Wikipedia talk:Navigation template

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

I have requested mediation at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, to diffuse this conflict. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: Are you kidding me? The discussion had not concluded here yet. In fact, when I saw it earlier today, I wasn't even clear on where the problem was and was hoping for some clarification from either one of the two original commenters. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair complaint. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

So far, all the other editors have ceased editing, to discuss this conflict - one that you're the only party on one side of - while you're continuing to push your angle and take the opportunity to edit war. If you genuinely wish to settle it, then alright, we can settle it here. But, you could at least have the courtesy to step back like everyone else and at least discuss it, rather than continuing to revert and try to earn brownie points by complimenting editors who say they wish for us to keep it here. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@TurokSwe, now you're reverting Moxy's edits?? You are way out of line with your edit-warring and seriously need to step back. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring (not intentionally at least). I reverted Moxy's edits because they were unwarranted, were without explanation, and engaged in an edit war. I've been engaged in the discussion from the start, however the discussion isn't even going any further, and I don't see why I ought to cease improving the articles while waiting for responses to this particular discussion. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no vested interest in this discussion but my name came up so here I am. I have another concern spamming of a blog with no content added and no edit summaries pls see -Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#‎Blog spam.--Moxy (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

And as I keep saying, AVPGalaxy is still a recognized and trusted source of news in regards to the Alien/Predator franchise and has been for a long time and repeatedly referenced, and the information contained within its articles isn't even disputable (controversial perhaps, but not disputable). - TurokSwe (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Noting that I have added more articles covering the news. Just to put your mind at ease. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it may be best to slow down....you have added a Facebook page and a tweet as sources recently. Could you read over WP:Identifying reliable sources before proceeding.--Moxy (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed wise to take some time and reflect over things, and once I put my mind to something I tend to work rapidly. Might I ask which "Facebook page and tweet" it is that you're referring to? I am reading the linked article, yet I fail to understand what your problem is supposed to be (especially now that I've added further sources to the news, which I'd figure would be even harder to refute). - TurokSwe (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem with the content as evident in my action only removing the website.. it's the source is being used that is a problem ...Pls read over WP:RS/SPS... no fan sites no blogs no Facebook etc.... don't rely on fans for information.... because we need to get information from reliable trusted sources that are vetted.--Moxy (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I would generally agree with that concern, however I would also have to acknowledge that there are exceptions which might be difficult to reject. - TurokSwe (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon requested several times that we have discourse here, before the discussion at DNR resumes. Unfortunately, it does not seem like you are grasping what anyone has stated, as you're continuing to edit-war - the latest being JzG - and make unconstructive edits, with the argument being that others are "unwarranted", "vague" or undisputable. The DNR resort is for stepping back from issues, to have moderated discussions - which you are showing no regard for. If this does not change, this may warrant being taken to AN/I. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 15:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Where have I been supposedly "edit-warring" and where are these supposed "unconstructive edits"? The instances in which I've used words as the ones you describe is when people have removed material without adequate justification. Not to mention that I don't expect to cease editing the articles because of a discussion that's going nowhere and especially when others keep editing the articles and removing the contents in question. It's interesting though (almost suspicious even) how you so consistently seem to keep track on every person who's edits I've decided to revert... - TurokSwe (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

