Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 11

Slam Dunk Contest
Sport	NBA basketball
History
First award	1984
First winner	Larry Nance
Most wins	Nate Robinson : 3 times
Most recent	Zach LaVine

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

→

Navbox spam

A point made in the above discussion, which thread I want to pull on, is the one about navbox spam as seen at Michael Jordan. The use of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL clearly fails to meet its objective here--Michael is included in a large number of navboxes and thus a large number of navboxes end up on his page, causing page bloat and templatecruft.

What should be modified to address this problem? The way I see it, his inclusion in so many navboxes has a systemic root in the specific field he participates in (namely, sports), where each team (of a particular year or decade, or whatnot), gets its own navbox. Is this a sane use of navboxes? Is there a better way to represent his inclusion in those topics? Hillary Clinton has a similar issue--she is a high profile person (to say the least) and so she's got 10 navboxes or so. Beyond the mitigation of {{navboxes}}, is there a way to handle these problem articles at a guideline level? The question I'm going to ask: should they be included in every single one of the navboxes on their pages? If not, then we should remove them from those templates. But if so, is there anything that can be done? --Izno (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure we have the right out come above at all...main question possessed was does WP:BIDIRECTIONAL have community consensus ...the minority think not pointing out problems and linking policy...if this was a RfA would not come close to passing. As for your question ...I guess we are stuck with template spamming despite the concerns raised by the majority of editors above. I have tried to fix the MJ article many times...but editors just mention WP:BIDIRECTIONAL...so yes looks like we are stuck with template spam. What is needed is for content editors to step up and try to quell the creation of spam templates as they are created and placed all over. -- Moxy (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. You say that you tried to fix the MJ article many times. I presume that means you removed templates from that article. Why was that the solution you chose? Why didn't you consider removing the link from the navboxes? (It seems like this argument to me in regards to the discussion above is arguing for a law based on selected bad cases.) --Izno (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not bidirectionality, but too many navboxes. The proliferation of sport navboxes is a symptom of "award-itis" and "statistic-itis" ;-) An accepted treatment for this affliction is the navbox cage. Boghog (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I should have been more clear....After posting the problem to the talk page....I moved the awards templates to the "awards page".....but this was reverted on the basses of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL ...saying hes name is in the template so it should be here. Thus the inclusion of the templates is based on WP:BIDIRECTIONAL not on the merit of inclusion or to help our readers navigate the topic at hand....instead we have thousands of links to unrelated articles. Then we have the opposite problem with actors...all actors get deleted from templates because some dont want to see the templates on film articles....again because of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL we have two sets of articles all messed up. In one case (sports) template spam of unrelated links the other (films) removal of valid links because of the rule. As mentioned above the wording of the guideline should be fixed....as its clear not all understand the point of the odd rule.--Moxy (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

If the links really are unrelated, then they shouldn't be in the same navbox. The problem is more that the links are only peripherally related which calls into question the purpose of these navboxes. Boghog (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the big problems e.g. = Slam Dunk Contest has the template {{Slam Dunk Contest Winners}} that is a great navigational aid at the parent article if someone goes to the 'External links" section looking for this this list over searching the article (must not assume all navigate the same way, thus give our readers options) ...yes some would argue that they are listed in the article so no need for the template at all...thus its was created just to put in the sub articles. I personally dont see a need to place the template all over, but do see a benefit to having it in the parent article. The problem is that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL does not talk about the merit for placement in linked articles...just recommends that people do it. There are literately thousands and thousands of templates that are good for parent articles but are not needed in the linked articles. I also outlined how well organized projects deal with these templates at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Neutral 1. Projects with this set up are dealing with redundant template placement on a daily bases...edit wars!!. What we should do is fix the wording here..as to not imply that "BIDIRECTIONAL" is always warranted....as we do in length with there creation. -- Moxy (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see your point with the {{Slam Dunk Contest Winners}} template. One would need to find the Past NBA Slam Dunk Contest champions section in Slam Dunk Contest to get to the equivalent list which may not be easy. However, in this case, what is the disadvantage of collapsing all the peripherally related navboxes with a {{Navboxes}} cage while leaving the more relavant navboxes outside the navbox cage as currently is done in Michael Jordan? Another possibility is to add an infobox at the top righthand of the article listing all the past winners by year. This would be more noticeable than the navbox. Boghog (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
A modified version of {{Infobox sports award}} which I have now added to Slam Dunk Contest might be an acceptable replacement for {{Slam Dunk Contest Winners}}. This infobox could be reworked to include a collapsable list of all past winners. Boghog (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I have modified {{Infobox sports award}} to add an optional |pastwinners= parameter and added this parameter to the Slam Dunk Contest infobox (see example to the right). The appearance could probably be improved by further tweaking the template, but at least this gives you an idea of how this would function. Boghog (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

that would work...no need for the navbox at all....just need to do it for 1000+more templates :-) -- Moxy (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems good to me that the option provided by Boghog is available. I suppose that {Infobox award} is a parent template (don't know terminology or how to check technical relationships) and that the option can be provided at that level, thus available to book awards, etc. --P64 (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Although it would be logical, {{Infobox sports award}} (79 transclusions) is not based on {{Infobox award}} (4543 transclusions). The two templates are completely seperate. One could add the |pastwinners= option to {{Infobox award}}, but I am hesitant to do so for two reasons. First, the need for this functionality is more accute in sports with its numerous awards than in other fields. Second, the more general template is much more widely used and it might be viewed as unnecessary feature creep. Boghog (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Now we just need to convince the film project that removing vaild links from navboxes just so they can be removed from certain articles is not helpfull to our readers....need for them to understand what a project is there to do...that is help with navigation...not to go out of there way to impend navigation because of aesthetics. WP:BIDIRECTIONAL again being used to the detriment of our readers. -- Moxy (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

((od))Sigh... we really need to perhaps put greater emphasis that bidirectional is generally a good idea but not mandated where it is completely illogical. This is a good example of how bidirectionality goes amok on a single article, while the list of aviation articles is a good example of bidirectionality run amok the other way. If ever there was a perfect example of WP:IAR, this is it. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you need to be a template editors to play with the navboxes? If not perhaps we should make it so? We need editors that do this type of edit to ignore bidirectional ....best to leave the links in the template and remove the template on pages they dont want it on. The template is just fine for the parent article as is ...people should not use WP:BIDIRECTIONAL to orphan articles from templates....just remove the template where it is not needed....dont remove valid links just to remove the template from a page...simply the wrong way to do this (common sense in my view). Content editors are pissed off that the articles they create and maintain are orphaned from templates in this manner....they want the articles seen/linked just like any-other article....fine it its not on all the pages because some dont like them. -- Moxy (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant

When deciding whether to create or avoid a list, the existence of a category on the same topic is irrelevant.

