Wikipedia talk:Navigation template/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Constraint on placement

In the deletion discussion for {{Lists of Russians}}, I have mentioned this guideline to indicate the consensus for not placing this kind of navbox upon thousands of individual biographical articles, but on closer inspection, perhaps it isn't very clear about that. Is there a previous discussion about the "defined scope" of articles for a navbox? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There have been some discussions about a guideline that a navbox should only be placed on an article if the navbox has a link to that article. The idea is that the point of a navbox is to allow easy navigation within a specific set of articles. I have advocated such a guideline, but so far this idea has not really caught on. See #Use of Navbox in articles not in the Navbox above, and also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#Navboxes on non-linked articles. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should recommend it as a general rule-of-thumb, but can understand the reticence from others to add to the ammo for wikilawyers instruction-creep. There are too many useful edge-cases that would instantly become battlegrounds were we to make it a short/blunt guideline. It might be possible to get consensus for a weakly-phrased recommendation (with 1 or 2 clarifying examples, such as "not on thousands" [expanded]).-- Quiddity (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Guideline for when to use

Recently I have been seeing some rather useless navboxes. Is there a guideline for when to use a navbox, and when not to? --Apoc2400 (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

While some people debate if this is applicable to navboxes, I believe it is. Wikipedia:EMBED#Related_topics_.28navigational_lists.29. Basically it says you should only include links in navigational lists that would already be included in a perfect (ie completed) version of the article its being used on. -DJSasso (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

When should navigation templates be collapsed?

Another contributor has been placing a "state=collapsed" on every instance they come across of the use of various templates, across a broad range of articles, without offering any explanations.

Perhaps there is a guideline or policy or established convention that authorizes making this blanket change? But, if so, they haven't offered it, and I can't find any guidance on this, one way or the other.

They have told me it is my responsibility to explain why I think the templates shouldn't be collapsed. Off the top of my head, this seems backward.

So, is anyone aware of a policy, guideline, or established convention to collapse every instance of navigation templates, I'd be grateful for a pointer.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Without exploring whether there are any wp guidelines that bear on the issue, my view is that the template should perhaps be collapsed where the template size is overwhelming relative to the size of the article, as where we have a stub article and a template that exceeds it in size. But I would leave that up to the discretion of the consensus of editors on the page, and only collapse after seeking and obtaining consensus. I'll note that some editors appear to collapse template where the reason is IDON'TLIKEIT. That's not an appropriate reason.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The default is the default for a reason. It is what was agreed on by consensus as a sensible default.

The default is "autocollapse", whereby they automatically get collapsed when there are 2 or more.

Single/solitary navboxes should really only be manually changed from this default if there is a specific reason or consensus; ie if they're huge/overwhelming by themselves, eg Template:Catholicism on a stub article, or Template:Metabolic pathology by default is fully collapsed. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a specific guideline/policy saying it should be one way or the other, but I know a project I edit in makes sure all the navboxes on articles in its scope are collapsed because the project feel it keeps the page from being cluttered and the users from being overwhelmed by links. -DJSasso (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I might add, since I have a feeling that I know where Geo's question emanates from, that if an anti-Democratic Party editor were to go about collapsing every template, against its default, that related to the Democratic Party (for example), I would not think that appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never collapsed templates because of do not like. That's absolutely wrong and borders incivility. To make it clear the default of the templates has not been changed to "autocollapse". Only a limited number of templates have been changed by adding the "state=collapsed" to single articles where it makes sense.

I do have collapsed templates over the last month on various articles and there has never been any editor who thought that was not a good idea. That has been watched by thousands of editors and has been seen by millions. There has never been a problem with all these other editors.

To repeat it again the default value has not been changed and i agree there should be consensus if a template should be collapsed on a specific page by adding "state=collapsed" but i also think other editors should not only demand page long explanations in advanced what reminds me on WP:ownership. They could have at least have come up with a single reason why collapsing of the template would be so wrong. Coming to the article Aafia Siddiqui - the template is very large and leaves us with a wall of blue links to the large amount of blue links that are already at the end of the article what just overwhelms the reader. The template has a descriptive title and it is just one click on "Show" for any reader to open the template if s/he is interested. No good reason to overwhelm the reader with that many blue links. In addition to that one could see also BLP issues or issues with NPOV in this particular case. On the other hand no single reason has been provided why this particular template on Aafia Siddiqui should stay open. IQinn (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree w/what I've seen of you collapsing templates, which I've communicated to you more than once. I gather at least one other editor has said the same to you this week. I'm not certain why you say nobody has objected.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's wrong. I am speaking of all the other articles apart from Aafia Siddiqui where i added "state=collapsed" - that has been done over month. Watched by thousands but nobody thought that it was not a good idea on these limited specific articles to collapse the template. IQinn (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please accept my comments as applying to all your other collapses. I think that the sentiments on this page suggests that, while I respect that you dislike the template and its presence in articles, it is not a good idea to go around collapsing them unless they overwhelm the article (which is certainly not the case w/the rather long Siddiqui article).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No i do not accept because it is not true. You might provide diffs for your claims that where obviously false. Please be more careful that is not the first time you have made false claims in the last days. The template in Aafia Siddiqui is obviously overwhelming and has BLP and NPOV issues and it should be collapsed. IQinn (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about in general, and as to the very long Aafia Siddiqui page, anyone can see that the template does not overwhelm that otherwise very long page. Res ipsa loquitur.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes everybody can see that you have made false claims and that the open template is overwhelming and POV and should be collapsed. As well everybody can see for himself by looking at Aafia Siddiqui and other terrorism related articles that it is possible to turn articles into propaganda under current editing rules and missing editorial oversight. IQinn (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I urge you, again, in the strongest possible terms, to refrain from stating or implying that other contributors are lying.
• If you think the template is biased, why aren't you raising your concern on the template's talk page? Collapsing templates that, in your personal opinion, are biased, is not the recommended way to address bias.
• I agree that our articles can be vulnerable to POV-pushers trying to subvert the neutrality or usefulness of our articles. And I would be very interested in seeing how you reconcile your assertion that your unexplained edits were authorized retroactively because, they were "watched by thousands of editors and has been seen by millions.", with your statement above about the wikipedia's "missing editorial oversight". Geo Swan (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Once again i am telling you when another contributer makes false claims and fails to provide diffs for his claims then i will point this out. Ad hominum responses won't make these claims true. Please address the content issue instead of attacking people.

• Collapsing the template reduces the POV and violation of WP:NPOVand was a poposed compromise as i stated on the talk page. Please make more efforts to work towards consensus and try to compromise from time to time.

• Not sure what you want to tell in the last sentences. The collapsing of the template on selected pages where it makes sense over the last month has been watched by thousands of editors and millions of readers. Nobody thought it was not a good idea. You have reverted the collapsing of the template without providing a single explanation why it needs to stay open and you have failed to discuss this in a civil way on the talk page instead you started Wikipedia:Wikilawyering.

• As i said in my opinion Aafia Siddiqui, many of the terrorism related and Guantanamo detainee articles that you have written are not quality encyclopedic articles -- IMO many of them are pure propaganda. And looking closely at the histories of all these articles and related Afd's and talk pages one could easily come to the conclusion that they are written and controlled from a small group of paid people who's interest is not to write an encyclopedia but to spread propaganda. IQinn (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am against them being autocollapsed in most instances. There should be an optional setting that everyone can select in their preferences in which either all navboxes are collapsed or are not. Sebwite (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who replied here. I think the overall consensus here is that any unexplained insertion of "state=collapse" in an article where the template wasn't overwhelming the article can be reverted with an edit summary pointing to this discussion. As a courtesy to the contributor who has routinely been placing the "state=collapse" on articles, without explanation, I am prepared to wait a reasonable amount of time, to allow them to draft a meaningful justification for their action. Rather than have them cut and paste essentially the same explanation on the talk page of all those articles I would prefer the explanation, and discussion of the explanation, if any, in one central place.

1. How long do people here think this waiting period should be?
2. Would people mind if I asked for their explanation to be placed here?

Thanks again! Geo Swan (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No, i do not think that is the overall consensus - not at all.

I strongly reject your proposal. As i said above. I am not a fan of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering these edits are established over month nobody ever thought it was not a good idea. Nobody ever has ever done so. Let's follow common editing practice and do not start a edit war. To force other editors to write page long explanation for each edit in advanced what user Geo Swan routinely does falls under WP:Ownership. Please stop your disruptive behavior and let other editors also work on this set of articles. Thank you IQinn (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• My thanks, and my apologies.

My thanks to everyone who offered their advice here. I think it was excellent advice, and very promptly delivered.

My apologies for the personality conflict that has surfaced here. When I opened this thread I was careful to not name the articles in question, or the identity of the other parties. I had hoped that would keep personality conflicts from surfacing. My apologies that they did anyhow. Geo Swan (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Update

User:Iqinn's comments here and elsewhere seemed to indicate that they had not agreed to accept the advice offered here. And, in fact they continued to over-ride the default state of navigation templates.