And for the record, diffs to this behaviour is what I've been waiting to see. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. - TurokSwe (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Even after altercations with other users 24/7, you aren't connecting the dots at this point? Okay, let me break this down for you. The Alien, Predator and AvP pages had navboxes that correlated to the separate franchises, with the few points of intersection including Alien (creature in Alien franchise). SNAAAAKE!! picked up on that you had been adding all three navboxes to all the pages when they came across Alien vs. Predator (arcade game) (diff), which is why they brought it here as you reverted. *Treker picked up on the issue, as well, and removed the uncorrelated navboxes from List of Alien vs. Predator (franchise) comics (diff), which you reverted, as well. After I was informed of this issue, I removed the navboxes from Alien vs. Predator (arcade game), which you reverted again - making for edit-warring, as you had already tumbled with SNAAAAKE!! prior to that. The same is true for Ellen Ripley (diff), Predator (franchise) (diff), Aliens vs. Predator (2010 video game) (diff), Aliens versus Predator (1999 video game) (diff), Aliens Versus Predator: Extinction (diff) and so on. And, you're still adding and re-adding navboxes - the last was Ellen Ripley, a few minutes ago. And, this does not even scratch the surface of the other conflicts you've gotten into with other editors - on these very same pages. Over the AvP Galaxy issue, you've been edit-warring with @Moxy: on Alien (franchise) (1, 2, 3), The Predator (film) (1, 2), Predator (franchise) (1, 2, 3), Alien vs. Predator (franchise) (1, 2). Then, when it was alerted on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the administrator JzG stepped in to clean up the pages, you tried editing warring with him on Alien (franchise) (diff), Predator (franchise) (diff), Alien vs. Predator (franchise) (1, 2) - and now avpgalaxy.net has been blacklisted for user-generated content and edit-warring. Does that clear things up a bit? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Noting that I only reverted said edits because they were still unjustified, regardless how many individuals disagree with the actions. - TurokSwe (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That's extremely clear now.

If an article does not appear in a nav box, that nav box should not be on the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you yes. This editor keeps ignoring this no matter how many times I've told them. It's getting to the point where I feel like they are just stonewalling me.★Trekker (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I ask again, must they appear directly or indirectly? - TurokSwe (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

After all this, you're editing warring with *Treker, saying "Let's discuss this", as if nobody's said anything at all (1, 2). That does it. No more. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 16:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I never implied nothing had been said, but no adequate explanation had been given. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Putting links to articles in the sidebar

For example, in this revision of the Michael Jackson article, the "Death" category links to Death of Michael Jackson. This seems weird to me, like putting links in headers, and it's inconsistent. Is there any consensus about this? Popcornduff (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That's normal. --Izno (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Common, normal and acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to both of youse. Popcornduff (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Redlinks in templates

Take a look at Template:Roland_Corporation. As you can see, it has a whole bunch of redlinks. I fear editors are just using the template as a list of every product Roland has ever made, regardless of whether articles exist or should exist for these products. Am I right to be suspicious here, is it acceptable to include lots of redlinks? Should I remove redlinks to things that don't require articles? Popcornduff (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I would leave that template alone because the redlinks are not excessive. If you knew (from familiarity with the topic) that some of them really were unsuitable for an article (no hope of satisying WP:N), you might remove those but it's significant effort without much benefit. There was a large discussion somewhere (probably on this talk) about whether there should be a rule that red links should be removed from navboxes. I can't find it at the moment but I think it ended with the conclusion that I support, namely that plausible red links are useful pointers that encourage editors to write articles on the missing topics. That only works if the red links are for plausible articles. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The consensus is in WP:Red link: Red links may be used on navigation templates with links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or they may be removed from the template. --Izno (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Thank you Izno, that's pretty clear. Popcornduff (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Input regarding changes to navigation template (inc. section-level link removal)

I don't know if this is the best place to ask, but I'd appreciate some third party input on the discussion at Template_talk:TRS-80_and_Tandy_computers regarding changes to that template and the interpretation of policy behind the changes. Thanks. Ubcule (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Navboxes listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Navboxes. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Feedback requested at the Template "Germanic peoples"

Is there a chance that we could get some community perspective at the said template [1]. Interested editors seem to be split into two parties who have very different perspectives, and the talk pages shows years of concerns.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Shining some light on Licht

What should be done with {{Licht}} and {{Karlheinz Stockhausen}}? All the links in the former are in the latter, and every page with the former also has the latter, adjacent.