These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary

These sentences would appear to be in conflict with each other. "Irrelevant" is too strong a term. czar 18:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I actually think "redundant" is the too-strong adjective here, so I've removed that (though I wouldn't oppose someone weakening 'irrelevant'). --Izno (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lacks template

Template:Lacks template has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Graham87 14:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Navbox advantages

~~Which of these bulletpoints do you support or oppose for inclusion in the navbox advantage section, if any? Hawaan12 (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)~~

Honestly? I oppose addition of all of them. At best, the list items come across as espousing virtues of a navbox that are also virtues of the other systems, and at worst, are unclear and vague in the ideas they are trying to describe that are so-called advantages of navboxes. --Izno (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose all of those additions, per Izno. None of them apply solely to navboxes. Also, the next to last one doesn't even make sense; why would we want to "fight ... article quality"? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ , 21:52, 10 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Oops. I meant "increase article quality". Hawaan12 (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: I withdraw my attempt for these inclusions. Thanks anyway. Hawaan12 (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Banning articles from navigational aids

STATUS QUO - FILMS, WRITERS, ETC...NOT PERMITTED IN NAV AIDS

Withdraw by creator -- Moxy (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Guess i am just not seeing the consensus my bad

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Does a Wikiproject and/or a group of editors have the right to ban a certain type of article from navigational aids. For example does Wikipedia:WikiProject Film and Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers have the right to tell other projects and editors that links to films, actors, and writers they work on are prohibited in navigational templates as seen by edits like this and this and this and this. Should Wikiprojects be allowed to use WP:BIDIRECTIONAL to orphan certain types of articles from all navigational aids in this manner?

Policies that have been mention in debates over this in the past

Polling

No A project (or anyone) does not have the right to ban articles from navigational aids in this manner WP:ADVICEPAGE. They should be helping readers navigate topics not impeding access to them. If a project is concerned with spamming of templates just remove it from unwanted articles ...dont delete valid links in all templates and disrupt normal navigation for our readers. Making readers with accessibility issues run all over to find said articles is not helpful at all. -- Moxy (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
No, though exceptions can be an issue to be discussed on a case by case basis, but generally projects don't own articles, though they can certainly promulgate guidelines. Also, bidirectionality should not be used to orphan or defeat navigability. WP is not a walled garden. Montanabw ^(talk) 23:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Is there evidence that Wikipedia:WikiProject Film specifically has been acting this way? See my comment in discussion below. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

A while back, someone was removing film scores from musician templates, (or vice-versa, I can't remember) citing bidirectionality as their reasoning. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep problem has been brought to there attention...I was involved at the following talks Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 12#Filmography in Madonna - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 59#Time to look at what is best!! -- Moxy (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggest to withdraw The RfC is convoluted with issues both about the acceptable bounds of WikiProjects, as well as issues with BIDIRECTIONAL. I'll be glad to be wrong, but this seems doomed to have no consensus and be a time sink for all. We're already !voting without a clear statement of the problem, and non-involved participants are required to delve into TL;DR threads to make sense of the actual problem(s). No thanks. No problem with a new tightened RfC being opened when ready.03:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I also suggest this be closed early. It seems to conflate MOS pages with WikiProject advice pages, which is just totally wrong. WikiProject Film is governed by MOS:FILM; it does not exert ownership or give advice on film articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

The editor has not written a neutral and brief statement. They have purposely framed the exclusion of certain navigation templates as negative and inappropriate from the onset. Per WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief, "If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and save the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and signature. If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the question or summary or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it."

With that said, some navigation templates have multiple disadvantages per WP:NAVBOX. Such templates can "incorrectly suggest... more, less, or equal importance to others", "may not give the reader enough clues as to which links are most relevant or important", and "can take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related". The navigation template {{Madonna}} is an example we can discuss. Currently, it shows a "Films directed" row and links to two films. This template used to show all the films in which Madonna acted. If this was still included, and we are to follow WP:BIDRECTIONAL to its fullest, it means that we are required to insert Madonna's entire career in every film article, regardless of her role. I believe that the aforementioned disadvantages apply in these cases. Madonna's appearance alongside others in a film's cast does not mean that we need to show the breadth and depth of her career in each film article. It makes sense to interlink the topics in which she exercises key creative or executive control, and the template as it stands does that. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear here you believe 3 sentences is not brief statement? As for neutral not sure how it could be worded differently any suggestions? Lets be real here a role like Evita (1996 film) for which she won the Golden Globe Award for Best Actress is not relevant to the topic? Do you really think WP:BIDRECTIONAL is a reason to remove related topics from templates or should common sense be used? -- Moxy (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Evita is definitely a relevant topic to link to. The problem is that navigation templates deal with sets. Acting performances vary in scope. Evita is probably the most relevant end, but Die Another Day is probably the least relevant end. I think putting the navigation template for Madonna in Die Another Day's article has the disadvantages I mentioned above. Between the two ends, her acting performances vary in scope and are especially less important than her contributions in music. I see that Madonna filmography is piped under "Films". Is that not sufficient? Why not repeat the link after the "Films directed" for additional information? Yet another approach would be something like "Select films acted in", but what is the criteria for the select films? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The OP has a valid concern about navbox content, but the wording is too polarizing. It gives the impression that a WikiProject is blindly telling outsiders to leave "their" articles alone. I would suggest rewording and presenting the points that are being contested. It seems Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Navigation is being questioned: "Articles should be substantially related to the subject of the navigation template." Was the original intent of the RfC proposal to allow all or some films to be listed instead of none for people involved in a specific role e.g. actor, writer? Are there links to related discussions where this was attempted to be resolved prior to this RfC?—Bagumba (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how it can be worded differently....yes the point is a certain type(s) of article(s) are being restricted from nav templates....no though to its relevance...just deleted because they dont want to see the templates in certain articles. Having "no" templates for just films as the MOS states is very different then deleting all films, actors, writers etc,,, from main topic templates. Or just removing the template from offending pages without link deletion from said template.. As for previous talks see above...as for why we are here it was a recommendation from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Looking for guidance after i asked for help. -- Moxy (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the WikiProject Council thread, but I do not see a recommendation per se to start an RfC here except for your own comment there. Putting that aside, this RfC is convoluting issues with WikiProject behavior with issues regarding BIDIRECTIONAL. You are more likely to get constructive input if you limit an RfC to one topic, and open a different RfC if needed for the other issue. Finally, I looked at the thread you started at WikiProject Film thread titled "Time to look at what is best!!" The title is inflammatory, and I'm not even in the project, as it gives the impression that "your project sucks". The title of this RfC has the same tone, and only creates a battleground. I'd suggest withdrawing this RfC, and perhaps collaborate with Montanabw (who commented above) on framing a new RfC that only deals with BIDIRECTIONAL (without the WikiProject issues) and clearly explains the navbox issue, and start anew.—Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