Recently they modified Template:TrainingCamp, to make its default state=autocollapse, but without initiating a discussion as to whether this was a good idea, or indeed offering any explanation whatsoever. Geo Swan (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That is absolutely wrong. I did not recently modify the default state=autocollapse of this template nor at any other template. The editor who put this message up here User:Geo Swan has a long history of disruptive behavior including attacking other editors based on false information. IQinn (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I acknowledge misreading the template's revision history. My apologies. I absolutely deny that I am the one who has a long history of disruptive behavior. Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• On August 4th User:Iqinn unilaterally collapsed a template. I am concerned that this unilateral collapse does not comply with the discussion above. I am very concerned over User:Iqinn repeated assertions that the poorly explained or unexplained collapsing of templates is a way to address a perception of bias. Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am very concerned about user Geo Swan's continues disruptive behavior. He involves himself simply in disruptive uncivil ad hominum attacks instead of addressing the reasons concerning the content issue that are given on this talk page. He repeatedly has done this. I am very concerned about User Geo Swan's continues disruptive behavior and as he has been warned about it many times. I think it is time to may give him a block from a week to show him that we do not tolerate disruptive behavior. IQinn (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I'm requesting additional opinions at Template talk:Halloween series#Where to link?, as there is a debate about where to link a particular page within the template itself. Additional opinions are really appreciated, as I don't believe that many people actually monitor the template in questions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Links to sections and categories

Template:Dunfermline Athletic F.C. includes links to article sections (e.g. the "Honours" link) and links to categories (e.g. the "Players" link). Are either of these valid or should these be removed? I thought that navboxes were only supposed to link articles? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If the article that the sections are in is already linked, then I don't see a good reason to link the sections separately. A specific section link can be appropriate, if it is an article that isn't otherwise linked, but only the one section is relevant to the topic of the navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. What about links to categories? --Jameboy (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Category linking seems like a sensible way to go in cases where it would be inappropriate to link all the individual articles, either because there are too many or because the navbox topic isn't sufficiently related to the articles to justify putting it on each one. However, I've seen some people complain about category links being included in navboxes, particularly if it seems like category links are being used to pad out a navbox that otherwise might not have enough links to survive a TFD. --RL0919 (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Physics_operator also contains links to article sections. My question is, in this case, should the article that contains the section that the navbox links to contain the navbox? Xuanji (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on Template:Linux distributions

We could use some help at Template talk:Linux distributions. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

With the revamp or protection? I'm assuming revamp. Gary King (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I mean, the protection is also up for discussion, but deciding on what to do with the content is paramount. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Navigation templates question

Do navigation templates belong in general categories (that are not template categories)? For example, does Template:2010 FIFA World Cup belong to the general [Category:2010 FIFA World Cup] as well as [Category:2010 FIFA World Cup templates]? Christopher Connor (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No. If there is a category solely for templates, then the template should go in there. It's only a last resort to put the template in a category for articles. I'm not sure if this is exactly policy or not, but that's what I believe is the general consensus. Gary King (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Where was the Printable-discussion?

Can someone give a link/search to the discussion(s) about Navbox non-printable/printable? I'd like to read the arguments. -DePiep (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for guideline on Navboxes

See proposal for new guideline on Navboxes at: Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Proposal --Noleander (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Simple proposal

also posted at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Simple proposal.Moxy (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I have in the past and recently come across footer templates that have coloured links..this in its self it not a big deal. However i do believe that certain colours should be discouraged based on the fact the templates are to help people navigate Wikipedia. Specifically the use of the colours black and red. As black is hiding the link to most new or unexperienced Internet users. Well as for red..this means an empty page to most. SO what i am asking for is a talk about hiding links with black font... and think it should be a guideline that this odd colours should be avoided...due to the fact that new and unexperienced Internet users will not know that links also are in normal black text. I dont believe style should trump easy of use....What do you guys think ...should this be a rule/guideline?....thinking of the new userMoxy (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

i.e from the past pls note that titles are black but actually are links... the second one is what it looks like now after a discussion at the Canada project.

• I much prefer the coloured words; black links are not only confusing, but are essentially holding back additional content from the reader that doesn't hover over everything. The average reader may be interested in one of those links, but has no idea at first glance that they exist. I don't see any reason whatsoever for having black; it's not as if the templates look ugly in blue, and the titles are still differentiated from the main content because of the dark-blue colour. -M.Nelson (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd prefer full standardization and avoid the attempts to match a colour to the topic. All footer templates should have the same colour-code. Pichpich (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't care enough either way to really state a position, but I would note, its the underlining that denotes a link to me, not the colour. -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• The text color should not be changed in this way for links. (Recoloring should be up to the user, per accessibility, etc.) Don't the existing standards on color already cover this? (WP:MOSCOLOR Would appear to discourage the use cited above.) Perhaps just give a link to the existing color standards - WP:COLOR as well as WP:MOSCOLOR - (e.g. under needlessly decorative). Zodon (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Maximum entries rule of thumb?

As discussed in this proposal for template deletion, an editor managed to put together a template of 591 entries. Should there be a rule of thumb that discourages editors from creating navboxes that include more than 50 or so entries? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that really need to put a number on it. There is a lot more to it than that - the structure of the template and the type and size of links are also important.

• {{EMD SDs}} contains about 50 articles, and it is not overwhelmingly large (for instance, if there happened to be a couple of dozen more SD locomotives it would only add 2 more lines, and not be close to overwhelming). Even {{EMD diesels}} could probably have been made manageable using collapsing sections (e.g. 1 collapsible section for road power, etc.).
• Use of structure and collapsible sections can make a template more manageable, so more entries can be handled without overwhelming, and having together on one template can make an area more intelligible than splitting into pieces. The video game companies provided no meaningful structure/relation between it's components. If it had categorized the content in some useful way it might have been salvageable by division, or have had merit to keep (it was just divided into sections by alphabet).
  • {{Viral systemic diseases}} contains on the order of 120 entries (including some duplicates), likewise {{Viral cutaneous conditions}} has more than 50 entries. They are large, but they show relation/structure within a particular area. It is not clear that splitting them into smaller templates would make the area more easily understood or more navigable.
• Giving a number may encourage people to fixate too much on an arbitrary limit (can't add more than this, have to split that, ...)

If we do suggest a number, I think 50 is way too small. Many useful templates have more than 50 entries. My guess is that something on the order of 100 to 150 would be more the thing.

• A survey of the sizes of existing navigation templates would be helpful to inform such a discussion. (Particularly looking in areas like medicine, anatomy, biology, etc. - areas with well defined structures of lots of different items, which people have been coming up with ways of conveying for a long time.)
• With a larger guideline number (coupled with the general small guidance) hopefully people wouldn't be as likely to crossing the boundary, so it wouldn't generate as much overhead discussion, while still making it clearer that a 500 element navigation template probably needs extremely careful consideration.

To summarize: I think the general "small" guidance works okay without a number, but if going to use a number - 50 is way too small; would like to see some statistics on how many navigation templates have so many entries to inform such a discussion. Zodon (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Navbox placement

My understanding was that the use of {{Navbox}} navigation templates should only appear in the footer; but recently I've been finding several located in the body of articles, for example see El Paso, Texas and Las Cruces, New Mexico which use {{Navbox}} style templates at the end of multiple sections in the body of the articles.

Is there consensus either for or against placing these style of navboxes within the body of articles vs. within the footer? Or is this essay as strong of a guidance as is available? --- Barek (talk) - 00:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. First of all, "navboxes" come in a variety of flavors, including "sidebars" and "infoboxes". You are probably talking about the "footer" variety ... the wide, short box of article links that are commonly found at the bottom of articles.

Regarding your question about "is this essay the strongest guidance?", there is a guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates which is more authoritative than this essay, but it is silent on your question.

To answer your question: there is no prohibition against putting footer navboxes in the middle of an article. It is rather rare (I've only seen it twice .. one is in History of Jamaica) but it is not against the rules. Common sense says that a footer navbox should only be in the middle if there is a very good reason, such as an article that has two very distinct portions. Proposing a new rule that they are prohibited in the middle may be very time-consuming (and unlikely to succeed) so your time is probably better spent on those 2 or 3 articles where you see it happening, and just working on those Talk pages to move them to the bottom. --Noleander (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

While it's not definitive, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout places Navboxes at the bottom.—DocWatson42 (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

How to hide/collapse

Can anyone fix the default of this navbox so that its contents are hidden?: {{Oz}} Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the "state=autocollapse" parameter. This will cause it to be collapsed if there are any other navboxes on the same page, but expanded when it is the only navbox. If you want it to always show up initially as collapsed, you can change the value to "collapsed" instead. --RL0919 (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Finicky Navbox

Hi. i've made this template: Template:Interior Ranges of British Columbia It seems to work nicely on the template namespace, but when moved to an article, like Dunn Peak, it doesn't open up. Any tips/fixes? The Interior(Talk) 03:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved. The Interior(Talk) 01:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Book, category, etc. icons on templates

I was talking to AnemoneProjectors about book/category links being added to templates (especially to Template:Navbox musical artist templates, though this does apply to other types of templates too), and one thing he mentioned was that adding icons in addition to the links makes the template uglier and less neat, and after previewing a few templates without them, I agree with him. For example, on Template:Madonna, at the bottom there is a link to her book, category, portal, and WikiProject. The links themselves aren't the problem, but rather, the icons next to them: I previewed her template without the icons, and it looked a lot better without them. Is there any reason to have the icons on the templates other than for decorative purposes? I will admit to adding icons to a few templates when adding book and category links, but after that discussion and some previewing, I've been convinced that they are not necessary. (Finally, if this wasn't the correct place to discuss this, I won't mind this being moved to a more suitable location if there is one: I couldn't find another place to raise this.) Thanks. Acalamari 10:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Examples of non-Navbox musical artist templates with icons include Template:Doctor Who (which AnemoneProjectors mentioned in the thread on his talk page), and I just came across Template:Citrus. Again, when I previewed them without the icons, they did look neater. Acalamari 11:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Horizontal lists in navboxes

Many thousands of Wikipedia articles have navboxes, in which lists of links are presented, horizontally, without using list mark-up, but instead using {{·}} or suchlike as a kludge. This is semantically poor and has implications for accessibility.

I created {{Flatlist}} in an attempt to begin addressing this, but previous discussion (two-and-a-half years ago) petered out before various concerns were resolved. Now that CSS an browsers have moved on, I'd like us to find a solution. Please contribute to centralised discussion on MoS (accessibility). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

background color

Hi, I'm working on a nav box at Template:The Dark Side of the Moon. I would like to know how I can change the color of the entire background of the nav box into any colour I like - instead of the standard gray that seems to be used throughout Wikipedia. For this template I would like to make the background black and the text white (and other colors).Hoops gza (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Text size within navbox

Are there any guidelines related to text size within navboxes? For example, Template:2009–10 in English football uses small text within the parentheses, but navbox text is already small so it looks tiny. --Jameboy (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no guideline specifically about text size in navboxes, but there is WP:ACCESS and WP:FONTSIZE. I don't think either specifically prohibits the use of small fonts. However, if you think a template has usability issues, you could try adjusting the font. If it gets reverted, then WP:BRD. --RL0919 (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Linking to another navbox.

