

As for the three-tiered chronological lay out, this too is consistent with the consensus that was established for the Featured List of the Archbishops. Is there reason to ignore these conventions on this nav box? I just noticed we went over both these issues in 2007 - see above. -- Secisek (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That is MUCH better - thank you for doing it. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 01:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the collapsed version also, much better. It makes sense to make the template layout match the list, too. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed status

Consensus above (three editors weighing in) was that this template should be collapsed. I've reverted back to that state. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The collapsed state is pointless it makes it harder (i no not that harder but still...) to find the names and anyway with multiple templates it closes itself anyway. The Quill (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that the above consensus was that it should be collapsed though. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

ok and... I didnt realise a consesus was for life or else i think the whole of wikipedia is stuffed. A NEW consensus can be reached so arguing that a previous consus without using an justification doesnt do anything. The Quill (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That was only in January of this year, so it's hardly for "life". Personally, I consider collapsed to be the better option, as it's less distraction at the bottom of the page. It's all a matter of opinion, you find it easier uncollapsed, I find it better collapsed. Often, the template is by itself, especially on the earlier archbishops, so it won't collapse itself in that situation. Let's see what others have to say on it. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I also would prefer it to start in the collapsed state. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)