A seen here was a recommendation. I see the main point is being lost... not about BIDIRECTIONAL its about one project banning a type of article from templates...as seen in the RfC above. I guess i am just not good at explaining the situation. Will see if anyone else gets the point..or will try to fix this RfC. As for the tile at the project...yes it may not have been the best,,,but after so many raising concerns and having to deal with them some of us get frustrated. After having editor after editor concerns being demised was trying to get the group to address the problem again to no avail, -- Moxy (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that nothing has been "banned", it's one user who can't accept a project-wide WP:CONSENSUS. This poorly thought-through (and titled) RfC should be withdrawn to save any further embarrassment for the user concerned. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thats odd thats not what you told me as seen here. -- Moxy (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Has this stick still not been dropped? The very fact that it tries to paint a wikiproject as being one side of an argument when the other side is one tendentious editor who has brought this up multiple times before, should probably demonstrate which way consensus lies. GRAPPLE ^X 12:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-RfC comment: I wrote this but didn't save it in time before the RfC closed. I think it might help forestall future disputes of this sort (any WP:1AM issues aside). At its core, this is exactly the same question as "can a wikiproject require/forbid infoboxes on articles within their scope?", and ArbCom already determined that the answer is "no". It's up to a consensus of the editors at the article, which (per WP:VESTED, etc. but within constraints of WP:CANVASS, WP:GAMING) means the editors who show up for the consensus discussion, not those who have previously logged edits at the page. We also have WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy against such inappropriate wikiproject or "local cabal" maneuvers that are against broader consensus, and WP:PROJPAGE making it clear that wikiproject preference/advice essays that have not been through the WP:PROPOSAL process and become accepted as guidelines are not guidelines.
We do, however, have a minor wrinkle here, because of the navbox reciprocity requirement and the nature of navigation templates: There are two potentially conflicting consensus levels on this matter, even aside from wikiproject demands: That on the article talk page to include/exclude the navbox, and that on the template talk page to include/exclude the article. Because the template itself has built-in content of a sort (and infoboxes are blank slates) this wrinkle didn't pop up in the i'box debates. This is not much of a conundrum, however. Per WP:ENC, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:COMMONSENSE, etc., the consensus at articles is generally going to be more important than that at templates that cross-reference or otherwise service them, since they only exist as adjuncts to – widgets for – articles. The tail cannot wag the dog.
If editors actually working on the content (or attentive enough to show up for an RfC and not just WP:DGAF) are convinced that a particular navbox is (or is not) appropriate at the article, that's essentially the end of the matter. While, technically, a wikiproject, as some sort of "hive mind" unto itself, has essentially no say in the matter (hardly any topic is within the scope of one and only one wikiproject, and wikiprojects do not have special supervoting rights as "entities"), in actual practice the bulk of the editors at any article are pretty often going to be participants in one or more of the projects claiming scope, unless the article is unusually popular and of broad interest. So those with a desire to include/exclude a navbox are ill-advised to take a "your wikiproject can just go stuff it" stance, since you'll probably be offending the same key editors as those forming the larger part of the article-level consensus. (I've made this mistake before, so trust me on this. ;-)
What's never going to fly, per the previous infoboxes ArbCom case (cases? I think there may have been two) is some wikiproject saying "we demand that no templates of type x be put on articles within our scope". The best they get is "we don't think these kinds of templates are useful on this sort of article, but, yeah, we have to defer to the editorial consensus at the article, and even if our PROJPAGE were a guideline, there would still be exceptions to it anyway." I think what we've seen above illustrates some of this clearly; there's a consensus against what the RfC was seeking to get at, and much of that consensus involved participants in a wikiproject, but it not some kind of wikiproject cabal violating local-consensus policy. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Since this will be an ongoing problem (just got a message today about Roger Moore links)...becaus editors are going to be puzzled at why the articles they work on and create cant be linked in nav templates... a note at the MOS about this obscure position should be mentioned. Best to have something real to point to then just a list of deleted templates (as seen does not help)....no where does it say we cant list actors, films, directors and writers in this manner. To avoid all the edit wars..we need to note this. I have mentioned this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Add info about films and creators etc... -- Moxy (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

If that discussion doesn't really go anywhere (the MoS topical subpages are not watchlisted much except mostly by the WikiProjects that developed them as PROJPAGES and eventually got them accepted into MoS), I would suggesting raising it later at WT:MOS, where most MoS-related stuff gets decided. Basically, nothing of import should be added to MoS through a "back door", and since this would affect a wide range of articles, not just one topic, it's probably a main-MoS discussion. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:BIDIRECTIONAL considered harmful?

Should the navboxes be used for W. E. Johns, per this edit?

It is reasonable to have an expectation that, in most circumstances, the subject of an article will be a likely candidate for inclusion in that navbox. This is the rationale behind WP:BIDIRECTIONAL.

There is no justification whatsoever for removing navboxes from articles for the sole reason that the article is not linked in the navbox. There is just no reason for this: what benefit does it convey? This is, however, implied by a simple rote reading and application of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL.

The purpose of a navbox is this: to improve the article by offering useful onward navigation paths to its readers. This is based on whether the other routes in the navbox are of likely interest to readers, in the assumption that they are closely related topics. The navbox itself does not care how it is used by an article: the article has no (literally, zero) influence on the navbox. In fact the one link we can expect to not be useful for navigation here is the self-link to the current article, the one link upon which WP:BIDIRECTIONAL insists!

If an article uses a navbox in which it is not included, then good editing practice would be to consider two things:

Should the article be added to the navbox? (in which case, add it)
Does the navbox have value for this article anyway? (in which case, do nothing, as it's already there)

There is no justification in removing navboxes only because the article is not linked from within them; only if the navbox adds no value to the article.

In the case of W. E. Johns, the two navboxes are {{Early20CBritChildrensLiterature}} and {{wwi-air}}. One would expect that W. E. Johns would be included in the first, except that it only includes four list articles, not any author articles (Johns is indeed on the author list). Under this simple view of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, {{Early20CBritChildrensLiterature}} would be excluded from all articles and would become completely useless! Johns does not belong on the WWI aviation navbox, nor does Biggles, however there is a strong case that readers of such articles would navigate onwards into the WWI background. A similar case is likely for Sharpe or Flashman and Victorian military or Hornblower and the Nelsonic navy.

Thoughts? Particularly from Robsinden Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: We recently had an RFC on this; see Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_10#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL_navbox_requirements. The short of it is that the guideline enjoys broad consensus. --Izno (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

So how would you see this case, and also the bulk removals at Special:contributions/Robsinden? (The RfC concludes specifically against automated bulk removal)

WP:BIDIRECTIONAL states "should normally also be included as a link ", and I would note that many comments at the RFC stated that the guideline is OK as it stands because it is qualified as "normally". Editors (myself included) will claim to agree with this, and yet they will each interpret "normally" differently, with wide variations. I've given more detail above, and highlighted why the two infoboxes here are quite different cases.

I find it hard to see any justification for the children's lit navbox not being used here. The relation to Johns is transitive, even when the list members aren't explicitly in the navbox.

The WWI navbox is different: the question here is whether non-commutative relations (which BIDIRECTIONAL assumes don't exist) still justify navboxes as relevant backgrounds. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Since we're reading into the comments made in the RFC, I feel fine stating this: the consensus regarding point 3 seems to be that "to remove a navbox via purely automated methods, without an associated RFC or similar, would violate our guidelines" (see removal of Template:Aviation lists, which at least one of the templates you provided looks awfully similar to). That aside, Rob does not appear to be editing with an automatic, or even semi-automatic, task, so why do you even point out item 3 here?

What I find difficult to understand is why, when faced with a removal like this, you don't change the navbox(es) to include the articles in question. Maybe you're asking Rob to explain why he didn't change the navbox instead. Is there some reason that you did not ask the question of yourself?