Is there anything wrong with linking to a another navbox with ? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

footnotes

How should footnotes be used in a navigation template? Does anybody know an example? Jason Quinn (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Improving the markup of lists in navboxes

In a recent set of edits, I converted {{Bach cantatas}} to use {{Flatlist}}, and thereby emit proper and accessible HTML list markup. The changes have no visual effect. Please bear this in mind when editing or creating other such navboxes, and use {{Flatlist}} in the same way. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Red links in nav boxes

Recently several templates with red links in the nav boxes have been deleted, over the objections of the editors who created the nav boxes and stated that they were working to change the red links to blue. I am interested in getting others opinions on red links in nav boxes. I think they are valuable. They were the motivation I needed to create almost every single article I have ever created. Now there seems to be a movement to eliminate nav boxes with red links that I simply do not understand. What's the problem with having red links in a nav box? I understand not wanting to have articles full of red links, but I see the value in nav boxes. The templates I am referring to were deleted on August 3rd. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_25#College_wrestling_teams Gerry D (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gerry's comment. Further, it bears consideration that there is not necessarily a clear line between templates for navigation and templates that present information. For example, many navboxes for sports coaches by team list not only the names of the coaches (providing for navigation in cases where articles exist, and eventually prompting the creation of any remaining needed articles) but also years coached and in many cases an indication when a person was merely an interim head coach. There are many templates which are primarily used for navigation, but which have some number of red-links, so clearly it cannot be said that every link in such a template must go to an article. In other cases limited top-level subject information is also presented in a template which is otherwise used for navigation; see, for example, {{University of Kentucky}}, which gives the establishment year, current enrollment, and endowment size. cmadler (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wikipedia:Red link that red links should be avoided in nav boxes. Since navigation boxes rely on the underlying articles for WP:RS it could be dicey to have a link there with no possibility of sources to show that it is relevant. Also, navigation boxes may be less observed than regular articles, so inserting spurious links may not be as obvious. By comparison, red links in articles (when used judiciously) are more helpful.

In the case in question the obvious thing to do, if one finds the navigation box helpful as a reminder is to create it as a user subpage. Then create the articles. Then create the template once the articles are up.

Another option is to put ideas for links that should go in the template once the article exists on the talk page. Many templates don't have much on the talk page, so not too likely to be buried. Also, any editor who sees that what was a red link on the talk page has now become blue could add it to the nav. box. Zodon (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Would leaving the "links" black be a better option in your mind? I am thinking specifically of templates that present a list of names of teams, parks, etc. that are part of a larger organization for example {{Southern Conference wrestling navbox}} Gerry D (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Having them black would be worse than having them red. It would be confusing to have items there which are not links, and yet are not descriptive text. Particularly confusing since the page that the template is on normally shows up as black. If it is going to be there it should be a link. It would also be a problem since somebody might create the article but forget to go to the template and make the link.

Another suggestion relating to the creation of articles. If you want to cover a particular group of articles, create an article about the group (assuming that the grouping forms some recognized entity that would meet criteria for having an article about it). That article could have redlinks to the specific team items. It could start with sections about each team, which could then be split off into separate articles once they became significant. That would give a place for coverage to mature, and until it does it would be more convenient than having a lot of stub articles. Zodon (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. I find it much more confusing to have a box full of red links than a well-defined collection of items with either black script or blue links. Especially the {{<location> topic}} boxes are prone to being mostly empty in terms of linkable articles – which looks unprofessional in my opinion. At the same time I fully agree with Cmadler that navboxes may as well serve the purpose of displaying information in the form lists, e.g. chronologies, lists of related topics, etc. Confining navboxes to linking existing articles as it is done now is a bad practice in my opinion because it easily creates the illusion that only those very articles are important for the general subject in the title bar. Most prominently, album navboxes for musical artists or book releases of authors should always display all published works once they are being used. Creating a navbox for such purposes implies that there is already a list of notable articles to present in line and if there is no article yet for one item in a series then it should be presented as plain text while the existing articles are linked. De728631 (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Navboxes should only exist to link related articles, never to present information, such as displaying a purportedly complete list of an artist's albums. Navboxes are not equipped to display sourcing, therefore such an act would violate Wikipedia's policy on original research. Neelix (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually navboxes display sources just fine. You put the reftags after the item, and the reflist template in the "below" field. This is used all the time in weatherboxes, see e.g. Template:Los Angeles weatherbox, which I had cause to edit recently (admittedly weatherboxes aren't navboxes, but they render the same way). I just tested this on a random navbox using preview, and it totally worked. I'm not sure how much it matters.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Summing up information is neither OR nor synthesis, see Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not summary. And whether a list of publications is purported or not has to be defined by reliable sources in the main article on the author/artist, of course not in a simple template tool that only aids in improving navigation. So I your think your agument on original resarch is moot. And as to using navboxes for information, from my experience there is already a widespread use of navigational templates that display such lists, regardless of existing articles, and I don't see anything wrong with that. There are infoboxes for key parameters of a subject but IF we use navigational templates displaying related articles in a line then we must not pretend that only what has been written about on Wikipedia can be found at all. The general reader expects us to be comprehensive and they would be fooled by finding only a list of three or so blue links in a template, thinking that was the entirety of published works by an author who has actually released six books and two essays. De728631 (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

@Nobody in particular: I think that at least some of the questions raised here, though surely not all, might be answered by this clause from WP:REDNOT on navboxes:An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referendums, presidents, sports league seasons, etc. Note that I have some self-interest here as I'm currently working on Template:Oxyrhynchus Papyri, which is full of redlinks and getting fuller even as it also gets more bluelinks through ongoing systematic creation of these articles.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, so there is already an exception on series and sets of articles. I don't see why unlinked albums and books should be excluded from navboxes when we can have sports events. De728631 (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

See also the guidelines for {{Navbox Musician}} at Wikiproject Musicians which state that a discography should be included. And that has long since become common practice, e.g. see all the templates in Category:English rock music groups templates. De728631 (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The link provided by De728631 above that is parsed as "guidelines" does not link to guidelines at all; it links to a WikiProject essay. Please see Wikipedia's policy on the role of policies, guidelines, and essays for an explanation of the differences. As per Wikipedia's guidelines on avoiding the creation of certain types of red links cited by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, red links are only appropriate in navboxes "where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set." As far as I can tell, this puts Template:Oxyrhynchus Papyri in the clear, so long as every one of those manuscripts is independently notable. While it is possible to include citations in navboxes, I have never seen this done and would oppose this practice because the references end up not on the navbox itself but in a list of reference list that is most likely above the navbox, which is very counterintuitive to readers. What SYNTH is not is also an essay. Wikipedia's guidelines on synthesis guard against misuse of references; in navboxes, there are no references, so synthesis does not come into play. My argument is not against synthesis; it is against displaying gratuitous information on navboxes without any connective purpose. The purpose of navboxes, according to Wikipedia's guidelines on navboxes, is to connect groups of related articles. If anyone disagrees with this statement and instead believes that navboxes should present information (for example, non-linked titles of non-notable albums to complete a discography), this issue should be raised on the talk page of the pertinent guideline where such a discussion will be official and will potentially change the guideline, not on this essay talk page where the discussion is not official and no guidelines will change as a result. Neelix (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I have now started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Please feel free to weigh in over there. De728631 (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Building navboxes section: incorrect info in table

The info on "state=collapsible" may be incorrect in the table at Wikipedia:Navigation_templates#Building_navboxes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Right? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Really big navboxes and loose connections

I'm having a bit of trouble at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 8#Template:University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame explaining why big navboxes with alphabetical lists of barely-connected biographical articles are not ideal, but my search-fu is weak and I can't find some of the discussions I've read in the past about relevant guidelines and rules of thumb. For example, I remember reading that navboxes should only include articles that would be found in a See Also section were it not for space considerations, but I'm not sure where I read that. Any help would be welcome. Powers ^T 00:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hanging bullets

As the example and those navboxes that now follow it stand, every line in the box ends in an extra, hanging bullet ("Item • Item • Item • "). I'm afraid I don't know how to fix this—would someone please be so kind as to help me?—DocWatson42 (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• This shouldn't happen on modern browsers, and isn't happening for all the ones I've tested. On older browsers the extra bullets are designed to be removed automatically using JavaScript. Can you tell me which browser you're using, and if you have JavaScript disabled? --CapitalR (talk) 02:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've tried Firefox 2.0.0.20 and Safari 1.3.2, both of which have JavaScript enabled.—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Currently at versions 8 and 5. Upgrade? Alarbus (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, looks like those older browsers aren't able to handle the CSS needed to take out the last bullet. The reason those extra bullets are there are due to a change in how Navbox bullets are rendered; that change was made to improve accessibility (specifically to help people using screen-readers). The extra bullets won't render for just about everyone, and it was decided that the accessibility improvement outweighed a few extra bullets for a small number of users. CapitalR (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well Firefox 2.0.0.20 is the last version of FF that runs on unmodified Windows 98. Similarly, Safari 1.3.2 is as far as you can go using Mac OS X v10.3. Anybody who only has access to computers running those operating systems may well find that Wikipedia:Navigation templates#Example navbox doesn't look right for them. I do sympathise as I have the same problems with my copy of Netscape 1.2N running under Trumpet Winsock. --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Firefox 2.0.0.20 is also the last version of FF that runs under Mac OS X v10.3. My computer is capable of running Mac OS X v10.4 (maximum version of Firefox = 3.6.16; Safari = 3.0.4), but I need to get a copy of it first. (Template:Chem's superscripted numbers also break under FF 2—they cause carriage returns—and a few uncommon Unicode characters are not displayed properly (playing card suit symbols and full-width Roman numerals.) Oh, well—I guess I had better get on that.—DocWatson42 (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

hlist for {{Navbox subgroup}}

This page mentions that hlist can be used for the {{Navbox subgroup}} template - yet this syntax doesn't appear to work. Here's the example give:

