Template talk:The Legend of Heroes series

Template organization
I'm amenable to options here, but I'm firmly of the opinion that second-level subgroups are a solution searching for a problem that preys on Wikipedia editors' tendency to love categorization & subcategorization. It's one thing if there's a truly huge number of entries, but there really isn't here. If you feel the extra horizontal space helps - would having 3 "level 1" subjects work? Same thing as what's there currently, but remove the Trails -> subseries style it has currently. SnowFire (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m open to other solutions too, I just felt that the version you made felt too busy with the the games long titles looking rather busy all together like that. Sergecross73   msg me  13:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * New proposal looks good. (If only all disputes were this easy, eh?) Sergecross73   msg me  16:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I moved Zero and Ao to the spinoffs/other group, since I don't see the purpose of having an entire grouping with a single entry. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that’s...worse. I’d generally agree, I don’t like sections for one entry. But this move throws off the template both conceptually and chronologically. It’ll be a maintenance nightmare. I think we should move it back. Zero and Ao should be split someday anyways. They’re two separate games. Sergecross73   msg me  17:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Well I don't disagree with you, I just figured it still wasn't worth having them be alone in a single group. However, if the games were split (as they ideally should be), then this wouldn't be an issue. your thoughts? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Dissident: It's not a spin-off, so that's right out. 1-entry groups are unusual but just a style nit, and style is less important than accuracy.  As per my previous revision I'd be fine with a single combined Trails list, it's not super-long or anything, but Serge objected - if we're going to split it out by phases/sagas, we need to do that, even if that means there's one section that has a single article.


 * Seeing your latest comment... splitting the article due to a template is also right out.  Template organization shouldn't affect article content.  (Insert usual reminder that these templates don't even display on mobile browsers, and mobile browsing is like 80% of all browsing.)  There's no prohibition against 1-entry or, rarely, even 0-entry sections.  Just leave it as is IMO.  SnowFire (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your change. As I noted above, accuracy is more important than style. Are you saying that the Trails games aren't part of The Legend of Heroes? I think your split-off should be reverted and this should go back to one, unified template. I really don't see the advantage in splitting the template up. SnowFire (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * you have it backwards, I never said that these games were not a part of the LOH series and I didn't split the article starting with the navbox, the navbox was split due to the standalone article (the intentions differ). I did this following to the Persona model (sub-series within a larger series) due to the series receiving independent coverage (articles specifically mention the Trails series and how it's a sub-series within LOH/Dragon Slayer). Their sales data is also being tracked separately by Falcom, meaning even they consider it more than just LOH. Would you also support Persona being merged with the Megami Tensei navbox for the same logic? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Both SMT and Persona are big enough serieses that a split off is fine; there's just a lot more SMT games than there are LOH games. Don't get me wrong, I'm an active anti-fan of huge sprawling templates where an editor decides to stick in absolute ton of links, but the size of the template a month ago seemed perfectly reasonable to me?  Anyone else have any thoughts here?  SnowFire (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is true, but is your only argument against the split a size issue? And even if so, both navboxes aren't really bare now because of it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)