What is missing from WP:BIDIRECTIONAL is pointed out by one of the commenters in the RFC: the idea is that I should be able to return from the article to which I navigated by use of the navbox. Right now, a sentence of that is not included in BIDIRECTIONAL but should be, as that purpose of BIDIRECTIONAL is the reason we have it. (And also because we like pretty bold black links when we're on the article of interest, to ground us in our location.)

Side note: You may be interested in the work I have helped with regarding User:Natalie.Desautels/sandbox/Classical and flamenco guitar templates and its talk page--this is what I mean when I said "network of navboxes" in the RFC in question. Be willing to expand the set, as this builds the web! --Izno (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I have a basic distrust of bulk edits. If justified, they're more easily done by 'bots. If they can't be done by 'bots, then they need real editorial consideration, on a per-case basis. The RfC conclusion is that editorial consideration is indeed necessary for these. I make no claim that the edits here are unconsidered, but 23 of them in 10 minutes doesn't allow much time to do so. "Navboxes do not belong here per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Article needs to be included as a link for them to be transcluded here. That's how they work." is simply untrue. This is not how navboxes work, they certainly do not need to have the host articles linked (that is recognised by the use of "normally" within BIDIRECTIONAL.

{{Aviation lists}} is a worthless grab-bag with no cohesion, but that's not relevant to this question. The steam engine navboxes, such as {{steam engine configurations}} are even worse.

Why didn't I add the article to the navbox? For the literature template, then if it had so far included Enid Blyton and Richmal Crompton but not Johns, then I would have added him, as an author who warranted inclusion. Yet the template includes no authors, merely a link to the list of them. As he's already on that list, I consider that transitive relation to mean (for the purposes of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL) that he is already in the set of linked authors, so should use the navbox. Rev W. Awdry, J. M. Barrie , Richmal Crompton, Eleanor Farjeon and T. H. White have had the same removal treatment today, yet are all on the list.

For {{wwi-air}}, then Johns just does not belong there. Yet there is a valid non-commutative relation from Johns (or certainly Biggles) to the navbox. I think that this sort of non-commutativity is just one of the cases where BIDIRECTIONAL's "normally" should be an exclusion.

The idea that a navigation box needs to duplicate the back button of a browser is a canard that was debunked by web usability studies going back as far as the last century (I know I've pulped two of the books that refuted it as now being years out of date). Navigation paths are stateless, returns back are stateful. It is unhelpful to mix these two. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

We've been through this so many times, it's frustrating having to explain it every time. And as Izno points out, we've had a couple of RFCs on the matter. The fact is, we have a guideline which has broad consensus, and we should follow it. There is no case for an special exception in this case. And to include a selection of authors in the navboxes in question is subjective when we pick who to include, and as such is best left for category or list navigation which allows for complete inclusion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The guideline is poorly written because every editor is likely to interpret "normally" differently. It has broad consensus, but it doesn't work as a guideline if it doesn't guide editors past the problematic situation.

Can I please ask you to comment on the specific issues here (I've stated them clearly and in enough detail). Does the transitive inclusion of Johns simply meet BIDIRECTIONAL anyway? If not, why even have that navbox which BIDIRECTIONAL insists is unusable on any articles?

Is the non-commutative use for linkage to background concepts a recognisable valid exception to BIDIRECTIONAL?

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd say no, the fact that he is mentioned in the list that is included in the navbox, does not meet BIDIRECTIONAL. The navbox should only be transcluded on the exact articles that are included in the navbox. His article does not meet that. A navbox shouldn't be used as a "badge" in this way, showing on all articles that are loosely connected to a topic, as this wouldn't meet the numbered criteria set out in the guideline (and as was confirmed by the recent similar RFC). It simply isn't what they're for. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

No one (here) is using navboxes as "badges".

Why not simply delete the Lit navbox as useless? According to your interpretation of BIDIRECTIONAL it is unusable from any articles and can only be placed on the four lists where you've left it. That's pretty useless. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it is a pretty poor navbox. But it does link those four articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC:

Yes, this "rule" takes the concept of small templates to an extreme, and the only editors it helps are deletion-oriented and non-reader-helpful type editors. The reason lists are included on a template is because the template is usually not large enough to include everyone on a list. But if an article is on a list it is then on the template (just cutting out the long-list middleman). The guideline in question is just that - only a guideline and in question. If a list is included on the template then every page on that list is included on the template and of course the template is fine to go on those pages. Common sense. Removing templates from perfectly related pages hurts only one thing: Wikipedia's mission to share full information. A well-written template offers as full a map as possible so readers can find articles on their preferred topic - articles they may know about plus those they have never even thought of looking for and are now happily and in some cases surprisingly provided with. Randy Kryn 18:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No, Randy, once again, you're pushing your view of what you think a navbox should be for, not what has been agreed by consensus in various RFCs. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Navboxes - criteria for exclusion from an article

I'm having an issue at 3801 with an editor resisting inclusion of {{Hunter Region places and items of interest}} in the article, a navbox that includes a link to 3801 because of the historical relevance of the locomotive to the Hunter Region. He doesn't think the navbox should be included and I don't really understand his opposition. My question here is what are the criteria for exclusion of a navbox form an article? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A consensus at the talk page the related article usually is the only criterion. My suggestion is that you request a WP:3O there or discussion from the relevant projects related to the navbox/article (keeping in mind WP:Canvassing). --Izno (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I made minor comments to the article

1 2

Could somebody check if everything is right? Ushkin N (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Cast and crew in navboxes (again)

Would anyone like to comment at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#Cast lists in television/film navboxes? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for WP:PERFNAV (or similar)

Given the longstanding consensus not to include cast and crew in film and TV navboxes, which has been supported by the multiple recent template deletions at WP:TFD, how should we go about codifying this into the guideline? For categories, we have WP:PERFCAT, we should have something similar for this. We should probably also include something regarding the consensus for not including filmographies at the same time, killing two birds with one stone. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Killing one bird is fine (depending on species and pie capacity) but on individuals templates, such as Madonna's, the inclusion of major awards should be allowed. Madonna won the Golden Globe for Best Actress for Evita, and this could be noted on the template. By major awards I mean Best Actor and Actress for the Golden Globes and Academy Awards, best song and album in the major music awards, best actor and actress for the Tony theater awards, etc. Not too many (unless you're Katherine Hepburn) and not too few, but an actor's major awarded works, for example, could be included on their template without adding too much space and would give readers another point of interest to explore. Randy Kryn 14:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this subjective partial inclusion and not a practice we currently follow. It would cause absolute chaos anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest a wording of something like (taking my lead from WP:PERFCAT):

Avoid adding performances of entertainers into the navboxes for the productions that they appeared in, or crew members into navboxes for the productions they worked on.  This includes, but is not limited to actors/actresses, comedians, televison/radio presenters, writers, composers, etc.  This avoids over-proliferation of navigation templates at the bottom of performer's articles, and avoids putting WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others.
Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question.  This avoids over-proliferation of individuals' navboxes on each production's article, and avoids putting WP:UNDUE weight on the contributions of certain individuals over others.