- As you can see the hlists are rendered vertically. Either these instructions need changing, or (hopefully) someone knows why this isn't working for the subgroup template and can fix! Cheers, Nikthestoned 14:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Can not get the template at "Vision of Disorder Live on WUSB Riptide Radio" to show up properly

I can not get the {{Vision of Disorder}} template at Vision of Disorder Live on WUSB Riptide Radio to show up properly. Any suggestions?--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks right to me now. I think you fixed it after posting here. Your initial error was specifying "Vision Of Disorder" instead of "Vision of Disorder"; but it looks like you've gotten it worked out now. TJRC (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Navbox shells

Is there a rule, or a rule of thumb, for when it is appropriate to collapse end of article navboxes within a shell? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Display problem

For some reason "Template:Navboxes" displays as the third navbox at Israel#External_links (it should be showing international memberships). When I copy the markup to another page it looks fine. When I view it as a preview edit it looks fine. What the heck is going on? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Same problem - only worse - at New_York_City#External_links. Any expert out there who can fix this issue? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a general display problem, maybe a Java bug? In the preview mode while editing these articles all navbox templates do look fine and are correctly displayed but the saved pages look weird. Try to edit Israel#External_links and immediately hit "Show preview" without changing anything. De728631 (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I see you tried something on New York City that didn't work. I'm not sure how looking at the preview will help. (By the way, the related information anchor provides target for a link from See also. So I've restored that.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. With hinting at the preview I wanted to point out that the code seems to work for just that, the preview, but then the output becomes garbled when the pages are saved. I'm not an expert but it could be something on the server side. De728631 (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Both these articles exceeded template limits--92.37.203.123 (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

SEPTA Routes

H, Can someone make a navigation template for all SEPTA-Routes? (see :Category:SEPTA) Thanks and Thanks for an answer Bob l´éponge (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Naming

I have a navbox that's a vertical sidebar. I want to create a version that contains the same info, but has a horizontal, bottom-of-the-page format, in order to accommodate articles that have a lot of images with which the vertical sidebar might interfere. What should I name the second version? The original is called Template:Ancient Roman religion. The one I want to create is at User:Cynwolfe/Template experiments. I plan to place a note at each template page explaining the vertical/horizontal alternatives. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Dab pages

There is a question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Template:Dalcassians about whether navboxes should normally be placed on disambiguation pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing links in a series

My perception of navboxes has been that only subjects that have articles should be in the navbox. So here is my question:

Are redirects to sections of articles permitted in some cases, and if so, what kind of cases?

On {{Pokémon}}, the main games (Ex:Red and Blue) are linked, and only some of their "directors cuts"(ex:Yellow, Platinum) have articles. To avoid confusion or the misconception that the others(Crystal, Emerald) are not actually real, or unimportant or something, should they be linked?. Another case is the upcoming game, Pokémon Black 2 and White 2, which as a sequel has not yet met the requirements to be split off to a full article.

There have been some talk about this in the template's talkpage, so I wanted to get an official say. In this article, it says ^{"In navigation boxes about musical ensembles, it may be appropriate to list all of the members of the ensemble, to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act, provided that at least one member of the ensemble is notable."} so I wasn't sure if that applied to this kind of situation.

Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional disambiguation info in navboxes

In an effort to point several talk pages to one location for a discussion, let's make this page the place to discuss this issue--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm having a dispute with another editor regarding abut what to include in navboxes. Anyone have anything to add anything on my talk page? --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

From the tone of the note and decision to quickly move to a talk page other than the ones I suggested, I gather you are a reg on this talk page. I am the editor. We are actually still determining what we disagree on, but I have created about 200 multimedia templates listed at User:TonyTheTiger/creations (see multimedia works towards the bottom of my templates section). To the best of my knowledge we currently disagree on two issues: 1) Including the date of original publication or performance in the title area, 2) denoting foreign languages in the navboxes. We still have to determine whether we conflict on some other minor issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• FYI, I have added the following to WP:WFs, WP:TV, WP:FILM, WP:NOVELS and WP:THEATER.

I have created about 200 multimedia templates (see multimedia works towards the bottom of the templates section at User:TonyTheTiger/creations) in the last 2 months. Many have dozens of links such as {{Cinderella}} and {{The Three Musketeers}}, while others have just a few such as {{The Old Man and the Sea}} and {{Gigi}}. I have been trying to make them look as uniform as possible so that if you go to the bottom of a page like Oscar Wilde they all look the same. On that page all of the multimedia templates were created by me. However, on pages like Charles Dickens or H. G. Wells many of the other templates were created by others. I have even tried to make the titles of the templates on these pages look like the ones I have created. After two months of work creating these templates, Robsinden (talk · contribs) has started undoing a lot of my efforts, but in a fairly consistent way. We have reached an impasse on two or three issues:

1. Should we include dates in template titles? See Oscar Wilde vs. Charles Dickens.
2. Should include foreign languages in multimedia templates. E.g. Rob removed many foreign languages. I think the old version was better, but Rob thinks only disambiguation justifies parenthetical text.
3. In the case of ballets or operas such as {{Swan Lake navbox}} and {{Cinderella}} should we include the composer.

Since I am pinging many projects, please hold all the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Navigation_templates#Additional_disambiguation_info_in_navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Its just too complicated the original way, just adding the years makes it easier. They're all films anyways. Also, it's too much to add Oscar Wilde in the Templates. I especially find it unnecessary to Bold his name.Lucia Black (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You are not being clear. I think you are saying add years but not foreign languages. I don't understand your comment about Oscar Wilde. Bolding his name is not an issue. We are debating about whether to include the date in the titles of the templates at the bottom of his page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding dates is acceptable if its the same film only made at different times, you probably have to reword your posts you added in the other wikiprojects because it seems the issue is adding foreign languages. The bolding is an additional issue as his name gets more attention then the rest of the template. whether or not you want to discuss it, its a new issue added.Lucia Black (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems very common in film templates to use years even if they are not the same name. See {{AcademyAwardBestPicture 2001–2020}} for example. When you say the same film made at different times, do you mean that the film must have the exact same name to have a date?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Lucia Black, did you have any comment on the date in the template title see the format at Oscar Wilde vs. Charles Dickens.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• No need for foreign languages or info if its silent or not in navboxes - navboxes are for links - not to inform or educate but to direct reader to information. As for dates they may be useful in directing our readers to the right period (article) if this is a concern because of repetitive titles. No stern rule for or against dates should be out there in "my opinion". Inclusion (merits) or exclusion (flaws) of dates should be determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual template. With that in mind - a small suggestion (a compromise) - why not hyper link (incorporate) the dates if they are important to direct our readers to the right page. Moxy (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• The Picture of Dorian Gray (1916 silent)
• The Picture of Dorian Gray (1916)

Like I pointed out about with {{AcademyAwardBestPicture 2001–2020}}, dates seem to be common in parenthesis. However, they seem to be unlinked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC

Good example - in a case were the template is a year by year listing of articles - yes the current format of unlinked looks ok to me. Dates are to help direct readers to the right period (article) and thus any format that helps in this regard (navigational aid) should be encouraged.Moxy (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Moxy, did you have any comment on the date in the template title see the format at Oscar Wilde vs. Charles Dickens.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No need to tell us its German - will find that out at the article. Are dates needed - they should be listed in publication order anyways right?Moxy (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The dates in this case should be incorporated into the links - since its in the titles.Moxy (talk) 21:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

My approach to navboxes is to always keep it as clean and compact as you reasonably can. If you can put all the links in one single group with no disambiguation whatsoever, then that is always to prefer - though a lot of the time you really can't, because there are too many articles or they are too different in character. When dealing with several articles with the same title, such as several adaptations of a book, the easiest and most attractive solution is usually to follow WP:DAB. Use the conventional disambiguation syntax to the extent that it is needed within the navbox. Smetanahue (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

the award template is completely different in that case as it shows which one won that award at what time. Regardless, the reason you posted was foreign languages. No one is arguing against years unless their added for no specific purpose.Lucia Black (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If the nationality or the word "silent" is in the article title, it should only be used in the template to differentiate articles from the same year. Otherwise, you shouldn't use any more disambiguation than necessary. And for consistency, the links should be piped, with the disambiguation following in parenthesis. I also don't think that the date is necessary in the template title; providing a link to the main article should be sufficient for anyone wanting to find out the original year. The name of the composer is iffy, as it could always be included in a line above all the groups with the "|above =" parameter instead. Just my 2 cents. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Template spam

We need to do something about all the templates that get spammed to every article that links unrelated people to each other like at the Steven Spielberg article - do we rely need 15 templates linking people unaffiliated with each other? below it what can be found on his page...template after template to unrelated people.Moxy (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I am not big fans of the lower tier awards like Empire and Saturn, I think that these awards serve well as navigational aids.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen {{Navboxes}}? Problem solved! –Quiddity (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess my point was not made properly ...thousands of links to non-related people is useless and may causes load timeouts and template limits problems. Can anyone explain how people like Chuck Berry and Itzhak Perlman are related to Steven Spielberg in anyway. At the best all these should be at List of awards and nominations received by Steven Spielberg you know were we talk about the awards!!!!! We have rules for templates (related topics) - this is a make work project for template spammers.Moxy (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There can be no ideal solution though, as the disagreements are (generally) based on subjective perspectives. I agree that having a dozen+ navboxes at the foot of any article is a page-size problem, and could be considered an eyesore. I'm pleasantly surprised to see that USA and Canada have gotten rid of their 20+ navboxes (down to 1, and 4, respectively). I do greatly value navboxes/sidebars/seriesboxes/infoboxes, but I agree that we can't put everything on every relevant page. Finding the balance requires effort and empathy.

