Template talk:Spanish Empire

Map

This map is completly wrong and POV! It states, wrongly, that the Portuguese possessions in South America were part of the Spanish Empire, that was never the case, not even in the period of the Iberian Union, between 1580 and 1640, when the two countries had the same kings. But it was not a union of the countries and their respective empires - it was a personal union of the crowns in one dynasty - the Habsburgs. I am changing the image. The Ogre 19:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Audiences

I am not sure how current audiencia is as an accepted English-language term for a Spanish political /judicial administration ("audience" is the appropriate but possibly misleading alternative,) but real should certainly be translated on every page using it to "Royal," which is what is meant. Also Ogre is correct in his point above. -LlywelynII (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audience of Lima

Finally, was the audience at Lima a separate entity from the Viceroyalty of Peru? If not, the currently dead link could be redirected to the viceroyalty article. -LlywelynII (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Size of template

The size of this template was MASSIVELY increased about a year ago. See how the template used to look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Spanish_Empire&oldid=694967308 And its current size: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Spanish_Empire&oldid=752139399

This isn't what templates are supposed to be for. It's not "Every possible link", it's an overview of related topics, in this case governmental organization & administration, not every person ever associated with it. I'd be in favor of just plain straight up reverting to the old version, although maybe a few of the additions can stay, and other additions can perhaps be spun off into their own new template. Notably, the "battles" section might be okay for a new template along the lines of "Battles of the Spanish Empire", but that has nothing to do with your average Viceroyalty. (And... separting by "won" vs. "lost" is super-weird and not normally done. Separation by war or date seems to make a lot more sense.)

@Vvven: , any thoughts, since I see you expanded this a lot? SnowFire (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tisquesusa: Are you okay with shrinking the template? I'm not really sure which of those intermediate edits even *matter* that much, is the thing. The vast majority of the template is getting chopped off, after all. SnowFire (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire: I have solved the problem of the huge template using collapsible groups, an option available just for this purpose; having extensive navboxes but not "in your face". Tell me how you like it. For us it's impossible to define what a reader is looking for in a navbox, so "shrinking it", meaning actively reducing the information contained in it would be pushing our POV upon the reader. What if some reader is interested in all the won/lost great battles of the Spanish Empire. Now that information is accessible via "Military", which would otherwise be only after clicking through a lot of articles. Tisquesusa (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tisquesusa: Ah, thanks for looking into this, but... I'm afraid I don't like it, and actually prefer the recent version that wasn't collapsible even more! Sorry.

So... the problem wasn't the "physical" size of the template. Some templates SHOULD display over a large area. The problem was that the template is too broad. This isn't POV, this is standard editorial discretion. There are hundreds, thousands of potential articles on the Spanish Empire that could be included - it's hundreds of years worth of history. The goal of a template should be for useful closely related links. If I'm reading about the Viceroyalty of Peru, I might also be interested in the other Viceroyalties. Links to random generals, not so much. The original version of this template - the one that lasted 10 years - was strictly about that. It was expanded in early 2016 to include pretty much anything. These are just too disparate a topic.

Additionally, readers never ever ever expand the "collapsible" things, they just ignore them. At least the recent version was open in how huge it is; now it just takes up space but requires a click before showing useful links, which is even worse than it was. There are projects that usefully use the collapsible template, but they do it via having at least one section auto-open wherever it's used - e.g. a military topic would have the military section already open, an economic topic the currencies, an administrative topic the other political organizations.

Basically, I think it'd be much more useful to split this template if you want to keep the other additions. There can be a "Battles of the Spanish Empire" template, a "Leaders of the Spanish Empire" template (though I'd find this one a bit questionable too, honestly, does Columbus need a link to Cortes?), and the original template which is closer to the version I reverted to focusing on the political & civil side. Would that be a reasonable compromise? SnowFire (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just noticed this template at the bottom of an article, and its size is absolutely insane. I think there could be a reasonable compromise that is somewhat (but not too much) larger than this version. And perhaps a specific military template could be built for the military articles only, with only the very most important military articles included on the main navbox. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Muisca_navbox, where different groups are added to articles based on their part of the general navbox. The other links are accessible via the other "chapters" listed in the navbox, but not "in your face" in the article class the navbox is in. So in the Altiplano Cundiboyacense article you don't get all the conquistadors, while in the Hernán Venegas Carrillo article you don't get all the geography. I think that is a decent, not too extensive and still capable of informative purposes solution to this 'problem'... Tisquesusa (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]