What do we think? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This would not apply to game shows / contests such as The Voice (U.S. TV series) where the characters are the actual people. Also what about news show navboxes such as Template:Today? Same issue but with anchors and hosts. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

AngusWOOF, by game shows do you mean something like this edit which Robsinden made a few hours before your post, amidst other such edits on game show templates (or the ongoing attempt to delete the {{Family Feud}} template after Tahc reversed his edit). Perhaps this edit should be reversed also, bringing back a great deal of information and context to a not overly large template, a well-put-together article-map of Wheel of Fortune (which, truth be told and in the best of times, should always include Vanna White). On a personal note, and this just shows that different editors prefer different styles and may never understand the other's viewpoint, it is now near the point of something which reminds me of a deboned fish. Randy Kryn 4:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes it would. Cast and crew members are actual people, and hosts of a TV show are just cast and/or crew. Navboxes like this just encourage WP:TEMPLATECREEP and put WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others, and most of the time the people involved are only tangentially related to each other. Having said that, we're not currently applying this to reality shows where the contestants are non-professional individuals not known for anything else (i.e. {{Big Brother UK housemates}}) or winners of reality contests (per {{Big Brother UK}}), as the jury is still out there, and consensus has yet to be formed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There's this discussion from a long while back, and here are a few recent deletion discussions... Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 11#Template:Celebrity Big Brother, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 11#Template:The Surreal Life, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 17#Template:They Think It's All Over, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 15#Template:Co-hosts of The View, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 12#Template:Loose Women, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 12#Template:This Morning. There are plenty more. We have consensus, we just need to codify it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Pay particular attention to the closing admin's comments on the Celebrity Big Brother TfD: "The consensus here favors deletion, which happens to also match the long-running overall community consensus that is repeatedly found at TfD." --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, everyone coming to this discussion, click and read each and every one of those linked discussions. These "decisions" were made by not even a handful of editors in most cases, in some of them two or three people, and all of them include or start with Robsinden saying that we must delete because this is a long-standing consensus. If the same two or three people can remove other people's work in these scarcely-attended discussions by saying it's a "long standing consensus" then maybe we need to understand that templates are not a backwater form of information-map but a very viable and important part of Wikipedia. For those who don't know, there are many many templates put onto a daily list for deletion which, then, almost nobody looks at or comments about. So of course "consensus" is reached (although almost all of them have an editor or two opposing, but the closers seem swayed by the words "long standing consensus" even though there is none). The linked discussions themselves indicate that there is something broken here, a claimed "consensus" about game show templates where none really exists. Randy Kryn 11:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Read again BU Rob13's close at the Celebrity Big Brother TfD and the discussion from 2009, along with multiple discussions spattered all over Wikipedia. This is exactly why we need to centralise in a guideline so that we don't need to point out the consensus to you. Every. Single. Time. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There was really no consensus on most of these, just a few people talking to themselves and most of them contain disagreements. The {{Family Feud}} and {{Wheel of Fortune}} templates I linked to seem(ed) fine as they were, and now they are, or you suggest that they be, either deboned or deleted. Either option seems counter-productive. Randy Kryn 12:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Every single one was closed with a consensus to delete. How can you claim that there is no consensus? There are many many more discussions to be found all with the same result. And filling Wikipedia with useless navboxes is what's counterproductive. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Each one had "Keep" comments, which were beaten back by a constant claim of "long standing consensus". Game show templates, which is where the disagreement seems to be, seem fine and useful. Since you mention the Celebrity Big Brother template, which maybe was overly long (I think winners of the shows and not every contestant should be named) both Superdry19 and Jim Michael had some good points and should be pinged to find their way here (as should anyone involved in those very small discussions). Randy Kryn 12:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That's clear WP:CANVASSING of users who you know will oppose this proposal against the already established consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You mentioned the discussion, so people involved in it should be made aware of this wide-ranging discussion (which doesn't have to be if true consensus were aimed for, where everyone agrees on the wording). Randy Kryn 12:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

In which case, you ping all of the users, and not just the ones who agree with your viewpoint. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Alucard 16, Davey2010, Reli source, Frietjes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course there were "keep" comments. There are in most deletion discussions, but the closing admin weighs up both sides of the arguments. That's how we make consensus!!!! --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

And why would a game show be any different to any other kind of show with cast and crew? There's no special case to be made for this specific genre of TV show here. You're the only one who seems to think so. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

And here's one from 2012 - this is not a new phenomenon. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I fully support the creation of this guideline, and I agree with the current reality TV contestant aspect, and probably the filmographies too - are there any examples of filmography templates that would be affected? anemone projectors 09:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

With regard to the filmography template question, it shouldn't affect anything, as this has been standard practice for a long time. It isn't explicit in any guideline anywhere, so I thought it might as well be included while implementing the other proposal, as they are opposite sides of the same coin, and it should stop the need to explain the issue every time it comes up. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The only template I know of with a filmography is Template:Bjork, but I've always liked it being there. I wonder if something like Template:David Attenborough might be affected. I noticed the filmographies have already been recently removed from the likes of Template:Dannii Minogue, which I'm defintely pleased about. anemone projectors 13:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that Bjork's acting roles really shouldn't be in there. There is a consensus on this I'm afraid! ;) It's a good illustration though - note that Anna and the Moods isn't included in {{Damon Albarn}} or {{Terry Jones}}, so the inclusion of Bjork's navbox gives her contribution WP:UNDUE weight over other performers in the piece, the point made in my proposed wording. My wording above would intend to except things like David Attenborough as "primary creator", although I appreciate the wording could be worked on. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it was in Albarn's navbox, along with his other acting roles, but the navbox wasn't transcluded. Anyway, I've removed them now... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - would be the opposite of what we normally do. Would be best to leave the inclusion or exclusion of links up to those that work on the article in question. There should be no desire for an exclusionary guideline of this nature that only takes into account looks over accessibility. Not sure how deleted templates with very few people involved with some saying keep all over equates to consensus - WP:ADVICEPAGE says it best and i think the way to go.-- Moxy (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Erm, it's exactly how we usually deal with this. Are you still not accepting the consensus? [1][2] --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, and here is where you suggest we put it in the guideline. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- And this discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

What your proposing here is much more then what was talked about before. Going to lead to many problems.....why because our guideline (that no one reads first) will be exclusionary in nature. Wikipedia:Nothing is in stone - wrong way to control the structure and relationships to articles.-- Moxy (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Navboxes should only be used for grouping together links that are defined by their relationship to each other. Once you move beyond that you get link farms. Betty Logan (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