In this case, you do suggest the perfect solution, which is that they should appear on Spielberg's sub-article. You just need to add a link into {{Steven Spielberg}} that points to List of awards and nominations received by Steven Spielberg, and then move the rest over there. Rarely is it so simple! –Quiddity (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to see categories spammed over theses templates that just mirror the cats anyways - {{AcademyAwardBestDirector 1981-2000}} is just a copy and paste of Category:Best Director Academy Award winners that is on the page already - how many times do theses unrelated links need to be linked in one article? Moxy (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Article count

Is it useful to include a count of the number of articles in a navbox or part thereof, as with Template:Chicago White Sox? The "seasons" section informs us that there are 112 season articles, though it seems that this number must be updated manually each time a new season is added. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What's the point? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Bloated Orson Welles navbox

An editor seems to think it appropriate to adapt the navbox into an entire list of everything Welles was ever involved in, including linking to Shakespeare plays, because Welles once directed a stage version, etc. There are also duplicate links to different sections of pages (trailers for Citizen Kane for example). Anyone have anything to add here? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Opinions sought

I am seeking opinions on creating the best navigation box for the topic of Pittsburgh Panthers football at Template talk:Pittsburgh Panthers football navbox#Navbox contents. Three possible examples are provided in addition to the current version. The current navbox seems to be bloated with dates and redlinks. Any comments would be appreciated. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Large navigation template

any ideas on how to reduce Template:Kolkata topics? Frietjes (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding links to navboxes within navboxes.

User:Spshu is insisting on adding interlinks between the following navboxes: Template:Marvel Comics TV, Template:Marvel animation and Template:Marvel Comics films. I have explained that we do not link to other navboxes within navboxes, but I am being told I am "making stuff up" because we do not explicitly forbid this in the guidelines. Please join the discussion at User talk:Spshu/Archive 1#Navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to add to guideline regarding the linking to other navboxes within naboxes.

There seems to be a lot of "footer" templates that provide a link from one navbox to another navbox. I would propose that we add something to this guideline explaining that links contained within a navbox should only be to articles as it seems that this is not clear enough! At the moment readers are being directed out of article space and into template space. See this discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The use of footer templates to link to other navboxes.

I've recently noticed that there is a trend toward footer templates navigating the user to templates of similar topics. For one example see ‎Template:U. S. Network Shows footer. These break all the rules regarding inclusion and transclusion at WP:NAVBOX and WP:NAVBOXES. A reader expects that a link in a navbox takes them to another article, not out of article namespace and into template namespace, which is not part of the encyclopedia, but part of Wikipedia administration. I'd propose that we explicitly add something to the guideline to advise against these. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

To change that, my English is not good, I mean that the role of this template should be written policy which, of course, need to remove some of the networks this template to streamline points.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#The use of footer templates to link to other navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Expanded Setting

I'm having a problem with a template setting, specifically Template:Stock characters. It's a series of embedded templates and I'm trying to way to view them all uncollapsed.

• {{Stock characters |state=expanded}} does work but only expands the first template.
• {{Stock characters |state=expanded}} is intended to show this template in its expanded (fully visible) state but it doesn't.
• {{Stock characters |expanded=occupation}} is intended to show a specific template (in this case, Occupation) within the template expanded but it doesn't work either.

Has this aspect of template design changed? Should the documentation be changed to reflect this? Or is there something wrong with the way I typed it out?
Thanks for any answers you can provide! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

fixed the expanded bug. I can add 'expanded=all' if you think it would be useful, but the |expanded= only applies to individual inner sections, while the |state= applies to the outer show/hide. there is currently no way to expand more than one inner section at a time. Frietjes (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

and added |expanded=all. if this is not what you want, I can remove it or change it. Frietjes (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

College basketball team navboxes

Please join discussion at the College Basketball Wikiproject for forming a consensus on the creation of a basic navbox for college basketball teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Fourth point under "Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles"

• Note: In navigation boxes about musical ensembles, it may be appropriate to list all of the members of the ensemble, to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act, provided that at least one member of the ensemble is notable.

This makes absolutely no sense. Why is it an exception to list members with no Wikipedia articles with the justification "to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act", while this rule is entirely ignored when dealing with songs and albums with no Wikipedia articles that can be justified with "to avoid the perception that the ensemble has released fewer songs and albums than it has in reality"?

I bring this up as a result of what happened on Template:F.T. Island, where another editor removed all songs and albums with no article entries. As a result, the template looks incomplete and entirely ridiculous, especially when members with no articles can remain because of the exemption noted above. It removes most of the band's discography: most of their Korean- and Japanese-language studio albums, most of their Korean-language EPs, all of their Japanese EPs, all of their other albums (live albums, compilation albums, and a cover album, in both languages), most of their Japanese-language singles, and the entirety of their Korean-language singles, both promotional and digital. I'm sorry, but this version looks absolutely pathetic in comparison to this version.

I'm well aware that the purpose of navigational templates is to link existing articles, but this inconsistent exception makes no sense at all to me. This type of needless bureaucracy is far more hurtful to navigational templates and to the readers of related articles than it is to simply list songs and albums without articles. — ξ^xplicit 02:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind if the members of the band without articles are removed from the navbox, too. The navbox is not intended to serve as a discography for an artist (unless, of course, each of the artist's albums has an article), that's what F.T. Island discography is for which is clearly linkable from the bottom of the navbox. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I also agree...many editors actually believe navboxes serve more than navigation, but to represent the topic as a whole. I think we should make it explicitly clear thats not the case.Lucia Black (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose of navigation template if you aren't even presenting topics what are related to the topic, even if the articles don't exist yet? The "that's what F.T. Island discography is for" excuse renders all music-related template like this one entirely useless with such logic. You're essentially saying that, even if all the articles existed, the template doesn't do the job the discography does, so use that instead. Removing 84% of the band's discography from the template isn't helpful to anyone who wants to quickly glance at a neat horizontal presentation of releases without needing to navigate a discography page that can be ridiculously long. — ξ^xplicit 02:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody finally brought this up. A navigation template should only contain working links to extant articles. Period. These are article navigation templates after all, not infoboxes or discographies. Text which does not link to a Wikipedia article serves no purpose within an article navigation template. I've never really understood why we list members in a bar above the rest of the content, and generally put all members' names whether articles about them exist or not. I've been thinking for a while that the title banner for any navbox should say "Wikipedia articles on <subject>" or "Part of a series on <subject>", the way that {{Socrates}} and some other navboxes do. That would make it clear that these things are lists of Wikipedia articles, not infoboxes or discographies. The members should then be taken out of the upper bar and placed in a section labeled "Members", only including those that have articles. For example, my version of Template:Black Flag would look like this:

--IllaZilla (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess this was the "good old days." Just tried to enforce it and was rv by someone pointing out Wikipedia:Navigation_templates#Navigation_templates_provide_navigation_between_related_articles. Where is the discussion for that? I guess I missed it! Student7 (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Large navigational boxes

I have started a thread at Template talk:The Beatles. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Geodesy sidebar

In the Wikipedia:Navigation_templates#Types section, it says that sidebars are useful for "smaller amounts of directly relevant links". Beside it is the Geodesy sidebar for illustration. Is this really a good illustration of the criteria? RockMagnetist (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Did I do something wrong?

See Template:Oxford Professor of Poetry. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

the smallest syntax error near the bottom. I've fixed it for you, and restored the name. Seemingly it can't live without a name either, choosy beast.--Lockley (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• @Lockley: - Many thanks for your help...totally missed that small error at the bottom. I saw one of the help pages mention an example without the name parameter, hence why I removed--since their example there worked (but didn't for me). I appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Very happy to assist! --Lockley (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:The Sun Also Rises use

{{The Sun Also Rises}} keeps getting removed from The Sun Also Rises. Does anyone care to comment at Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises#Template_removal?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Shortcuts

WT:NAVBOX brings you to this page which turns out to be the talk page for WP:NAV, but not WP:NAVBOX. Can people here get the Shortcuts reassigned correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

merging advantages from guidance essay into guidelines

I'd like to stop the duplication between the present advantages section and that of the guideline. Thanks for your comments. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible contradiction

The advice given under the "Alternatives" section (to not create a template that significantly overlaps with an existing category page) seems to contradict the guideline that overlapping categories and navigation templates are not considered duplicative. Is there a good way to reconcile these? Pigby (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

outline sections (not articles)

Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Outlines#outline_sections_.28not_articles.29. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Circumventing WP:EXISTING on a major scale

An editor has inserted {{American Revolutionary War}} into Committee of Safety (American Revolution). This appears to be a way of circumventing the limitation of templates to WP:EXISTING. The super-template includes all templates relating to the war, including the one which actually includes CofS. But the rest do not.

The problem is, without specific guidelines/policy, where does this all end? Can I include a supertemplate "American History." If not, why not? Where does macro inclusion of templates end? Student7 (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sport(s) navigation template names

Feel free to paritcipate in the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#Sport(s) navigation template names. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Linking to sister projects

Please comment Should we link to sister projects such as Commons or Wikiquote? It seems useful for readers and is common in the below section of navboxes. What do you think? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

We want our own articles in navigational templates. WikiCommons is okay as a generic template in itself. I think I've seen a generic one for Wikiquotes. While we don't want to deny readers access to possible references, we don't want to feature them as highly as our own.

In point of fact, they are not directly linkable (considered external links). Student7 (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Images in navigational box titles

please comment in this thread. Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Consistent formatting of template titles for navboxes of literary works

Please note the discussion happening at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Consistent_formatting_of_template_titles_for_navboxes_of_literary_works.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Red links

I'll humor a particular part of the comment made in this diff: Where is edit warring occurring? Why is that relevant to this essay? If someone is edit warring, it should be trivial to take care of the problem by taking it to WP:EWN.

