Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Personal relationships in navboxes

How do we feel about including personal relationships in navboxes? We don't normally categorise people by other people, and I think the same logic should, for the most part, follow for navboxes. Take a look at {{Lord Byron}} for example, which is full of personal relationships in the "people" section. --woodensuperman 10:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no good reason to censor relatives as long as it's supported by RS.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh? Censor? This is mostly about whether there is navigational utility/importance in having that navbox in the bottom of each of those people's articles. I agree with Woodensuperman that that people section should probably go Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of infoboxes and "early life" or "personal life" sections. I don't think that info should be redacted as long as it is in the public domain.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Relatives and other important people who either shape a person's life or are primarily known for their relationship to an individual are of primary interest to readers, researchers, and other users of an encyclopedia. I fear that, in seeking more and more things to delete (in good faith, of course), the nominator has their eyes on another important aspect of information relayed by good arts or political templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

People are not defined by their relationship to another, or "primarily known for their relationship to an individual". See WP:NOTINHERITED. Therefore they are not generally specific to the subject of the navbox, and probably shouldn't be included as a general rule. Exceptions will exist, but not in the example I give above. Another example where this is problematic is where multiple members of the same family have navboxes, and the whole family are then included in multiple navboxes - see {{John Lennon}}, {{Yoko Ono}}, {{Julian Lennon}}, {{Sean Lennon}}. {{Phil Spector}} has a whole section of "Associates", etc, etc... --woodensuperman 15:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikilawyering using an essay won't cut it with this one (hopefully). The listings of family and very close connected associates in templates of artists, authors, politicians, and other related individuals have been on Wikipedia templates since I've been around. Please go back to removing category-links to template section headings (which has resulted in removing untold and massive amounts of data from Wikipedia templates) and "below" links to Wikisource texts and Wikiquotes (which has removed another set of untold and massive amounts of data from Wikipedia, and we'll get back to that sometime), but when someone in good faith argues that John F. Kennedy's template cannot have a link to Robert F. Kennedy, or Queen Elizabeth's template can't have a link to her sons, daughter, or husband, an essay just won't do. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You mention Queen Elizabeth there (in the bit where you were actually being relevant to the matter at hand), and the sheer number of navboxes she is included in is ridiculous, so to take Prince Charles as an example, does he really need to be included in {{Elizabeth II}}, {{Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh}}, {{Diana, Princess of Wales}}, {{Prince William, Duke of Cambridge}}, {{Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex}}, AND {{Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall}}, as the whole family is mentioned in all of those navboxes, as well as having its own sidebar at {{British Royal Family}}. --woodensuperman 16:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course. Prince Charles is the son of Elizabeth and Philip, the ex of Diana, the father of the future King of England William (and dad of poor 6th place Harry), and present husband of Camilla. He is seminally important to all of them. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the relationship, but is there really any merit in including him in ALL these navboxes, especially considering that all this information will be well linked in the articles if relevant, and also probably in infoboxes as well as countless other places. WP:DEFINING exists for categories, we should be following something similar here. To use another example, John Lennon is not defined by his relationship to his sons, although the argument could be made for the reverse. Kim Kardashian is not defined by her relationship to Kanye West, yet she appears in his navbox. And, again, look at the {{Lord Byron}} navbox. How many of those people are defined by their relationship to him? --woodensuperman 08:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Also see WP:OCASSOC for the logic that we should extend here. --woodensuperman 09:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Close family members are applicable on subject's templates, even if they repeat on more than one or two. That's just common sense, and those links have likely been on our templates since they started. Kanye West's template should of course have a link to his wife (I really can't understand why you'd object to West's wife being on his template, that's a puzzler), and John Lennon's son's template should include a link to his father. So please don't mislead editors by focusing on the word "defined" when it comes to family. You seem intent on Lord Byron (as were many in his day). There are entries there I'd agree could be removed, Thomas Moore for example. Prominent lovers are applicable, depending on the number and their influence on the subject, but other close friends might be trimmed (as were many in his day). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not "just common sense". I'd argue the opposite. Why should someone's wife necessarily be included on their navbox when they will already be well linked in the relevant articles (and not mentioned on the irrelevant ones)? Who gets to decide the influence of a "prominent lover" - this is completely subjective. Why is Lindsay Lohan in {{Aaron Carter}}'s navbox? Of course there will be exceptions, but somewhere down the line, someone has decided that every relative and friend and ex-lover and passing acquaintance of anyone who has a navbox should be included, and then other editors have seen these navboxes and added all these people to more and more navboxes and quite frankly it is ridculously out of hand. And note that for the most part, these templates are not transcluded on the articles that are included, which does not allow for navigation between the articles (the very purpose of a navbox). Again, I'd urge you to read the guidelines for categories and see how the same restrictions should be applied in some part to navboxes. I appreciate that they are different navigational tools, but there's a lot of "common sense" there. --woodensuperman 12:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea who Aaron Carter is. You keep pushing to exclude family (is Lohan his wife? Sister?), maybe if you get off wanting to exclude family members then the discussion could be on who else should or could be included. I doubt if there are "passing acquaintances" on many templates, and even friends are usually limited and important. Lovers academically acknowledged as major lovers should be part of a person's template, they are academically a part of a persons story (or if major media productions focus on them, for example)l. I don't understand what the category guideline you link to even means, and templates and categories are two different aspects of reader discovery. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think they may have dated or something. I can't find mention of him at Lohan's article. Just because someone is "a part of a persons story" [sic] it does not translate that they should automatically be included in their navbox. If you cannot understand what the other guidelines mean, then you're clearly not going to understand why it is also a problem here. --woodensuperman 12:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Not guideline as a whole, that one you linked to (seems badly written). I also checked out Aaron Carter (I'm more of a Poppy person myself). Of course Lohan and Hilary Duff should be removed from his template, they were lovers but when I say include lovers I mean of very important personages, like Lord Bryon, whose notability for long-term significant importance has already occurred and is obvious, and who is partially but importantly known for his long-term acknowledged lovers. Aaron Carter will not be of Lord Bryon significance, unless he goes on to end global warming or some such. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

