Template talk:Broadsheet

Opposition
I oppose the creation and use of this template as unhelpful bureaucracy that is not traceable to a discussion or other evidence of consensus. The template was created on 8 September 2016‎. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but we don't vote before each template creation. I use it because this system works on the French Wikibooks for years: it can avoid to delete pages by integrating them into real books. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 11:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can assure you by experience that it's not unhelpful because it has already built some real books from abandoned dispatched stubs, which had no values separately. By avoiding a first a loss of time to read them and a second one to rewrite them as new pages or introductions to them. So deleting this template will complexity the aggregation process. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 11:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So what are those books that the template by its magic has "built [...] from abandoned dispatched stubs"? How do you know that the people who expanded the pages did so because of the template?
 * In any case, this templates represents your view how Wikibooks should be regulated and I oppose that view. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, there is a risk that this template will help establish a de facto policy that was not there before. This is one more reason to expressly oppose the template. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And the whole notion of "integrating" pages into books is ridiculous: it all too often proceeds by adding a prefix to a page and be done with it, which is why there are so many "books" here whose subpage content is rather disjointed. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that it's unfair to:
 * Say that there is not traceable to a discussion when one of the ten linked pages is Reading_room/Proposals.
 * Forbid the utilization of a template to those who are willing to recycle instead of delete, and have no other option for that.
 * Qualify of ridiculous a method I've already used, and that I consider useful from my experience on the different Wikibooks which represents approximately ten times yours (and I have no conflict of interest to apply it here, it's just convenient).
 * Apart from that, it's simple to check this template efficiently when a page has been renamed as a subpage and then broadsheet removed. An example here would be Computer Programming/Min-Max Normalisation, which could have been deleted otherwise. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 12:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Come on, Reading_room/Proposals has only you as the "participant" of the "discussion".
 * Computer Programming/Min-Max Normalisation is a great example: it has not been "integrated", only prefixed. And it has not been significantly expanded after the original creation. Since you were the person tagging Min-Max Normalisation and also doing the prefixing, this does not serve as evidence of usefulness of the template: the template did not help notify anyone but for the person who placed it there in the first place. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_Programming&type=revision&diff=3119730&oldid=3109324 That's integrated for me], this page is now at a best place than before, to be useful. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Placing a link to a new subpage to the book main page is no "integration" in any deep sense. That is one of the reasons why the question of whether something is a separate page or a prefixed page seems rather immaterial. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If an author doesn't want to see his page merged, I propose that he uses One-page book (or booklet if you prefer). JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 11:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)