But shouldn't the wording include exceptions for Game Show templates which are not overly large? The wording really shouldn't be given an up-or-down "vote" but edited in the process to come to a true consensus, where everyone agrees. Randy Kryn 12:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Why on earth should an exception be made for game shows? What singles them out from any other TV, film, or whatever? This makes no sense whatsoever!!! --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not giving an "up or down" vote. I am qualifying where I think navboxes are useful. Creating exceptions for a particular type of TV show is arbitrary. If the links are not defined by their relationship to each then what is the point of grouping them together? Nobody has ever answered that question to my satisfaction whenever these dicussions come up. Betty Logan (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

support, it's better to use a list article or list in the parent article. when you start creating cast navboxes, you get massive bloat at the foot of the articles when simple article linking works fine for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
support as something obvious. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Support' - I'll be completely honest I did object to the removal of the crew/presenters etc etc in the XFactor navbox (I didn't revert but I wasn't best pleased with it) however I wasn't actually aware consensus is not to have these and when all this info is either on "List of X" or the template article then it makes having them in the navbox pointless, and Ofcourse the navbox will just grow and grow and grow so I support this policy. –Davey2010^Talk 14:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment - As the one who originally wrote WP:OC#Performers by performance (after several discussions at WP:CFD), I agree we should definitely address clutter issues, where appropriate. For example, if it's a scripted show, I'd support not having actors names in the boxes. But what about things like: Template:The Tonight Show, or Template:The Carol Burnett Show. I would strongly oppose removing talk show hosts or variety show regulars from navboxes. As for game shows (including so-called reality shows), obviously we shouldn't be placing contestants in the templates, but just like talk show hosts, the game show hosts, should be there. I looked at Template:The Price Is Right and Bob Barker isn't listed. Why the heck not?! The point of a navbox is to help navigation. And clutter doesn't outweigh navigation. I defy any of you to prove that hosting the Price is Right wasn't defining or notable for Bob Barker. So yes, let's reduce clutter, but let's be sane about it. There are some things which nav boxes do better than categories, and this indeed is one of them. Talk show, game show, variety show hosts/regulars should be listed in navbvoxes. To do otherwise is a disservice to our readers. - jc37 15:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
As for crew (usually only writers/directors/producers), it should depend on whether this was something they were identified with (a career-defining moment), like Thomas Schlamme and Aaron Sorkin for The West Wing. Or the costume designer for The Carol Burnett Show, Bob Mackie. All we need do is check their articles and the related references for the import when deciding whether to include. - jc37 15:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
These last two comments and suggestions would allow many readers to find what they are looking for (probably Bob Barker), and the suggestions seem like the start of good consensus building recommendations. Support their addition to the language after discussion (especially Jc37's language), and maybe this would eventually create a guideline which would allow room for everyone's vision of a good and useful template. Randy Kryn 20:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
This is an absolutely terrible idea and opens the gates for all sorts of subjective inclusion and edit wars. It's against current consensus and if you're talking about career defining moments, no different to adding William Shatner to {{Star Trek}}. Definitely not a route we should go down. As far as Aaron Sorkin goes, The West Wing should be included in {{Aaron Sorkin}}, but not the other way around. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Support. There is a long-running consensus at TfD that cast/crew (yes, including for game shows, on which contestants = cast) should not be in navboxes. The PERFCAT rationales apply to navboxes and we do need a PERFNAV, because this comes almost almost every day, sometimes several times in the same day. I'd be okay with a variance for talkshow/gameshow hosts/presenters (not guests/contestants). I'm neutral leaning opposed to an exception for "reality" show contestants/participants, because we're already devoting too much space and attention to these pseudo-notable parties. They technically qualify to have articles at all under WP:GNG because of multiple non-trivial instances of coverage, but in journalistic trash like People magazine that questionably count as reliable sources (or independent ones, since almost all their income is from advertising paid for by TV networks, movie studios, etc., giving these rags a very strong incentive to manufacture pabulum stories about those corporate entities' "stars"). "Reality" shows people are occasionally individually notable after the fact because of some scandal they get into that's reported in real news, or because they were already notable (Ozzy Osbourne, etc.). But as a class, they're not really an encyclopedic topic and we don't need to help people navigate them. (They're one of several piles of evidence that GNG is too much of a "one-size fits all" solution and is causing problems.) "Was on TV" != encyclopedic. Hell, I've been on BBC News myself as an interview subject, but I don't need an article here, much less to appear in a navbox of who's been interviewed on BBC News (= who's been a guest on the Tonight Show; the fact that it's full of funny banter doesn't magically transform it from a TV interview into something else). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Done Okay, as discussion has stalled for a week, and there was considerable support for this, both here and at the deletion discussions, I've added the proposal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

What is seen in mobile view

The project page correctly says that navboxes aren't seen in mobile view, and lists this as a disadvantage of navboxes. Yes, it is. But unless I've missed something, categories don't appear in mobile view either, so shouldn't that fact be listed as a disadvantage of categories too? Andrew Dalby 09:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It should. Why aren't templates (navboxes) shown in mobile? Is this a size problem or a coding problem? Randy Kryn 11:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Re templates: Deliberately designed by the mobile team. A) They're fairly bloated HTML, which is bad to deliver to mobile and B) display of a navbox is difficult to design for the mobile use case (which has screens on the order of 600px width in landscape). --Izno (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Disadvantages

A problem I find with the proliferation of navbox templates is that it totally skews the results of the "What links here" tool, which I find extremely useful for creating/expanding articles. This usefulness goes straight out the window when instead of listing other articles that contain a mention of a subject (and perhaps some information that could be added), it lists an enormous number of articles with a tenuous connection or no connection at all to the subject, leaving me to go through them all and somehow try to discern the meaningful/useful ones. Is this problem supposed to be covered by point 9? If so, I'm not sure the problem is adequately captured there. This negation of the 'What links here' tool's usefulness is probably my number one gripe with navbox template proliferation so I thought should be articulated properly in this section of the guideline.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction with Categorization guidelines

In the Categories section there exists the following text - "Exceptions should also be considered when the article subject has a relevance to the parent category that is not expressed by the subcategory's definition. For instance, if Category:People executed by guillotine during the French Revolution was the only subcategory of Category:People of the French Revolution, it would not make sense to remove major figures of the French Revolution solely because of the means of their death."

This appears to contradict the guidelines in Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages and Wikipedia:Categorization#Non-diffusing_subcategories. This article has a much stronger view that subcategories should be diffusing unless specifically labelled as non-diffusing. Whereas the Categories section in this article gives the impression that the editor is free to choose how the categories are structured as long as it "makes sense".

Could I get some clarification on this. I am in discussion with another editor on the most appropriate method for categorising a particular area. It would be of assistance to the discussion if this point were cleared up. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that WP:Categories should probably be taken as the more "correct" guideline to reference for category-related discussion, if there is a contradiction here. --Izno (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to clarify BIDIRECTIONAL

What it says

"Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional."

How it's often interpreted

"Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox. Every article included as a link in a given navbox should normally transclude the navbox. Only articles linked in a given navbox should normally transclude that navbox."

(Hat tip to @Thincat: for some of this wording)

Is this what we mean?

If our main concern is bi-directional navigation (as opposed to, e.g., what's likely to be relevant or interesting for the reader), then the requirements go beyond "If the article uses a navbox, then the article deserves to be linked in the navbox".

