After closing the deletion discussion, I have cut this template to restrict its scope. The old template is pasted below if someone wants to create other smaller templates with more limited scope. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 04:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I still find the list of collected toilet types here a bit arbitrary. Under which criteria do we decide which other toilet pages are to be mentioned here? Some of them are really not important and only very small articles, is it really worth linking to them? EvM-Susana (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
It is worthwhile linking to all articles relevant to the topic, even if this reveals gaps and overlaps in article coverage. Small articles which overlap with other articles and are unlikely to grow much, should be tagged for merging. Part of the benefit of a navbar for a topic is that it enables any interested reader or editor to easily find related articles. Better visibility of topic structural issues makes it more likely they will be addressed by somebody; in the meantime, the navbar helps everybody to navigate the somewhat muddled existing structure.
I am thinking of adding in coverage of urinal-related topics, mostly in a new subsection. There already is some overlap (e.g. Urine diversion, Dual flush, Pollee, etc.) and trying to make a clear distinction between toilet-related versus urinal-related topics in separate navbars isn't that useful. The alternative of setting up a separate navbar for Urinals probably would result in a very small navbar, with unclear criteria for inclusion in one or another, or both. Reify-tech (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think such a sub-section for urinal-related topics could be useful. A urinal is not the same as a toilet, but it does fulfill a fraction of the function of a toilet so there is clearly a connection.EvM-Susana (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)