And also note that I do not "get off wanting to exclude family members". Read my posts again. I have not been "pushing to exclude family". I'm just trying to open some dialogue and a discussion on something that is potentially problematic. --woodensuperman 12:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. I didn't mean "get off" in the slang way. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Symphonies is now a bad example

The introductory section of the page ends with the following:

Category workers, list builders and outline builders, and series box designers all endeavor to develop comprehensive networks of links for navigating the encyclopedia. Because of this, increasingly, multiple entries to fields of knowledge are being provided. Take "symphonies", for example:

• Categories: Category:Symphonies
• Lists: List of symphonies with names
• Navigation Templates: Template:Symphonies by number and name

However, Template:Symphonies by number and name is no longer a good example, as it's been renamed to Template:Lists of symphonies and provides merely a navbox to the list articles about symphonies. Can anyone think of a better example, of some topic that features all three: a topic category, a topic list article (or multiple articles), and a navbox for the topic (not the topic lists)? Or, does someone know of a symphony-related navbox that we can use to "fix" the current example? -- FeRDNYC (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:PERFNAV and its relationship to news anchors/presenters

Despite a couple of TFDs no progress has been made on this issue, and the last discussion resulted in the closing editor mandating further discussion elsewhere. The no consensus close at the earlier discussion seemed to be mostly procedural, due to the White House correspondents being lumped in, but even the new nomination without these did not result in deletion. The main opposition to deletion seems to be in the vein of "but these are journalists", but this should not make them exempt to WP:PERFNAV as the navboxes relate to TV shows. Journalists should not be exempt from WP:PERFNAV any more than any other profession also appearing on television. We do not have navboxes for the staff of a newspaper, etc, for pretty much the same reasons, as many of these people will work in multiple media and for different publications, so they just encourage WP:TEMPLATECREEP and put WP:UNDUE weight on certain aspects of someone's career over others. If we allowed these kinds of navboxes to continue, consider the careers of Paula Zahn and Katie Couric as examples of how many potential navboxes they could be included in. Examples of problematic navboxes include {{CBS News Personalities}} and {{Anchors of CBS This Morning}}. --woodensuperman 15:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Journalists are journalists and never Mark Twain shall meet." On-air journalists include the correspondents, news reporters, sports reporters, weather reporters, and, in the case of those who write their own copy, and/or those who have to switch from 'presenters' when a breaking news story comes up (the 9/11/2001 coverage in the U.S. as an extreme, but real, example), even news anchors and presenters instantly become working journalists. WP:PERFNAV does not cover journalists. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