A recent TfD, with just three participants (one of whom was the proposer, me) resulted in keeping the former template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Stable article list

I'd like to make people aware of a module (Module:Article list) that I have written for use in navboxes which has several features that might be useful. The module uses Wikidata to generate stable links. In particular:

• Links to articles that are moved will automatically update in the template
• Articles which are deleted will automatically disappear from the template
• Common words can be automagically removed from the piped label by using a |remove= parameter
• Potential articles can be loaded, which will automatically appear if/when the article is created

I'm working on a few more improvements like automatically sorting the links into alphabetical order, and allowing an option for redlinks to be displayed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Quick update. The module is working well and I've been adding it to a few templates experimentally. The alphabetical sorting is now implemented too. I am ready for some feedback with a view to deploying it more widely. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Relevant RfC

I have just started an RfC relevant to this guideline, which may interest editors working with navigation templates or navbox style guidelines. Chubbles (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:EXISTING

@Austronesier @Ahmet Q. @Rsk6400

Template talk:Human genetics has raised a crucial debate: can navboxes link to sections (in other words, subpages)?

Consensus: navboxes should not include links to sections, because section titles change frequently and so result in the unusual premise of a navbox without ubiquitous linking. Section links are usually encouraged because they are at least able to default as article text if they are broken, whereas navboxes cannot do this because they usually only contain links.

Proposal for added text: WP:EXISTING should be modified to include a new bullet point. The bullet point should read, Section titles change frequently and so should not be placed in navigation templates. Doing so causes the issue of unlinked text in a navigation template, which should not be the case.

Additional comments: Redirects allow for section linking however this should not be abused, and would have to be seen as dishonestly bypassing the guideline. Altanner1991 (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a word about the last point: redirects to sections (especially of the {{R with possibilities}} kind) do not necessarily bypass the guideline if they are well-documented (e.g. with a comment line in the source such as "[[XXX]] redirects here"). There will always be reckless editors who don't care about technical comments and just mess things up, but the sensible average editor hopefully will care and reflect changes to the anchor also in the manually "backlinked" redirect. –Austronesier (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should add anything to WP:EXISTING. WP:UCS is enough. And since I had some experience with Altanner1991's way of discussing, I will also add that I'll stand by my view even if I won't take part in this discussion any more. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

IAR is hardly the rationale to give unless under dire circumstances. And Rsk, your contentious stubbornness is frankly worthy of a sitewide block. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not okay with allowing these loopholes to be used for topic-based or even politically-heated biases. The policy should be clear. There has been no other careful argument for why the policy should remain the way it is. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If you are concerned about a section heading breaking because it was changed, then why not advise people to add an anchor per WP:RSECT? Then the link will not be broken. If you add the suggested hidden text about what links to that section, people would even update the navbox if they make major changes to the page (like splitting it into a different article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it could link to sections, but I think either way a decision needs to be made so that section links are not made or removed differently depending on the NPOV context for each page. The contradictory application of editing could anger inexperienced editors who feel they are being sidelined using made-up policies.

So I also advocate linking to sections. But this needs to find consensus so the policy can be applied uniformly across all articles. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Do readers use navboxes?

I have been wondering for years whether non-editors use navboxes at any significant rate, and I believe that I have identified a way to measure that, if anyone's interested in it.

The tool to use is wikitech:Provenance. The link in the navbox would need the full URL with the ?wprov= key, wrapped in Help:Plainlinks (so it looks right on the page). Then there's the matter of figuring out how to get the data back out of the other end of the system, so this isn't as quick and easy as clicking on a pageviews tool. But I believe that it's possible to do, and I believe that the regulars at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) could figure this out pretty easily. It might even be possible to change something in the main navbox template itself to do some of this work automatically (like marking all the links in navboxes as plainlinks, rather than needing to mark each one separately).