This may be one of those things that has been left vague on the grounds that vagueness lets us do whatever we want; if that's the case, then just tell me, and I'll go away. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I think there has never been consensus to remove WP:BIDIRECTIONAL from the guideline nor to add to the text (which presently describes unidirectionality) and it has suited both sides to let sleeping dogs lie. Those in favour of bidirectionality use this as a slogan, ignoring the text. Those against adhere to the text because it is less bad than the whole works. Anyway, the logical discrepancy is too subtle to be kept in mind in the course of any wikidiscussion. I doubt that anyone who appreciates the problem really likes the present, longstanding state of affairs. Thincat (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Historical note: I think I first raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 7#Bidirectional navboxes?. A year later, having forgotten all about it, I returned to the talk page and found the discussion still going on![3] There were other discussions here and here and here and here. Thincat (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Lists included. The last time this was decided the question of entries on lists included on template being considered as being on the template was undecided and left open, at least as far as I understand the closer's statements after the close. If a list is semi-large, such as list of zoos, it seems easier to just list that on the template instead of including every link in a fold-out. There is nothing wrong, and everything to gain for the reader, if the zoo template is included on zoo, aquarium, aviary, and zoo association pages. None of these are overwhelmed with templates as, say, the baseball project entries. For example, the zoo template on the U.S. National Zoo page, which now has only two templates, would expose the zoo articles to over five thousand readers a month. Doing that doesn't hurt or cause a problem for individual readers in any way. It seems to be nothing but a positive for the encyclopedia and its readers. Randy Kryn 23:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Randy Kryn, Honestly, I am tempted to nominate {{Zoos of Washington, D.C.}} for deletion. A two-link template should be deleted. That template has little reason to be included in WP. Are you suggesting that we add that template to list of zoos? Once we do that, we will have a similar template for every city with many of them limited to 2 or 3 links. Alternatively, are you suggesting list of zoos be included on {{Zoos of Washington, D.C.}}?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  - I meant the {{Zoos}} template, which used to be on all of the zoo pages. Readers looking at Zoo pages gained from being exposed to that template (which includes the List of zoos, aquariums, etc.). Yes, the D.C. template with two entries seems a good candidate for deletion. Randy Kryn 3:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    - {{Zoos of Washington, D.C.}} nominated at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_3#Template:Zoos_of_Washington.2C_D.C.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    - I have no problem with {{Zoos}} being used on all of the zoo pages.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    - This isn't how a navbox should work. See Template talk:Aviation lists#RfC: Should this navbox be removed from non-mentioned articles? for a relevant RFC. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
      - Well, yes, this is how a navbox should work. The zoo template is a fine example of why restrictive thinking about templates removes information from Wikipedia readers rather than sharing information and providing a clear educational inclusive subject map. People looking for a particular zoo in a small village suddenly can explore the entire meaning of zoos, how they function, etc., and find the full range of pages that the Zoo project would like them to be able to find. Randy Kryn 13:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
        And then we risk WP:NAVBOXCREEP. You advocate overuse of navboxes too often Randy and seem to forget that people can get all this information through normal linking in articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
        The information on the {{Zoos}} template is not linked on every zoo page, no creep involved (at least via the guideline). Notice that the template contains lists, so the zoo pages are already on the template, just condensed to save space. Would you want all 800 zoo-related pages on one template? No, of course not. So they are included in a list. The template itself, which is an overview of the zoo-related collections on Wikipedia, thus would comfortably fit on all those pages, none of which, as far as I can tell, contain many templates and thus would not fall into creeping anywhere. Speaking of creepy, I checked your edits on the {{Buckminster Fuller}} template last night because I had a feeling you'd stalk my attention to it to delete the existing links to our beautifully organized and chock-full-of-information sister-projects, Wikiquote and Wikisource, but I went ahead anyway because adding new entries to the template seemed valuable. Alas, as I sensed my stalker lurking, you came by it a bit ago, your first ever edit on the template, to erase those wonderful existing links to our sister-projects. I know that type of wikistalking is allowed, but it again makes me think twice about adding items to templates which still include the sister-project links, and so inhibits my work here. As far as I know not one other editor has ever removed those links to sister-projects, so you alone may be deleting readers accessibility to the thousands of manwoman-hours put in by the dedicated editors at Wikiquotes and Wikisource. Can we work out some way to allow me to add to those templates without the concern that you will come along to remove the Wikiquote and Wikisource links which, by the way, I've never added since they were put into hibernation? Thanks. Randy Kryn 12:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
        WP:DROPTHESTICK. You should be helping Wikipedia by removing these external links when you come across them, not willfully ignoring a guideline you disagree with. Especially seeing as you added most of the effing links in the first place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
        I'm nothing but proud to have added hundreds of those Wikiquote and Wikisource links over a year of work, links which had been on other templates six years or so before I started. The links from the "effing sister projects", as you called them recently, were never complained about until you decided that they weren't something you liked. The stick is still in the air and twirling. Randy Kryn 13:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
        How are you STILL not getting the outcome of THIS RFC???????? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)a
        ? I've told you several times that I haven't added one of those valuable links since the RfC, so I've accepted the temporary outcome. Doesn't mean I have to remove the ones I know about or come across, some of which have been on the templates for over eight years without anyone having a bad experience with them. As every day goes by, and nobody but you removes them, the evidence that they are welcome by readers and most editors accumulates. Randy Kryn 13:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
        Calling it a temporary outcome is proof of your refusal to accept the consensus! If you can't accept the decision of an RFC which was very heavily skewed in favour of not having the sister links there's clearly no reasoning with you! --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
        More? You know I've accepted it, as seen by my never adding another one or never reversing your deletion edits (on which you've spent lots of time). By temporary I mean it seems so logical to have a maximum of three sister-projects links placed on the below section of the templates that it will pass muster someday. When it does it'll take a long time to put them back, maybe a bot? I mainly did authors and other writers, did it for a year, and added 'Commons' 'Wikiquote' and 'Wikisource texts' although now would just add the latter two, 'Commons' is good for paintings and such. The sister project editors, who've spent thousands of hours creating fantastic treasure-troves like Wikiquotes, Wikisource, and the rest deserve this slight expansion of our connection as much as the readers do. When the question was introduced it was by someone other than me. It did not have an upper limit (three works well, two seems the way to go on most), and the closer did not read late-arriving evidence way down on the thread, which, as you surely recall, was that the encyclopedia's main template, {{Wikipedia}}, our home template, had a ridiculous way too many sister-project links, a total mess(well, maybe not that bad as an exception, if those distracting symbols are removed), which, for some reason, nobody complained about, nor edited away, for six years. For many moons. From 2009 until 2015. Don't blame me on that one, three links was my limit as well as my original proposal. Randy Kryn 19:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose / comment. If an article is listed in a navbox, should it *necessarily* transclude the navbox? No. Navbox clutter is a constant problem and mandating yet another one in a crowded article is counter-productive. The bidirectional guideline currently only applies where the navbox has already been added, and I think that is the way it should stay. The argument that "well, it's in one of the lists linked from the navbox" is fatuous. For example there are thousands of aircraft in the List of aircraft but adding Template:Lists of aircraft to every aircraft article would be absurd. See also the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. There will be occasional exceptions and these should gain local consensus, as the guideline already states. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- There can be reasonable and project-decided use of these templates, not adding them to cluttered pages (baseball players, etc.). The {{Zoos}} template easily could go back on all of the zoo articles without causing any problem. Local consensus for the zoo project to include this template has been opposed by editors outside of the zoo project, which is what is holding its use up. Randy Kryn 4:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  - Please review WP:CONLEVEL. --Izno (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

... and the consensus agreed in this guideline is, as Steelpillow points out, that any necessary discussion should take place at each article's talk page. Thincat (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