And why do you think the fact that they are also journalists somehow exempts them from WP:PERFNAV? Sports presenters are often ex-sportspeople, that doesn't mean they are exempt. These navboxes are about television programmes. Why should news television navboxes not have to follow the same rules as navboxes for other television programmes? Also, note that journalists do not have navboxes anyway! It would be inappropriate to create a navbox for, say, {{The Washington Post journalists}} for exactly the same reasons we have WP:PERFNAV in the first place, and it is much better handled by a category (Category:The Washington Post journalists). --woodensuperman 11:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Because journalists are not performers. WP:PERFNAV pertains to performers. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If they are presenting a television programme they are performing. However, also note that WP:PERFNAV also applies to crew of a television programme, including writers, directors, etc, etc, so you need to consider the intent behind the guideline, and not get hung up on the word "performer". PERFNAV is just a shortcut. --woodensuperman 12:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Journalists are not entertainers, which is what PERFNAV is specifically about. They are there to inform the public about daily events. Wikipedia is about accuracy. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You're concentrating on the bit that says "entertainers" and completely missing the point that says "crew members". The guideline is specifically about both of these things. We could add a shortcut called WP:CREWNAV if this helps you to understand this... A television news broadcast is a production, and the newsreaders are crew members. I have no idea why you added "Wikipedia is about accuracy" to the end there, when we're not discussing accuracy of the data whatsoever, but suitability of navbox inclusion. --woodensuperman 13:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is about accuracy" because journalists are not entertainers, which is the criteria for PERFNAV. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you really still not see the bit where it says "crew members" and specifically "This includes, but is not limited to [...] television/radio presenters, writers [...]"? Can you not see the spirit with which the guideline is intended? --woodensuperman 14:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The page Presenters includes the sentence "The term does not apply to reading the news however. This role is known in American English as an anchor, and in British and Commonwealth English as a newsreader." Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether or not that is true (unreferenced Wikipedia page, and certainly debatable - see also "news presenter"), they're still crew members. --woodensuperman 15:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe start an RfC? Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Pinging participants in prior discussions: Frietjes; NSH002; WilliamJE; Matt Fitzpatrick; AnemoneProjectors; Neutrality; Tenebrae; Charitwo; Lepricavark; Wikid77; Jc86035 --woodensuperman 11:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• My take is that UNDUE is the general guidance, and PERFNAV is a special case. So discussing whether journalism is a performance is missing the broader point. We should be asking whether a position, regardless of whether it's journalistic or entertainment, is important enough that a navbox passes UNDUE. Screen space may be cheap for sighted mouse users, but navboxes take a long time to listen and Tab through for reading-impaired or keyboard users. Large lists of unimportant links can be a significant annoyance for those users. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• I continue to maintain that PERFNAV should not be used to delete perfectly useful, informative navboxes. Lepricavark (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:ITSUSEFUL. A navbox detailing all the cast and crew of, say, Star Trek, could be described as "useful, informative", but completely inappropriate as has been demonstrated countless times. --woodensuperman 08:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's set aside policy for a moment. Policy doesn't interest me — I'm a software designer, not a bureaucrat. (Which is not to say that I don't follow policy or don't believe it should be followed, merely that I believe we're all here for the same reason: to make Wikipedia the best it can be. IMHO, debates about policy interpretation can distract from, rather than serve, that goal.) The reasoning behind WP:PERFNAV is laid out there, and applying that rather than picking apart the wording may be more productive. "The spirit, not the letter", as they say.

(Oh... and I apologize up front for the length of what follows. You should've seen it before I trimmed it down considerably.)

So, in part inspired by Matt Fitzpatrick's comments above, I decided to take a look at this from a practical standpoint. Matt already urged us to consider the "cost" of the navboxes in terms of readers using assistive technologies, which is an excellent point. But even more fundamentally, navboxes have a clear purpose, and in broadest terms that's laid out at WP:NAV: A navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles.

I therefore took a look at the one of the ones that Woodensuperman originally raised as questionable — or, I'd intended to. I'd originally thought I was looking at {{Anchors of CBS This Morning}}, but didn't realize I was seeing {{TheEarlyShowAnchors}} instead.