I don't have any plans to do this myself, but I wanted to leave this message in case anyone else was interested in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Images

WP:NAVIMAGES demands that navbox images "should have a justification to appear", but fails to explain what that justification should be. As it stands, it only gives licence for more fastidious editors to go around removing images that clearly illustrate the collective theme of the links grouped in the naxbox. What are the criteria for including (or removing) an image? Cnbrb (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a good question. I was wondering about this with regards to the template on Artificial intelligence, whose image is clearly at odds with WP:NAVIMAGES, but where I think it is generally thought appropriate to have a picture. Does WP:NAVIMAGES still reflect common editorial practice? Felix QW (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Section linking vs Redirect linking in navboxes

@Austronesier, @Ahmet Q., @Rsk6400, @Altanner1991, @WhatamIdoing

Hi all. I don't mean to pick at a scab but I'm honestly curious about this and would like to ask so I can understand the pros and cons of both and, hopefully, avoid making a headache for other editors. I figure this might be easiest if there's a concrete example so I'm thinking of the Template:Modern US Infantry Weapons navbox. Compared to the Human genetics navbox template, I guess this example has a bit of an advantage in that entries in the navbox are clearly defined--if it's a weapon used by current day US infantry, then it should be included, while the Human genetics template has a bit of a harder task when deciding what should be and shouldn't be included in the navbox.

As far as I can tell, the two options to linking to a section of an article that doesn't have a distinct article is to link to a redirect which anchors to that section or to specifically link to the section in question. The example I'm thinking of is the MK 20 SSR entry. The MK 20 SSR is a variant of the MK 17 rifle of the FN SCAR family of weapons. The entire family of weapons isn't in use by the US military so I wouldn't want links in the navbox to suggest that by just piping the MK 20 SSR link to the base FN SCAR article. Currently, the navbox links to [[MK 20 SSR]] which is a redirect to the section in the FN SCAR page that discusses the MK 20 SSR. The problem there is that, like WP:NAVNOREDIRECT states, using redirects won't bold the entry in the navbox if the reader is currently on that page. So if someone was reading the FN SCAR page and opened the Modern US Infantry Weapons navbox, they'd be confused because they wouldn't see any of the links blacked out and so they might not know which things on the FN SCAR page are part of the modern US infantry's arsenal (ie. MK 16, MK 17, MK 20 SSR, MK 13 EGLM).

The alternative of a targeted anchor link being placed in the navbox is what was discussed above. While renaming and deletion of sections will inevitably break these links, it seems like it's still a net positive. If the link is broken, it just defaults to the top of the article page. Not ideal but at least the navbox will still show which entries are bolded out and thus addressed by the page they are on. So, linking to sections seems to be the lesser of the two evils to me.

I guess there is the third alternative of simply removing the entry altogether by citing WP:Existing but it seems like a waste considering the MK 20 SSR is a discrete entity and there is a good amount of information on the topic at hand (MK 20 SSR) on the linked page (FN SCAR). The MK 20 SSR might not be noteworthy enough to warrant its own article but it's still a concrete object compared to the less well defined entries which WP:EXISTING seems to be aimed at preventing (like preventing the navbox for Template:Health in China becoming bogged down by entries for, say, "Lung cancer in China" (which just redirects to Lung cancer#Epidemiology) and "Prostate cancer in China", etc. etc.).

I look forward to hearing others' thoughts on this. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that whichever you will choose will be fine.

I don't worry much about the lack of bold for redirect, because clicking it should take the person to the correct section of that page; some of them won't even notice that it's the same page. If there is a realistic chance of the redirect being turned into a real article, then I think the redirect has additional value (i.e., we don't have to change it later).

If you decide to link to the particular section, then just add one of the {{anchor}} templates. Editors are very cooperative about preserving such links, and even if the section heading gets change (which is unlikely for some subjects anyway), then the anchor works like a duplicate of the old section heading (or whatever anchor text you use, e.g., an abbreviation).

There isn't a single perfect solution for this. There's always going to be someone who will tell you that you did it wrong, no matter what you do, but I could see either being appropriate, and I could even imagine that using a mix both in the same navbox would be sensible. Maybe you use a redirect for one link, because you think it's likely to be expanded some day, but maybe you use an anchor for another link, because it's on a popular page (=the one you're most likely to look at the navbox on) and you guess that it's unlikely to be turned into separate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Holy hell, how have I been on these last few months and not come across or realized that the anchor template exists? Thanks! And thank you for the advice. I like the idea about using the redirects and anchor links judiciously depending on which have potential to become their own page. I get the feeling that there's a lot of imperfect solutions on wikipedia and in computing in general. Well, heck, in life in general lol. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a big wiki. Nobody can learn it all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Ordering multiple navboxes