So, the Zoo project should start a discussion at each one of the 800 talk pages to see which ones will be happy to accept the {{Zoos}} template? Maybe a bot could set that up, do you know of one that plays those games? Thanks. (by the way, I didn't get the Six Degrees reference in a comment above, but, full disclosure, I've been two degrees from Kevin Bacon since my appearance in Ferris Bueller). Randy Kryn 12:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, in theory, yes. We default to NOT having the navbox transcluded on an article which is not explicitly linked from within. If there is a good case to make an exception for including the navbox on the individual page (which there generally isn't), the discussion should be had on the talk page of the article in question. But no special blanket reason to ignore the guideline could be applied for {{Zoos}} any more than it could be for {{Aviation lists}}. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Was the question about the aviation template list (a template consisting only of lists, since there actually is no main "Aviation" template, at least it's not on the Aviation page so can you please edit-it-in there, thanks) decided on the project page? Or was it the template page, or main 'Aviation' page (probably it's proper home)? On the other hand, "Zoos" was put on all of the zoo pages without anyone complaining about it. The project members probably all have some zoo pages on their watchlists, and nobody removed any, not for a very long time. Then finally someone did, and all of this stuff ensued. Never thought of it before, but it's an entirely different set of circumstances at Aviation and the zoo limbo. Anyway, wherever the Aviation decision was discussed, project page, main topic page, or template page, wouldn't the zoo project have the same wikiright to decide the question there as well? Randy Kryn 19:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Related question: Does BIDIRECTIONAL apply to vertically arranged navboxes, e.g., {{Psychology sidebar}}? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

If only the deletionest did not abuse this guideline it would be fine.....problem we have is some use this rule to impede navigation. We are just lucky theae editors dont edit history or academic topics......as

Moxy (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Video game series navboxes

In the same way we don't include film studios in film series navboxes, record labels in musical artist navboxes and TV networks in TV series navboxes, what's the feeling about video game studios in video game series navboxes? I'm assuming the same rationales apply. The studios' navboxes should handle all the navigation that is required, surely. I'm also assuming we can apply WP:PERFNAV to designers, music composers, etc, etc in these navboxes too... --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Unlike film studios, record labels, and TV networks, I believe video game development studios usually have only 1-2 intellectual property's-worth of series; listing them in the context of those IPs makes quite a bit of sense, and certainly doesn't lead to the insanity of sports navboxes (which is my threshold for appropriate navbox scope). (There is already a consensus at the VG project not to include studios where their only role is publication.) Where they have more IPs worth of series, we usually change the scope of the template to be the studio itself (ref {{NCsoft}}) rather than the series, at least where this is practical for navbox size; ref {{Blizzard Entertainment}} and e.g. {{Warcraft}} for a case where it's not. I certainly don't see a need to apply PERFNAV here.

People are a little more fuzzy to me in the context of a series template. A lot of them stick at a specific studio for the majority or even entirety of their career, at least where it concerns that specific series. I would suggest (although it's not the case now) that Sid Meier should be on the {{Civilization}} navbox--and I would be shocked with someone who disagreed with me. Then you have cases like Chris Metzen, who's been at Blizzard since the studio started and had an important hand in nearly every one of Blizzard's games. Sure, I can toss him on {{Blizzard Entertainment}}, but given his role...? Fuzzy to me. Then I would guess there are some people don't have a large influence on a specific series, and I would suggest those people shouldn't appear on a series navbox (perhaps Robert Kotick is an example of such). --Izno (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. My issue is with navboxes like this one for Deus Ex (which I have now trimmed) which lists multiple people (including composer and someone who wrote some spin-off novels) and multiple studios. If Square Enix were to be listed on every navbox for every game series they produced, then there would be way too many navboxes on their article. However, {{Square Enix franchises}} ably covers this part of the navigation process. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There's absolutely some examples of going overboard, but I recall when this was being done about six months and I disagreed on {{Call of Duty}}. As an easy example, this is a case where the only real focus those studios have is to maintain that franchise. They are intimately associated with it, with a very well documented three year cycle where those developers rotate on putting out CoD games. Similarly, I would be opposed to removing Blizzard Entertainment from their franchise templates. Blizzard's franchises are tightly controlled and coupled, with no other developers. In short: It's not clear cut, and each one needs to be looked at case by case. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There is generally a much much stronger publicly-known (at least in the industry) between a video game series and its developer(s) and or principle leads, compared to films and their studios, and to not include these devs on the navbox is less helpful than it would be for the film navbox argument, with the examples give above clear reasons to keep these names. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I may have been heavy handed with some of these, but without a bright line, we're going to see editors adding all sorts of people and studios to navboxes for minor involvement, as if it were an infobox. However, I stand by the majority of my removals from the {{Deus Ex series}} navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

{{Unreal series}} needs some serious trimming along the same lines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there are definitely some names in that one (like Tim Sweeney and Cliff B. that need to stay), but its difficult to necessarily draw a bright line. It should be consensus-based decisions, but a rough metric can be guided by doing a Google News search For example with the Unreal box (recognizing that there hasn't been a major release of the Unreal series for some time so google news will not be perfect) a gnews search on "unreal" plus the quoted names bolew gives:

"tim sweeney" : 2470 gnews hits
"cliff bleszinski" : 1860
"mark rein": 965
"steve polge": 79
"sascha dikiciyan": 7
"bob bates": 18

If we had to draw a line, Sweeney, Bleszinski clearly pass it, Rein to an extent, but none of the other ones are close to name attachment. And to further quantify something, "unreal" + "epic games" gives about 30,000 hits, so that Sweeney's 2470 hits is not insignificant to that. So perhaps there's some google numeric guidance to consider as part of that line. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that by Google association is the best way to go about it. If we are allowing individuals (although personally I think this is against WP:PERFNAV), the inclusion criteria should be based on the role they played. In any case WP:PERFNAV would definitely preclude Reeves Gabrels from {{Deus Ex series}}. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to take the {{Tim Schafer}} approach for people. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The video game industry is more unique compare to film or television in that while there are some people that are "fluid" and work across multiple companies or series, like Schafer, just as many are well-known for a single company or series; Sweeney and Bleszinski are that for Unreal/Epic Games; Gabe Newell is that for Valve Corporation, etc. It would not make sense at all to have a "Gabe Newell" template because it would be 100% overlap with the existing Valve template. At the same time, with the concern of "over-proliferation of navigation templates", very few well-known designers/etc. are strongly associated with numerous video game series or companies that are large enough for navboxes, compared to the film industry. The PERFNAV reasoning is fine in other areas, but breaks down in video games given the nature of how the industry is treated. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue here, like in many instances of lists on Wikipedia, is that there's just been too much example bloat. Someone has a good example. Some adds another acceptable one. A third person adds three more for "equality". A fourth overzealous editor comes it and lists off every example even tangentially related to the subject. I'm constantly cleaning it up. I feel similar to Ferret and Masem above. I don't think it should be forbidden, and I don't know where exactly to draw the line, but I certainly believe we should allow for a few core developer/publishers when it comes to companies, and major creator/director type when it comes to people, and I think we should actively trim back on the examples when its anyone outside of that. Sergecross73 msg me 21:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)