Template talk:TRS-80 and Tandy computers

Alteration of layout

I noticed that Izno altered the layout of the TRS-80 and Tandy computers template, and wondered what the rationale was behind the change.

It looks like it's meant to be pared down(?), but- IMO- the old version achieved relative completeness and clarity as to the relationship between the different models in a relatively modest amount of space. The new version is a bit smaller, yes, but it loses this.

In one edit it's said "just use original links", but the piped links were chosen to make clearer what they referred to (e.g. TRS-80 in the context of a template that covers lots of computers that are all "TRS-80s"!!).

Perhaps some of this appears obvious and unnecessary if one already knows a lot about the TRS-80 computers, but this isn't the case for many readers (who- for example- might not know that the Model III was essentially a later version of the Model 1).

Ubcule (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NAV and WP:NAVBOX, we link only to articles on the English Wikipedia. We do not link to sections, redirects, or red links (some exceptions in the last case). The point of navboxes is to navigate between articles. --Izno (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: The edit summary could have made this clearer in the first place. Simply linking to an entire (long) article without making clear which part is relevant to the case in question isn't helpful.

Red links are irrelevant here as there were none in the original version.

Redirects were used as section links, rather than linking to the sections directly, since the former is preferred for maintenance reasons.

I've skimmed the articles as much as I consider reasonable, but cannot see any explicit prohibition of section links. Is your assertion that "we do not link to sections" purely due to their omission? If the latter, then this isn't to say that you're wrong, but it does colour the argument somewhat differently.

Ubcule (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the WP:EXISTING principle: Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles (emphasis mine). Section linking inevitably leads to issues such as duplicate article links, deleted sections, and duplicated tables of contents in those articles. That's not what a navbox is for. The other problem with section links is that they will not produce the automatic bolding that navboxes use to indicate 'relative location' within the template itself (and as in the software; Template talk:TRS-80 and Tandy computers is a link). --Izno (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: I see what you're saying in general, and do accept some of your points (e.g. the bolding issue and what WP:EXISTING says about redirects).

That said, regarding "inevitably leads to issues such as duplicate article links, deleted sections, and duplicated tables of contents in those articles", is this the actual (consensus) rationale behind WP:EXISTING or your personal opinion?

I don't see that potentially deleted sections should be an issue if the links are via redirects and anchors rather than break-prone [[parent_article#literal_subsection_name|piped name]] style markup? In theory, articles could be deleted or merged as well. And I'm not sure why there would be "duplicated tables of contents"? Ubcule (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To make a fictitious example, consider

{{navbox |list1=[[Example]], [[Example#A|An Example]], and [[Bad Example]] (redirecting to [[Example#B]]), and, oh heck [[A Deleted Example]] (redirecting to a deleted section)}}

. This navbox does not serve the user above and beyond one which is solely {{navbox |list1=[[Example]]}} for the purposes that we have given a navbox (which is navigation between articles). Now imagine that instead of three links which do not lead to a single, obvious page in the wikitext, there are hundreds. It a) doesn't serve the user to have access to that many pages and b) doesn't serve the maintainer, who is interested in allowing the user to pick the obvious navigation target.

In the same fictitious example, you'll see three links to a section (via the redirect or otherwise), but these are sections that we (don't) know to be present in "Example". In this way, we have duplicated the table of contents present on any start-class or above page, but with something which does not auto-update to take into account article development. When we start talking in terms of lists of characters (for example), you quite rapidly see hundreds of such duplicate links.

inevitably leads to issues such as duplicate article links, deleted sections, and duplicated tables of contents in those articles is not about consensus but about what a navbox maintainer will see on the regular basis. When you look across many hundreds of navigation templates, you see these issues over and over.

is this the actual (consensus) rationale behind WP:EXISTING or your personal opinion I think it drives the page, yes, but you can ask to see if my rationales are far off. --Izno (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno:; Thanks for taking the time to reply and explain your rationale.

I don't agree that including links to subjects that happen to be covered by subsections (rather than articles in their own right) implies that we would- or would need to- include all subsections in the article, turning it into a glorified contents list. That wasn't the point.

But I feel we're blurring the line and crossing over into a discussion regarding our personal interpretations and opinions here, so I hope you won't mind if I solicit some third party input. Ubcule (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional; I've posted a comment at Wikipedia_talk:Navigation_template for this reason.

Just to clarify, I'm discussing the changes made between the original version and the altered version and the interpretation of the policy used as rationale for the changes.

(In terms of style, I'd also like to know whether paring down the link to TRS-80, rather than TRS-80 Models I, III and 4 or similar is necessary).

No hard feelings towards Izno, and I appreciate his input- I'm just looking to confirm how much of the above reflects the general consensus and interpretation of policy regarding navbar style. Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Navigation_template has renewed discussion related to this section. Altanner1991 (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]