Didn't see anything in the archives, but is there a preferred way to order multiple navboxes that are placed at the bottom of articles? I assume the obvious of most relevant (on top) to least relevant (on bottom) but thought I'd ask. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

EXISTING and TV episodes

WP:EXISTING suggests we list all members of bands when at least one is blue linked; it seems a reasonable extension to apply the spirit of that rule to episodes of TV shows. For reference, Template:Torchwood fits this: most episodes have articles, but the two from season one that don’t are still listed. Meanwhile, Template:House (TV series) appears to only list the episodes that have articles, but this could give the impression that the episodes listed are the all the episodes of the season.

Would anyone oppose extending the guidance here to include collections like TV shows? Or perhaps editors here have alternate ways to view this. — HTGS (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd oppose this, as a navbox is for navigation, not information. Any unlinked text does not provide a navigation function, and just clutters a navbox. --woodensuperman 11:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Question about musical ensembles and former members

Per WP:EXISTING, while existing articles are strongly favored for navboxes, there can be times when we include non-existing article links or text. E.g.:

[R]ed 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.

And

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.

What about including former members of a group as well? As you likely know, the convention is to have current members listed with <b> tags and in the above section followed by a listing of former members that do not have the <b> tag. Should former members of a band be included in a navbox, even if not all of them have articles? @Woodensuperman: ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

As I read it, the only reason to include the non-notable members is to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act. There's no navigational benefit whatsoever to included non-notable former members, it's purely unnecessary clutter. Navboxes are for navigation, not for information. --woodensuperman 11:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"[R]ed links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the guideline regarding redlinks in filmographies, etc, as some works are simply not notable. Even filmographies in articles are sometimes only partial filmographies, so this seems strange in a navbox. WP:WTAF should always be the preferred option, so that notability can be established prior to inclusion. In any case, a well-defined set is North/South/East/West, not sometime members of a pop band. --woodensuperman 11:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Relevant BRFA

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SdkbBot 4. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates § Questioning WP:BIDIRECTIONAL

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates § Questioning WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Problem with redlinks per WP:EXISTING

I would propose that we remove the reference to filmographies in the guidelines regarding redlinks, as this is not how we do things in practice. A complete set of data isn't the same as a list of works. We don't even have redlinks in article text when the work is unlikely to meet notability guidelines, and exclusion in this kind of navbox isn't misleading. Let us not forget that the sole purpose of a navbox is to navigate between existing articles. A complete set of data is maybe a list of years, etc., but even still, I think we could probably lose the whole part of the guideline on redlinks, these are routinely removed from navboxes, so the guideline needs updating. --woodensuperman 11:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

An example of where this guideline is causing a problem is here --woodensuperman 11:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the essay you link to in this section's title is not a guideline, and its language seems fine (so your wording "this guideline" etc. is inaccurate). Your example seems to have been fixed in subsequent edits. My opinion is that some red links in navboxes have their place but should seldom be used and not kept permanently (judgement calls and exceptions are the spitshine of Wikipedia, and red links fail or succeed on their potential to educate and guide future editing). Many navboxes have so many red links that they look like Christmas lights, and, just like the lights, should be removed when two weeks stale. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

In the case of the example provided Template:Danielle Dax -- the redlink to Timber Tongue was converted into a redirect to the artist's article. Aside from WP:EXISTING, this may run afoul of WP:NAVNOREDIRECT. older ≠ wiser 14:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Since that navbox is at the core of this discussion, koavf likely has an opinion on the questioned use. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