Here are the relevant data points:

1. There are, by my count, over 20 unique names in the navbox. (All linked, as is The Early Show. There are no other links.)
2. There are only seven transclusions of this template in the article namespace. One is The Early Show, the other six are articles about current/former anchors. (In alphabetical order by last name: Priya David, Mark McEwen, Dave Price, Maggie Rodriguez, Harry Smith, Chris Wragge.)
3. ALL of the information presented in the navbox — the lists of people who appeared on The Early Show, broken down by what segments or editions they appeared in — is presented in the body of The Early Show itself, in a series of bulleted lists. (Some of it is also further duplicated in the article prose.) The bulleted lists also provide additional information which is not found within the infobox:
   1. Each person's tenure on the program/segment in question is listed alongside their name.
   2. The lists contain additional names and/or roles not present in the infobox: Tom Bergeron was anchor during summer 2002; Susan Molinari, Dawn Stensland, and Kelly Wallace have all anchored the show as well. None of these names appear in the navbox.
4. The navbox is not transcluded on articles about the most notable/prominent names listed in it: Bryant Gumbel, Gretchen Carlson, Julie Chen, Erica Hill, etc. (To say nothing of Tom Bergeron, who doesn't even appear in the infobox.)

So, based on what I found, it seems to me that the navbox:

1. Is entirely redundant in the context of the article about The Early Show.
2. Is entirely useless for its defined purpose of facilitating navigation between related articles. Most of the articles don't transclude it!
3. Is only placed on articles when The Early Show is the subject's most prominent job. If they've gone on to greater fame, the infobox is dispensed with. WP:UNDUE indeed!
4. Exists to serve a purpose that nobody actually has: Navigating between the articles about the various people who've served as anchors of The Early Show.
5. Is based on a faulty premise: That articles about people who've held the same job are, by virtue of that fact, related in any way. Who visits Gayle King (CBS This Morning co-host, 2012-present) and says, "Man, I wish I had a convenient way to explore all the other articles about people who've hosted CBS This Morning!"? (Even if that person exists, they'd be out of luck because none of these infoboxes appear on Gayle King!)

So, on the strength of that, I would even dispute Lepricavark's claim that these navboxes are useful. In what way are they at all useful?

• If we want The Early Show to link to all of its anchors, well, it already does that without this navbox, and more completely.
• If we want the articles for those anchors to link to each other... well, I don't think that's actually a need anyone has, but even if it is the navbox fails at that purpose since it's not used on most of them (probably because it isn't actually wanted or needed).
• If it's just that it's nice to have all the names formatted in a nice table on The Early Show, well, go ahead and format them in a nice table. But that's not what a navbox is supposed to be used for.

WP:PERFNAV thus strikes me as an excellent and very well-thought-out policy. A navbox for people based on them all having the same job is clearly a terrible idea, unless that job is as distinctive and prominent as "President of the United States" ({{US Presidents}}) or "{{Provosts of Trinity College, Dublin}}". Not even "CEO of Ford Motor Company" rates a navbox for the position — it's a list article, as it should be, and {{Ford Motor Company}} links to that list. So, "appeared on a particular television program" just doesn't meet that standard in my eyes, and I can't see any reason in the world why news programs should be excepted from that.

(There's no "Stars of The Nanny navbox, after all, even though there is a {{The Nanny}} navbox. Which doesn't list any of the people who worked on it; not even Fran Drescher. She has her own navbox and it lists her writing and production work, but not every acting job she's taken. Because it gets transcluded on every single article it links to.)

Other than these news-organization templates, every member of Category:United States television personality navigational boxes is based around the person(s), not the job. While I can somewhat see an argument for {{White House press corps}} or {{Fox News personalities}} (and I think they should have a separate category), it's a lot harder for me to see the point of {{NBCEveningNewsAnchors}} or {{Anchors of CBS This Morning}}, or to accept that they don't exist only by exploiting a technicality in the wording of WP:PERFNAV that allows them to violate the spirit of the policy. Of course, that's purely IMHO. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Agreed on all counts. Although it's useful to compile the links as lists, the placement of those lists in a navbox makes them less useful. On the show's article, all the links are highly relevant. A reader would expect the lists in the article's body, as in The Early Show#On-air staff and #On-air staff 2, currently. On the anchors' articles, many of the links are irrelevant. For instance, Maggie Rodriguez currently links to the people who shared the screen with her, or replaced her, in the article's body. The other navbox links, to Mark McEwen for instance, aren't useful in that context. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to amend WP:PERFNAV

Per the discussion above at #WP:PERFNAV and its relationship to news anchors/presenters and the discussion at Template talk:Time Team#This navbox and WP:PERFNAV, it seems people are getting hung up on the words "performer" and "entertainer" and forgetting that that guideline also applies to crew members. I therefore propose that we change the last sentence to:

This avoids over-proliferation of navigation templates at the bottom of individuals' articles, and avoids putting WP:UNDUE weight on certain roles of an individual over others.

