Template talk:Readability tests
 | Linguistics Template‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Some link deletions[edit]
Hello there,
What is your rationale for deleting these particular readability formulae from the Template:Readability tests navbox? —Ringbang (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Ringbang: WP:NAVBOX/WP:NAV: They are redirects to articles already listed in the navbox, which means they should not be present. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL also can't be satisfied with article redirects. --Izno (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Izno: I have reverted this deletion. I had a chance to review the policy in detail, and found no policy or guideline that precludes the inclusion of these redirects. Omitting them serves no benefit to users, and only hides relevant content arbitrarily. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL alone is not a compelling reason to exclude them. The omission contravenes the spirit of WP:EXISTING (bullet one), as the template is a chronology. —Ringbang (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- A redirect is not an article, a fact which should be immediately obvious. --Izno (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- The thing is, that's not relevant to readers who use the navbox to find the content, to see what content is available, or to see the readability tests on a timeline (its three primary use cases). —Ringbang (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- A navbox is for navigation between articles. Not redirects. Not for "finding content" or "seeing what content is available", nor most certainly is it not for "a timeline". Some navboxes have this luxury because they are well-filled and we can create a fairly narrative navbox as a result. This is not one of them. --Izno (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- Certainly navboxes help readers to discover! This navbox, like all navboxes, does indeed facilitate navigation between articles. Some of the members of the dataset are, circumstantially, covered in article sections. I understand that you believe strongly that navboxes should exclude section redirects. Recall that hatnote nav templates like {{Main}} and {{See also}} accept fragment identifiers; but most importantly, try to look at it from a reader's point of view. In what way does excluding redirects benefit the reader? Does excluding them benefit readers more than including them? —Ringbang (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- A navbox is for navigation between articles. Not redirects. Not for "finding content" or "seeing what content is available", nor most certainly is it not for "a timeline". Some navboxes have this luxury because they are well-filled and we can create a fairly narrative navbox as a result. This is not one of them. --Izno (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- The thing is, that's not relevant to readers who use the navbox to find the content, to see what content is available, or to see the readability tests on a timeline (its three primary use cases). —Ringbang (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- A redirect is not an article, a fact which should be immediately obvious. --Izno (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Izno: I have reverted this deletion. I had a chance to review the policy in detail, and found no policy or guideline that precludes the inclusion of these redirects. Omitting them serves no benefit to users, and only hides relevant content arbitrarily. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL alone is not a compelling reason to exclude them. The omission contravenes the spirit of WP:EXISTING (bullet one), as the template is a chronology. —Ringbang (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)