As long as we have this language around a specific set of items, such as a filmography or a discography, then this will be a persistent issue. I think it's good and well to include redirects for the small and well-defined list of works like "albums by artist [x]", because excluding some of them would be misleading. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we need to change the language. Linking to non-notable topics does not aid navigation. Not just filmography and discography navboxes, but most navboxes are routinely purged of non-articles, and the guideline needs to reflect current practice. --woodensuperman 14:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd be extremely wary of encouraging redirects in navboxes. There are many pop culture topics for which there are legions of fans and perhaps a few paid promoters who would be very delighted to be able to construct impressive looking navboxes filled with redirects for the sake of "completeness". older ≠ wiser 17:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, it does fall foul of WP:NAVNOREDIRECT. We also have a WP:SURPRISE issue here. You would expect to be taken to an actual WP:EXISTING article from a navbox. --woodensuperman 14:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not exactly "fixed"! Yes, redirects have been created for the non-articles, but we should only be linking once per article in navboxes so all the redirects back to the artist are completely useless as a navigational tool. And actually worse than redlinks as at least you're not expecting to go to an article with a redlink! --woodensuperman 14:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Improved the situation by changing both redirs to go to the right section instead of the top of the artist article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed these redirects as they do not link to a distinct sub-topic within a larger article as required by WP:NAVNOREDIRECT. --woodensuperman 10:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me there are four possibilities here, and this could be RfCed:

1. Do not permit redirects in naboxes (other than those that are alternative names of their subjects).
2. Permit a redirect in a navbox if it is to a section about the subject named by the redirect.
3. Permit a redirect in a navbox if it is to section that mentions the subject named by the redirect.
4. Permit all redirects in navboxes, regardless where they go.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm definitely firmly in camp "1" here, with allowances for option 2 in exceptional circumstances (but definitely not if the article is already linked), which I think reflects current practice. --woodensuperman 10:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

For my part, I think I'd end up as firmly at 2 and exceptionally 3, but neither 1 nor 4 being acceptable. 4 seems like simply chaos, while 1 is WP:BUREAUCRACY, and does not take into account that topics are merged and split all the time, and some sections on subtopics are far richer than the average stand-alone stub article. After some reflection (re-edited, actually), I think 3 might need a caveat like "and further expansion of material on the subject is likely." But a counter-caveat could be made for entries in navbox-embedded lists that are complete lists of something finite, in which we expect most or all entries to be notable even if they don't have articles or major sections yet (but maybe that is already covered sufficiently by another rule that effectively overrides this one anyway).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems per WP:NAVNOREDIRECT, option 2 is the current accepted practice. --woodensuperman 10:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Large changes to the essay

Very recent large-scale edits made in this essay seem concerning. Moxy, SMcCandlish, Woodensuperman, maybe you three can go over the edits and see if this was an essay-dump or what. I'm precluded from doing so (i.e. Moxy concerns), yet from an quick initial scan the additions seem to fall on the restrictive end in an attempt to change the way navboxes have been created, arranged, and maintained on Wikipedia. On the bright side, this is just an essay that has the full power of an essay (none). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

If the current version is disputed (on actual merits, beyond an "I don't like change" or "I'm not sure I understand" feeling :-) then reverting to the essentially stable version before the major changes could be reasonable. Probably this version. The recent major changer appears to be CommonKnowledgeCreator; maybe they'd like to better explain what they're trying to accomplish. Here's a combined diff of the recent changes. Most of them seem sensible to me, but I have quibbles with a few parts.

This bit seems a little bit muddled: An arbitrary selection of related articles included in a navigation template can unintentionally present a point of view or give the subjects of the articles selected undue weight. It's not clear what "an arbitrary selection" really means here, nor what problem this is trying to solve. If it's not an actual problem, rather than an imagined hypothetically possible issue, then it should not be in a guideline or essay that operates like a guideline. Further, editors (being human) sometimes introducing PoV/weight bias unintentionally is really the subject of WP:BIAS and need not be addressed here probably, at least not at this length. (I would think we'd be more concerned with selective cherrypicking and intentional bias than with arbitrariness and accidental skew, honestly.) This follow-on bit is probably too obtuse: If the subject of the template is a single, coherent subject, the article inclusion criteria should basically be an objective, falsifiable test. This doesn't say anything that an editor without an MS degree is likely to be able to apply on Wikipedia. Next, this is not worded very well to me: Red links ... should not be included where Wikipedia would become something other than an encyclopedia if articles were created from the red links. I would replace that with: Red links ... should not be included when Wikipedia would be serving other than an encyclopedic purpose if articles were created from the red links. But I'm not sure this point is really necessary (per my first objection above – i.e., what actual problem would this solve?) The rest of it all seems fine to me.