As in my note in my recent revert, the text never had consensus for addition and was not there for the majority of the past 5 years; I'm not sure why you think it has consensus. --Izno (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Because the person edit-warring over it is using his own edits to the guidelines as a bludgeon to remove material from navboxes without consensus. We fought this out a year ago, now he's back doing the same thing. Trying to nip it in the bud without wasting everyone's time and energy at some drama board. Montanabw^(talk) 19:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

But the text in question never had consensus, so to suggest he's using "his own edits [..] as a bludgeon" (emphasis mine) is a good bit off the mark. I don't see how it was "fought out" a year ago, else the text would have remained in the essay... which it did not. There's no discussion on this talk page anywhere of the section in question from the time period in question.

If indeed he is editing in such a fashion as to be "edit warring", why has he not been shipped to WP:AN3 or WP:ANI or who knows? You have yet to provide who this person in question is (I suspect I know but I shan't go chasing for that information) or whether you have attempted to resolve the dispute.

To get past the behavior point of it, removal of red links from a navbox necessarily follows from the fact that navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia, not to red link pages (which aren't a part of Wikipedia yet). So I happen to disagree also with the attempted addition. Even so, I believe the text Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles still sufficiently says what should be said--that red links should be avoided... not removed or banned from all navboxes. (Take care that WP:IAR isn't the only rationale you provided for keeping red links in a navbox.)

That all said, this is an essay, and citing it in any discussion should be made with care. You don't need to agree with the contents of this essay, and certainly don't need to even follow the thoughts expressed in this essay, even though it is widely cited. The (most) relevant guideline is WP:NAVBOX, which from memory is silent on this topic. --Izno (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

What is quoted on this page comes from WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia". Redlinks are not "within English Wikipedia". They are also excluded at WP:NOTRED: "Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes [...] since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles". --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I suspect I'm the one who is the target of the bad faith accusations here. If you care to look at the history, you will clearly see that all I did was revert the text that never had consensus for inclusion as Izno points out. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

the substance of the 'red link' debate

I'm the editor who originally inserted the short amount of text which is the topic of this recent edit war. I didn't raise any strong objections when it was deleted in 2013, but since we're talking about it, I'm going to encourage a discussion.

Let's take an example. The template First Nations in New Brunswick. Oh dear, look, there are some red links in there. Of the fifteen First Nations in New Brunswick, five of them show up as redlinks.

To me, it is more responsible and conservative to allow those five redlinks to remain than to sweep through and delete them. This template represents a "well-defined and complete set of data". Assuming the contents of the template is correct and complete, a visitor stumbling across this template would be better served by seeing a complete list, even if some of them don't lead to completed articles yet. (If the template's list is not correct and complete, that's a different problem.)

The alternative, to come through and delete Eel River Bar Band and the other four, would create an error. It would leave a template which says it is comprehensive but is not. That's misleading. It leaves extra work and research to be done for a future editor to realize, oh, this template seems to represent 100% of the First Nations of New Brunswick as they exist in New Brunswick, because that's what it says, but what it truly represents is 100% of the First Nations of New Brunswick as they existed in wikipedia the last time this template was updated.

Another example. The filmography template for film director Charles Barton has been "fixed" already, meaning that a well-intentioned editor came through and removed a film that Barton directed but that doesn't have an article (yet). The film is Rose Bowl, 1936. That edit left a false impression. Nobody is going to confuse "Rose Bowl (1936 film)" with La Dolce Vita in cinema history but that's not the point either. The template says "Films directed by Charles Barton" which seems like it should be correct and complete, but it really only represents "Films directed by Charles Barton as documented by wikipedia January 17 2015".

I hope you see the difficulty. I propose a change to the essay which includes this language as previously drafted: "Red links should be normally avoided unless they are likely to be developed into articles. Red links may be appropriate when the navigation template is meant to represent a well-defined and complete set of data: geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first." Lockley (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I happen to agree with this view. The drama I endured last year by one editor who was obsessed about bidirectionality and redlinks was destructive and a waste of time. Sometimes, as with {{Horse breeds of France}}, significant research went into finding these and the navbox represents a tool that's being used to help port over articles from Fr. wikipedia. My example would be {{KentuckyDerby}} where not all articles are yet created, but one can use the navbox to tell at a glance which ones are and aren't. Classic case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. So this language is helpful guideance. As for the drama board argument above, trust me, it ain't worth it. Better to fix the problem here. Montanabw^(talk) 05:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree heartily. Some things have a set, finite number of entries, and all of them are likely to eventually get articles. A navbox is principally for navigating between existing articles, but these aren't cases where someone is just going to make up stuff. These are known, limited sets of topics, and including a red link or two only serves to ensure that readers are not misinformed. And as always, red links let potential editors know that an article needs to be written. I offer wonder if the push to remove red links without actually writing an article has contributed to the difficulty in recruiting new editors. Not only does it hid the fact that there's work that they could help with, but it's just generally hostile ownership-type behavior. Some people seem to forget that the English Wikipedia is never complete, and that there's no deadline. oknazevad (talk),

Precisely; even where it's more than a "couple" of redlinks (for Kentucky Derby it's 52 out of 141, but all the more reason to keep them! Montanabw^(talk) 16:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback. Let's leave this here for a couple of days for any additional opinions. Lockley (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

All right! Based on the opinions here, I'm restoring this text to the essay: "Red links should be normally avoided unless they are likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first." Lockley (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted it. A wider opinion is needed (I also note that @Izno: hasn't contributed). Otherwise you could conceivably end up with filmography navboxes or similar that have 50 films, only half of which are notable (because notability isn't inherited), but because of this essay we end up with a sea of red. Discography navboxes, which would follow the same rule, are even more problematic, as you can conceivably end up with a large number of singles by a notable artist, that aren't notable in their own right (example). Navboxes are not WP:LINKFARMS, they are here for one purpose only - to aid navigation. Redlinks and unlinked text actually hinder that function. You all seem to be missing this vital point. If you want to look at a filmography, look at a filmography article, don't expect a navbox to duplicate that function - that isn't what it's here for. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That said, I would probably agree with you with regard to {{KentuckyDerby}} (which the provision at WP:NOTRED takes into consideration), but not {{Horse breeds of France}}, where the redlinks have not yet proved themselves notable. --13:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, as a compromise, I've mirrored the text from the guideline WP:NOTRED, namely: "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, and the like." Hopefully this is non-controversial and satisfies everyone. This would except {{KentuckyDerby}} but would not except {{Horse breeds of France}} mind you, nor filmographies, bibliographies or discographies. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes, [[Rob Sinden, for two reasons. First, procedurally, you've come in after a discussion and changed the essay back to what makes sense to you. With all due respect for your contributions, you appear to have a habit of treating this subject as your personal territory. That's not appropriate. Second, you did not address the central argument. I'll repeat it. Deleting red links can leave an incomplete and misleading template. That's also not appropriate. It screws things up. I'd like you to advocate your position, join the discussion, and reach some kind of consensus with the rest of us before you make any further changes. That's only reasonable. Lockley (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And Rob, you lost last year with your rant about the Horse breeds of France navbox too. Drop the stick. And stop editing against consensus. Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason to describe it as a rant. I happen to agree with Rob and so do I suspect many others, so no, it doesn't make sense to drop the stick. --Izno (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, decisions are made by those who show up, and one person making 10,000,000 edits to a talk page doesn't magically make their opinion 10,000,000 times more valuable. It's still one person's view. And, more to the point, for anyone who actually creates content, redlinks are a blessing, because otherwise article creation means painstakingly searching wikipedia to add a link to dozens of other articles; if people redlink navboxes and probable places elsewhere, it is such a blessing to other users to instantly de-orphan articles and alert project members to an article's creation. Montanabw^(talk) 05:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this change which makes an assumption that redlinks in filmography navbox are allowed. There is strong opposition to this interpretation, so allowing in this essay is controversial. Copying the text directly from guideline WP:NOTRED however is uncontroversial. My position is based on two guidelines: WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia". Redlinks are not "within English Wikipedia". And WP:NOTRED: "Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes [...] since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles". It doesn't matter if filmographies in navboxes are incomplete, they are not supposed to be, that's what filmographies in articles are for. Notability is not inherited. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I will remind everyone what the core of WP:RED is about: " In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic...Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." In short, an obsession with removing red links or an insistence that one category or another should restrict redlinks in navboxes for arbitrary reasons is not conductive to improving the encyclopedia. The best solution to red links is to write the articles in question. Montanabw^(talk) 08:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Sinden, please just bore off and go play on the rides on Brighton waterfront. Your obsession with red links needs to stop. If editors are working towards filling re dlinks and you're hampering them you're being as disruptive as a vandal. Just let people get on with it. Red links are a good thing and show what is missing, even if not pretty.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA. WP:RED makes an exception for navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk)

Which you wrote and keep adding there to create a circular argument here. You tried that last year too, and it is inappropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 08:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you suggesting that I wrote it? It's been in the guideline for over 5 years, and I had no hand in it. Stop misrepresenting me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

If you don't drop it Sinden I'll be proposing a topic ban on you from editing navigation templates. And believe me there's enough people who would support it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, back to your bullying tactics again? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

this should not be controversial

The clause I inserted shouldn't be controversial. In essence it says that editors should not edit a navigation template to leave an incomplete and misleading result behind. Editors should not create errors. Easiest thing in the world, stating the obvious, what's possibly wrong with that?

I haven't seen one single counterargument based in logic, common sense, or a discussion among editors. To my eyes the opposition seems to amount to "oh, then we'll have too many horrifying red links", and "that's not what this other essay says", and "you aren't allowed to TOUCH THAT, because I own and operate Wikipedia:Navigation templates." All this noise is troubling and irritating but mainly off-topic. Is anybody going to explain why it's a good idea to create errors? Lockley (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you read my comments, above, before implementing your reversion? I am skeptical. --Izno (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Izno, actually, no, I only see your complaint from 1 June that there was no discussion about that clause. I responded to it by opening a discussion about that clause. Did you join that discussion? Nope. I left it open for a few days, got hearty agreement, made the change fair and square. I still don't see any shred of logic that would defend (for instance) deleting the four red links from Template:First Nations in New Brunswick to leave an inaccurate, confusing partial list behind for others to find later, untangle, research, and fix. If you're fighting for your right to "leave an incomplete and misleading result," that's an interesting position you're taking. You're invited to explain it. Lockley (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The relevant comments I made were starting at To get past the behavior point of it in response to Montana at 2:26 UTC on 1 June, and then you forked the discussion subsequently.

