Template talk:One-page book

Opposition
I oppose the use of this template created on 9 July 2016‎. It is unhelpful bureaucracy that helps neither readers nor contributors. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But otherwise how could we identify the pages which are too small for Split and too long for broadsheet? JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 11:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (after editit conflict, and therefore responding to things that in the meanwhile were removed.) I don't see why pages should be so identified in a systematic manner. Whether a page is to be split is more of a matter of taste than necessity, and should be decided by the contributors of the page or book rather than by some sort of centralized process.
 * How the template has "built some real books from abandoned dispatched stubs" is beyond me; I thought it takes people to write books. I don't see how the template pointed people to these pages better than stub. For "stubs", there is that stub template. You placed the small book template on Bash Shell Scripting, which does not need expansion or splitting. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This template banner could be removed to let only the category, useful to identify these specimens. I just tried to propose a simpler system than w:Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment, by exporting what has worked on the French Wikibooks. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 12:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how small has anything to do with quality, either. Bash Shell Scripting is quite a decent draft now; I don't see how placing to it a template that says that it is "small" helps improve its quality. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * One service we offer on the French version, is to allow to read a book according to its size, for example if you have only one hour to kill. Moreover for the editors, these small books could become a starting point of something more ambitious. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is very useful but even if it were, a template placing a distracting box at the top of the page is not useful; what would be useful is classifying books by the number of words without use of distracting templates. But even then, people who have time to randomly read Wikibooks pages as long as they fit a length criterion are probably some bored unproductive people I could not care less about. Let's provide really useful content instead, without various badges of shame that it really does not deserve. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

✅ I have renamed the template and category from "Small book" to "One-page book" and removed the distracting box (to let only the category). Now I hope that it could classify them, without hurting or forcing anyone to use it. There is another particularity about these pages: they're usually not supposed to be the only page in their own book category, but located in a subject category. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 07:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)