All that said, we need to get away from this "essays aren't actionable" idea. They often are; some of our best-accepted principles are found in essays, incuding WP:BRD and WP:AADD (plus WP:ROPE and WP:DUCK and WP:NONAZIS when it come to adminstrative matters). Slapping a guideline or policy tag on a page without community buy-in doesn't magically make it something the community will accept and enforce, either (more likely revert the applied template and category). Any page here has as much "authority" or whatever one wants to call it as it has accrued over time from the community taking it seriously and acting on it. What kind of template is at the top is often not terribly relevant, unless matters have turned in an ANI or ArbCom direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your long comment. Per concern of Moxy about previous discussions, I'll stick to just two points, and am not sure how much of those were added to this essay or exist in others (yes, some parts of some essays are viewed of value in some instances, but determinative value does not apply to every word of every essay).

Navbox size. This hasn't been of major concern until lately while discussing navboxes of US. presidents. There should be no upper size limit of well-designed and well written navboxes. For those who disagree and want to split perfectly fine well-designed navboxes (CommonKnowledgeCreator) please start with this one, and do so in a bold move without discussion: {{COVID-19 pandemic}}. Then, when they revert your "I like it" bold edit do not waver, but toss them a dozen or two unlinked mix of essays and guidelines, and then revert them again. What response do you thnk you'd get (and Moxy, with all respect but a bit irritated at recent accusations, hopefully you will take note of the response of Covid-19 navbox editors who deem to revert the good faith undiscussed bold but misguided moves, and they have to revert again, and then report everybody post haste).

Navbox entries' relationship. I've had this pop in every once in awhile, and it should not exist as a guideline or essay topic in any way: an editor questions navbox entries as being unrelated to each other. "Why would anyone want to navigate between Pad Thai and Bette Davis?" someone will ask. That question is always irrelevant if the entries relate to one thing and one thing only: the subject of the navbox. Connections between entries are of no importance, their logical connection to the titled topic is all that matters.

Those are my two common cents. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic and Meryl Streep#External links we're some of the examples used as in why we don't have navigation templates viewed in mobile view in mainspace (now it's 70% of views). Basically these types of navigations are going to be relegated to administrative namespaces only..... because of mobile view accessibility concerns. If these type of templates were built reasonably and used reasonably it would have changed people's minds. Moxy🍁 00:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Moxy. Well, even if navboxes fall to being used on 10& of devices they still exist as one of the most valuable elements of "original" Wikipedia (i.e., Wikipedia's original designs and features built around and for laptop and desktop display). These maps, when done well, are works of literary art, and provide a valuable service to researchers, other readers, and to those wishing to searching Wikipedia's full range of topic coverage. As you may see, the editor that you assured that I can't revert or even challenge is editing this essay again right now, edit after edit, with really no discussion (or its evil twin, way too much discussion to wade through). Just as they have done on dozens of presidential navboxes, which in my opinion made them less navigationable as maps. My concern is that nobody is really checking these edits. Please consider doing so, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish, Randy Kryn, and Moxy: All I am trying to accomplish with the edits that I made to the WP:NAV explanatory essay is to keep its language and guidance consistent with the current WP:NAVBOX, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:N, and WP:NOT content policies and guidelines per WP:POLCON, and provide guidance that explains to editors how to keep navigation templates consistent with all of these policies and guidelines per the Content section of WP:P&G and WP:SUPPLEMENTAL. The content I added was an attempt to make suggestions intended to provide guidance in navbox editing to keep them consistent with all of these policies and guidelines. Perhaps the wording and guidance was not as well-written as it needed to be, but I think that greater guidance is needed for this specifically.