I did not join the discussion because I was AFK that entire week, and the change was implemented in the span of days... --Izno (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

After giving you two or three fair explicit invitations, I'll conclude, with respect and good faith, that you're unable to defend your argument. Lockley (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no, I think it's just not worth commenting in this forum any more, given a wide-ranging RFC as I advertised below covers this exact conversation. I was more interested in pointing out the facts just to nip this no "one single counterargument" "argument" in the bud, because it's patently false. --Izno (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the discussion at WP:RED does cover what's happening here, too. Montanabw^(talk) 05:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC

Users watching this topic/page are likely to be interested in WT:Red link#Revision proposal. --Izno (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC on "Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes when they are appropriately within scope of the navboxes topic?"

Hi All, there is a RFC on a topic of interest to this page at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes.3F. Please join the conversation, and help us figure out the role of links to other Wikimedia Projects in Navboxes, Sadads (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hypothetical

An editor creates an article that would fit into a navigational box template created sometime ago. The editor may be new or doesn't work much with templates, so s/he doesn't think about adding it to the Navbox. You come across the article and realize that it wasn't added to the appropriate Navbox. What would you do?

1. Add a link to the article into the Navbox template,
2. Slap an {{Update}} tag to the template? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Add it. Update tags are unsightly for a navbox. Just easier to add it (and add the navbox to the article, too!) oknazevad (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed clarification to WP:EXISTING concerning red links

I wish to modify section Wikipedia:Navigation templates#Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles to add verbiage to explicitly call out the fact that {{interlanguage link}}s are permitted when the language links are blue, even though the English link is red.

The first bullet of this section currently says:

Red links should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first.

I would modify this bullet to append the following text:

Use of {{Interlanguage link}}s that render as red links to articles absent from English Wikipedia and which have blue links to articles in other language Wikipedias are permitted, even though the English article link will remain red until it is written.

As an example of this kind of usage, please see Template:Holocaust France.

Next to each red link in the template above are one (or more) blue links. Many bi- or multilingual speakers use English Wikipedia, and to deny them the added utility of links to articles in another language simply because the article in English doesn't exist (yet), seems unfair to me. I would wish the guideline to be clear on this point.

Finally, the {{Interlanguage link}} template is happily written in such a way that when someone creates the English article, the whole template renders as if it were a simple wikilink to the English article. (That is, the no-longer-needed parenthetical language links are suppressed, leaving only the English one.) Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I would not support this, since this is not the purpose of navigation templates, confirmed by multiple RFCs. The use of {{ill}} or similar would IMO be best for a list on the template's documentation page (about potential additions) or in a WikiProject's space for group-working, or similar. I would personally remove each of the redlinks in that template, but that would be WP:POINT given the discussion. --Izno (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Izno: Do you know which RFCs they are? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Izno in opposing this addition. Navboxes really shouldn't even contain interlanguage links in the first place, as they don't help navigate within the English Wikipedia, and are unhelpful to readers who don't read that one language. Even that, picking one language over others, is a problem. It may seem obvious that any interlanguage links that might be in a navbox related to France would be in French, but what if another language has a far superior article? So, no, this should not be added to the essay, and indeed, those interlanguage links should be removed. oknazevad (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree. The public needs to be reminded that A. these topics exist in another language, B. that they are potentially topics for ENwiki, and that C. "Hey guys, somebody should write this!" One goal for Wikipedians is to get more people to contribute. Our need to encourage more people to contribute IMO far outweighs the need of the "purpose" of a navigation template. It should not only give people links within EN.wiki about a topic but it should also tell people what's missing in the topic.
  • "Even that, picking one language over others, is a problem." - For some topics that are general, it is a problem. For others that have specific linguistic or national ties, it is not a problem and one can usually predict which article will be the "best" in the topic based on the national ties.
  • Sometimes topics are unavailable on EN due to notability/sourcing rules that make a topic untenable on EN but tenable on another Wiki (for example the Japanese Wikipedia has tons of articles on North Korean schools but, because sourcing doesn't exist, they can't have ENwiki articles (yet?))
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Redlinks in navigation templates

There is an anonymous user who keeps removing redlinks from Template:International schools in Pakistan, saying that I must create the articles first before putting them on the template.

Right now I don't have the sources I need to create the articles, but the public needs to be reminded that these articles should exist. If they are removed, the public will forget that these topics (in this case closed schools in Pakistan that were shut due to security concerns post-9/11) and it will all go down the memory hole. I don't want that to happen.

Wikipedia is supposed to have red links, is it not?

@96.48.244.69: WhisperToMe (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

You could of course put them on the talk page, but if you are positive they are notable, and the numbers don't overwhelm (I can see that they don't), then yes, they should be left in the template. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is supposed to have redlinks, but navboxes are not, on the whole, unless a case can be made for exception. Navboxes are for linking between existing articles. See WP:EXISTING, WP:WTAF and WP:NOTRED. In the case you mention above, as notability has not been established, they should be left out. And on a side note, the flags should probably go too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Cast lists in television/film navboxes

A question arose regarding the including of cast and crew links in shows, and by extension film series, at a few articles I watched.

It has been pointed out that a number of deletions of cast and crew navboxes in 2006 and 2009 seem to set a precedent for removal of cast and crew from a show or film series infobox (and subsequently removing that navbox from each page of cast and crew). [1]. There are two far arguments that come up in these TFDs to consider:

• Our articles on TV shows and films are generally already highly crosslinked, appearing to make the navbox with additional cast/crew lists seemingly unncessary.
• For a prolific actor or producer (eg like J.J. Abrams), were we to include every navbox from the TV and film series they were involved in , the navbox area would be packed to the gills. (JJ here, I'd count at least 7 additional navboxes relating to the works).

Both are fair points, but I think both can be countered today:

• While things can be highly crosslinked, this does not always make for good navigation between articles since one has to figure out where that information is crosslinked in the body, whereas with a navbox, you can find it much faster, serving the purpose of being a navigational aid.
• We have better template processing systems that allow for nested and collapsed navboxes so that while for someone like JJ all seven show/film navboxs would be included, they can be nested into a collapsed title "Shows and Films", and a reader that needs to then navigate by show can easily do so.

I do think there is a need to make sure not every conceivable cast and crew, even if they are blue-linked, should be included, only those at the top of the importance to the work : this would be your things like executive producers, directors, lead writers, top-billed actors, and major recurring role, but avoiding all bit parts/one-time cameos even if the person is notable. (eg for Star Trek: The Next Generation, people like Patrick Steward, Jonathan Frakes, John De Lancie, and Whoopie Goldberg should be listed, but not people like Kelsey Gramer or Malcolm McDowell.) It also should be noted that not every show has such infoboxes, so we're not likely in any danger of being IMDB v2.0 (there will be connectivity, but not to the degree IMDB has).

However, I do seek input to see if this is within the intent of infoboxes or if this type of practice should be discourage, to an extent codifying the past TFDs. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

As this is an essay talkpage, I don't think this is the correct venue for the discussion. But for the record, I strongly oppose allowing cast and crew in film and TV navboxes, for pretty much the same reasons we don't allow them in categories per WP:PERFCAT, as well as the clutter issue. You probably want to have it at WT:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Make sure you notify the Film and TV Wikiprojects too. Also note the subject has come up more recently than this. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 11#Film crew navboxes. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsinden (talk • contribs) 15:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I did notify the TV and film projects, but just added one for the actors/filmmakers too. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. While we're discussing this, it's probably worth discussing appearances on reality shows, panel games, TV presenting roles and the like too. Creating navboxes for these, or including these people in the TV series navboxes causes the same problems as cast and crew, not only does it cause over-proliferation of navboxes, but also puts WP:UNDUE weight on that appearance. Someone who is notable for one thing then ends up with a slew of navboxes on their page for something which is a minor part of their career. Look at Ulrika Jonsson for example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Just thought I'd drop in to point out the most common reference I've seen used when discussing this is this discussion from 2009. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Is that the discussion back when I was relatively new, and took a pro-inclusion stance before being shown the error of my ways?  ;) --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

To be clear here at one time you did think that helping our readers navigate articles was a good idea ...what changed your mind to the view that orphaning a certain type of article from nav-templates was goo idea? -- Moxy (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• I don't understand why some editors think it is inappropriate to have hosts/judges/presenters in navboxes for television series. Such roles are prominent and essential, and having them included in the navbox seems to make perfect sense to me. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Among other things, it creates navbox clutter and puts undue weight on something that could only be a minor part of someone's career. The people in question are only tangentially connected to the the other people in the navbox - their only connection may be just a single appearance in the same show. Therefore it fails a number of the points on WP:NAVBOX. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The "minor part of someone's career" is a poor argument at times, though: the one diff that brought this to my attention was effectively this [2] which removed the hosts of the various versions of The Amazing Race from the navbox. I can't speak to the others, but Phil Keoghan's career is significantly tied to the show, and cannot be considered "minor". --MASEM (t) 14:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This is one minor example in the big scheme of things. Imagine the mess if we allowed a Star Trek cast and crew box per your example. You mention directors on this. There were probably 100 people who directed episodes of Star Trek. Some of these would have been first-time directors, or people early in there career. They get included in the navbox, the navbox gets slapped on their page. Now they have a Star Trek navbox on their page, but this director is subsequently known for so much more than directing a single episode of Star Trek. This Star Trek navbox now gives undue weight to Star Trek on the page of this hypothetical director, so other navboxes are created. However said director has had a long and prolific career in television and has directed episodes of thirty different television programmes. They now have thirty different navboxes on their page... THIS is why we don't include people in navboxes... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