I think the revision proposed by SMcCandlish to the language I added related to WP:N and WP:NOT is fine. The language for WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE is taken from WP:NAVBOX Disadvantage Number 5 and the WP:ATC section "Do we really need this template at all?". Perhaps a link to that WP:ATC section could provide greater clarity as what is meant by "arbitrary selection", and if the intentions of the editor is not what the relevant issue is, then we can simply just remove "unintentional" from the language. We can come up with different language or guidance if "falsifiable" is too "esoteric" per the WP:P&G Content section, but it occurs to me that it is no more esoteric than Necessity and sufficiency as used understood in formal logic and mathematics and used in the first bullet point of the WP:NAV-RELATED section.

I was aware that navigation templates are not included in the mobile app, but I did not know that their size and the number of templates in certain articles impairing accessibility was the reason why rather than some technical reason, and it occurs to me that this is a strong justification for more restrictive guidance in the WP:NAVBOX guideline and the WP:NAV essay. It occurs to me that any navbox that contributes to template clutter, broadly overlaps with other templates, or can be split into smaller templates that otherwise satisfy the criteria for good navigation templates is not well-designed. I certainly agree that the language in Criterion 3 of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines for good navigation templates should be eliminated—and I did propose doing so. It is too subjective to satisfy the requirement of the WP:P&G Content section that policy and guideline language be "unambiguous", and per WP:NOTCREEP, is fairly redundant to the requirement that articles be related in the WP:NAVBOX guideline language before the list of criteria. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish, Randy Kryn, and Moxy: Also, as I've note elsewhere, the WP:NAVBOX policy has had language recommending against including articles in navigation templates that are loosely-related and that navigation templates should have more restrictive article inclusion criteria than categories and lists since September 2010. That relatedness is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for article inclusion in a navigation template is not a novel proposition on my part, but a longstanding and implicit recommendation has been implicit in the language of the WP:NAVBOX guideline for 14 years now. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Overall, I support the stated goal of normalizing this essay to the requirements of the relevant WP:P&G pages. Our advice to editors should be consistent, whether it's in an essay or not. PS: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: That some other page happens to have something esoteric in it is no excuse for this one to use obfuscatory language (it's an indication, rather, that two pages rather than one need plain-English cleanup edits). Our goal is to communicate clearly, and if we lose most of the people reading it, then that goal has been failed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your reasoning. What alternative guidance and language would you propose that explains to editors how to avoid giving selected articles undue weight by inclusion in a navigation template? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe start with not adding tangential items to presidential navboxes, such as every bill that crosses their desk if they had anything to do with it or not (and no, arguably signing a bill does not make it the president's "own legacy" unless they had an initial hand in planning and passing it). Starting there would go a long way in fixing what has been broken. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is the appropriate talk page for that discussion, and the tone of your comment is decidedly incivil. WP:NAVBOX Disadvantage Number 5 states: "Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a point of view. It may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others". The WP:CLNT project page has included language with respect to navigation templates and violations of the WP:NPOV policy since April 2005. The kind of mapping that you describe is not required by the WP:NAVBOX guideline, and as far as I can tell, it never has been per my previous comment about the loosely-related recommendation language being included since September 2010. Which is to say, navigation templates serving as comprehensive maps is your personal view of how navigation templates should be constructed rather than the consensus view of the community. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Lord have mercy. Now you disagree that navboxes are maps to Wikipedia coverage of a topic? Also, your belief that U.S. president's don't reside in the White House, something I still can't understand per common sense and just basic knowledge of where people live. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, your tone is incivil and your proposal about including the navigation templates of every President and First Lady of the United States in either the White House article or the Executive Residence article is irrelevant to this talk page per WP:TALK#TOPIC. I do not dispute that navigation templates are maps, just maps that are supposed to span more well-defined and narrower ranges of topics than you do. Also, per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:TECHNICAL, Wikipedia is not an academic or scientific journal or a textbook and should not be written like any of those publications. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia written for the general public, not researchers. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)