What would the bottom of James Sheldon's article look like, for example... [3][4] --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

What you will find is that instead of aiding navigation, these navboxes will now have the opposite effect, and make navigation so difficult, you may as well do away with the navboxes altogether... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

There does need to be some discrimination in the navboxes; just because a person had a bit part of directed one episode doesn't mean they are significant enough to be included in the navbox list of persons or that the navbox for that series on their page. And with that type of discrimination in place, I would find it hard to identify any person in the tv or movie industry that would have been so significant in so many different series to need more than , say, ten infoboxes. Take someone like J.J. Abrams. He's done a lot, clearly. But when you consider what are actually navigatable topics, that's primarily 3 of his TV shows (Alias, Lost, and Fringe), and 4 movie series (Star Trek, Star Wars, Cloverfield, and Mission Impossible). The other things are all one-off productions or that lack a wide range of articles due to the limited impact of the work to necessitate an inbox. And when you wrap and collapse these, that's not too difficult to get around. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the big problem editors all over have with Rob Sinden rational...that is Rob Sinden odd implantation of looks over functionality. Because of your missuses of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL our parent articles that would benefit from the related links inquestion dont have them becasue a small group of editors dont like the navbox in some sub articles. Why not leave the links people would like to see and just remove the box from offending articles? Would be best to apply WP:BIDIRECTIONAL with some basic common sense. Editors that write the content your orphaning from navigation i think know best about the way to handle navigation between the articles they write. i am sure most dont think a fly by template editors that does not add edit summaries knows best. Dont you think its odd this keeps coming up...do you have any plans to solve the ongoing problem?-- Moxy (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again. If you're not going to put the navboxes on the bottom of each page, they serve more as an infobox than a navbox, as they are not being used to navigate, which is the the sole purpose of a navbox. And we already have infoboxes with all of this information in, so there's no point. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You must be aware that many templates are made to help facilitate navigation from a parent article to sub article that have different navigational aids to even more sub articles. Again a common sense approach is what we are looking for...not a dogmatic approach. -- Moxy (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But by drawing that line, we then have to decide whose contributions are more significant than another, which is not our call to make. And as far as Abrams goes, navigation between his films and shows is more effectively covered by a single navbox, {{J. J. Abrams}}, rather than a slew of navboxes further cluttering up the bottom of his page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Though by consensus it should be rather easy to define fundamental rules for inclusion and exclusion (eg: principle actors of a show should always be included; one time cameo appearance should not), leaving a range of grey-area cases but which should defer to avoid clutter through consensus discussion for that navbox. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

We already have a long established consensus not to include any of them, and a great number of cast and crew navboxes have been deleted in multiple deletion discussions. If you're seeking to change that consensus, I think you'd need to start a proper RFC at WT:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers as this will have a horrendous effect across Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus can change - 2009 was eons ago in WP time, and technically we've gotten better tools for navboxes. Right now, it's trying to judge if there's a potential if this 2009 decision stands as well as if it appropriate from the navigational aspects for WP in general. If there is reason to question or update that consensus then we can do a VPP RFC. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually our guideline about the projects positions is an example of what 'not to do see WP:ADVICEPAGE . I dont think the majority here would ever think a project can restrict a type of article from being in navboxes. Your project does not own the content inquestion let alone have the authority to tell other projects what they can and cant have in the articles and templates they work on. In my view this is really steeping over the bounds and leads to conflict for no reason. I dont understand why a compromising thoughtful approach as suggested by Masem is not your projects goal...over a stick no discussion approach....that is simply not they why we do things here -- Moxy (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd certainly support revisiting this issue, and having a discussion again. A lot of things would have changed between 2009 and now. I completely understand not listing every cast/crew member, but roles like presenter/host, executive producer, director, etc where appropriate should definently be included. In Template:Survivor for example, links to the series developer, creator, production company and US host were removed. I don't see how they create clutter, and they are essential key personal. In that template, every winner is listed, and I would argue 20-odd winners (most of whom would have done nothing notable apart from win the program) are a far less important inclusion than the creator and host of the program. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Executive producers, production companies, etc should never be included as they are too tangential to the topic in question. I can see an argument for creator, but that's it. I agree with you about winners, and contestants, but if they are non-celebrities, then their notability only stems from the appearance on the show. I personally would like to see the end of reality show and panel show navboxes that only contain individuals as all these do is create clutter, and clutter hinders navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "my" project. I don't have a project. However, what there is is established consensus for not including these individuals in navboxes for the reasons I state. But if you want to try to change that consensus, please go ahead with a proper RFC in an appropriate venue (and not tucked away here on the talk page of an essay). --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think navboxes create clutter, they're at the very bottom of articles and if there are multiple navboxes they can be combined into a show/hide container, and excluding a particular genre seems discriminatory. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If there are so many of them that they have to be hidden, then this is a hindrance to navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do you say they are a "hindrance to naviagtion?" Surely navboxes make navigation to related topics easier, and on mobile devices they don't appear anyway so display shouldn't be an issue. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that there are enough examples of including these names causing too many navboxes to suggest that it shouldn't be recommended. Only in special circumstances, such as Gene Roddenberry for Star Trek, would including cast seem necessary, and for cast members a TV navbox will usually have a link to a cast/character list. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a very bad door to open, per all the arguments above. It's a nice fantasy that inclusion could be controlled to the degree that only "important" actors and crew would be placed in navboxes, but we already have issues keeping excess cast members out of infoboxes. Every entertainment industry bio article I've ever seen already includes at least an IMDb-style filmography list, and many obviously have healthy career overviews in prose. You're insulting readers to suggest that they can't, for example, easily find a link to Clue in Lesley Ann Warren, and vice versa. Nesting navboxes is fine, but for prolific actors, writers, or directors you would end up with dozens at the bottom of articles. That is the opposite of helpful. I believe the behavior of following links is also based on coming across them as you read a paragraph or list, not as much going to an article to simply find a jump to another article. I'm actually surprised by the Ulrika Jonsson example, I had no idea there were show navboxes listing contestants.— TAnthony^Talk 15:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The "insulting to readers" argument would be reason to get rid of all navboxes, arguably. (Realistically, if you are on article that is included within a navbox, it should be possible to reach every other target in that navbox by at most two clicks through prose links, if the interwiki linking is done as per our writing and style guidelines, but no one is suggesting getting rid of navboxes for this reason). And I would argue that while there are prolific actors and directors and other crewpersons, not every work they touch is golden to require a navbox - again,I point out that with someone like JJ Abrams, while there's about 30 works he's involved in, only about 8 of those actually have navboxes, the others being one-off or critically-overlooked (read: not widely notable to have exhaust article coverage) works. (That said, I definitely would agree that reality show contestants in navboxes is pushing it)--MASEM (t) 15:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The whole project is working towards the wrong direction.....just look a at Clint Eastwood#External links ...simply not sure how hundreds of links to unrelated articles is better then displaying hes work. People talk about clutter...but yet all we see is spamming of unrelated templates all over instead of directly related links.....this is all ass backwards.-- Moxy (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I totally get what you're saying, and at face value, navboxes would of course be potentially helpful in all the ways you suggest. But I'm wondering what exactly the criteria for being navbox-worthy would be, because if we are allowing actors, writers, and directors, then every film or TV show with an article has a need for one. I presume that if only eight of Abram's projects have navboxes, it's because only those eight have related topics/articles, as in the franchises Alias, Lost, Star Wars, and Star Trek. Change the rules, and I don't see why Felicity and Armageddon should not have navboxes, as they are notable and their casts and crews contain many notable people. I can't imagine a realistic, enforceable guideline that could allow a navbox for one film or TV series and not another.— TAnthony^Talk 18:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

And then, how could we disallow individual actor templates, when essentially this is what we would be creating in reverse with film and TV templates?— TAnthony^Talk 18:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that, taking Armageddon as an example, that we would not make an Armageddon navbox that serves only to list out the principle cast and crew and no to few other articles (eg like the soundtrack). But when the infobox already exists to navigate between a good number of articles that cover every other aspect of a show or movie franchise, that adding in the principle cast and crew that are tightly associated with it is acceptable. (Determining where to draw the line on "tightly associated" is a separate issue altogether.) The navbox should not go out of the way to support a large number cast members, again where that line is to be drawn being a consensus based discussion. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think having navboxes for anything where the relationship does not define the links is a poor idea. Something like {{Star Trek: The Next Generation}} is fine because each entry is defined by the subject topic, but to create a navbox for the cast members and then slap that template on each actor's article seems like overkill to me. It is a reasonable assumption that somebody who looks up Jean-Luc Picard might also be interested in Worf, but I don't think that holds true for Patrick Stewart and Michael Dorn who have both had substantial and notable careers beyond Star Trek. For what it's worth I would cull those award templates for Clint Eastwood too. Navboxes have a place, but they work best for grouping together a set of links that form a complete set defined by their relationship to each other; once you allow tangential or incidental relationships then you end up with something like the Clink Eastwood link farm, and a selective approach to inclusion like the one proposed above. Betty Logan (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the awards templates should probably also all be deleted, as, per WP:NAVBOX, they do not "refer to each other, to a reasonable extent", and they also create unnecessary clutter as demonstrated. But that's a separate issue and maybe a topic for another day. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You think there are too many Award templates in Eastwood's article, check out Meryl Streep lol.— TAnthony^Talk 15:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear. How anyone thinks these aid navigation is beyond me! Award navboxes with ensemble cast are something that have always bothered me too - see {{ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVDrama 2010–2019}} as an example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Request: Can someone summarize in one single boldfaced sentence what the question of this thread is? Softlavender (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Simply: Should key cast and crew associated with a television show or movie franchise be included into navboxes dedicated to that show/franchise, and thus also have those navboxes included on that cast/crew member's WP article? --MASEM (t) 16:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Family members in nav boxes?

I am wondering about the appropriateness of the recent addition of family members (albeit, notable individuals with their own articles) to {{Carrie Fisher}}. Feels wrong to me.— TAnthony^Talk 17:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)