I also propose that we add the shortcut WP:CREWNAV, so that this can be cited rather than WP:PERFNAV where necessary. Thoughts? --woodensuperman 13:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, if Wikipedia keeps on expanding the definition then directors, producers, writers, journalists, and others will be removed from templates. People don't get "hung up" on words, they know what they mean and do not want to expand deletions to broader open-ended definitions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Directors, producers and writers are already removed from the navboxes, and journalists should be (see the excellent analysis by FeRDNYC above). This is just an attempt to clarify current practice, as editors are missing the spirit of the guideline and getting hung up on the words. --woodensuperman 13:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

? There are many director templates, are you trying to delete those? Journalists are not performers or entertainers (at least in principal), so they are not included in these type of discussions. Calling an elephant a mouse doesn't make it so. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You're confusing WP:FILMNAV and WP:PERFNAV. And if a journalist is working on a TV series, they're part of the crew. --woodensuperman 13:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

And on one hand you're saying that people don't get hung up on words, and then proceed to do exactly that, hanging on to "performers" and "entertainers", and completely ignoring the fact that the guideline applies to all crew members! Thank you for proving exactly why this guideline needs to be clarified! --woodensuperman 15:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. As one of these "people", I'd like to clarify that I am not "hung up" on wording. Regardless of how you word it, this guideline applies to people who are expected to regularly appear in creative works. The stated rationale ("avoids over-proliferation of navigation templates") is nonsensical otherwise. – Joe (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Not just regularly appear in, but also work on creative works. --woodensuperman 13:55, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure. In fact, wouldn't that be a good clarification? I.e., change:

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...

To:

Avoid adding people who regularly appear in, or work on, creative productions to navboxes for those productions. This includes...

– Joe (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It might work to tighten up the wording a bit. "Regularly" is unnecessary though, it would apply to people who appear/work on said production irregularly too. --woodensuperman 14:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point regarding "regularly". No, that is definitely against the spirit of the guideline. It applies to all, not just people who are expected to regularly appear in/work on creative works. That's covered in the part about WP:UNDUE, not the part about over-proliferation. Say Barack Obama appeared in Saturday Night Live. You wouldn't want him appearing in the {{Saturday Night Live}} navbox. --woodensuperman 14:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh? I don't see that stated in the guideline. Has there been a prior discussion and consensus on this topic?

I don't think you can assume that because a person doesn't regularly appear in creative works (i.e. that isn't their profession), what appearances they have made aren't a significant and defining elements of their biography. Barack Obama is an example where that assumption works, the Time Team archaeologists are an example where it doesn't. – Joe (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems that you're just trying to skew the guideline to allow the archaeologists from Time Team in its navbox. I'm not proposing a change to the guideline, just clarification of the existing wording and the spirit behind it. --woodensuperman 15:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose last thing we want is this exclusionary guide to affect non-pop culture articles.--Moxy (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It's only intended to clarify, not change anything - note that the section starts: "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." so it's only these "individuals" that the change refers to. The problem is that the last part of this section doesn't mention the crew members again, which people are trying to wikilawyer their way around. How about if we said "these individuals'" rather than just "individuals'"? --woodensuperman 15:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm also confused about the affect non-pop culture articles part of the objection. The guideline is about navboxes, not articles of any sort. The articles it would be affecting are the ones about the performers/crew in question, which would be spared the overproliferation of navboxes that would result from having their articles potentially include every navbox for every job they've ever had. (As I pointed out in #WP:PERFNAV and its relationship to news anchors/presenters, remember the purpose of a navbox as stated at WP:NAV: A navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles. Additionally, from the same page, They are intended to link articles to each other. That is, every article listed on a particular navigation template generally has the template placed on its page.)

Placing a link to a person's article in a navbox means also placing that navbox on the article about that person. Which means it's worth thinking real hard about whether them having that job really makes the article about that person "related to" every other article in the navbox. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The more the project put limitations on who is to be in template type A the more spamming we get of templates B,C,D,E,F,G etc... because editors want to see certain names on certain articles....thus we get temp spamming instead of consolidation...e.g Elizabeth Taylor#External links.... no way would this be acceptable on a academic figure article's. ....even Neil deGrasse Tyson already has one useless awards template. As has been metioned before..... the project is not going in the right direction in helping navigation...... that all said it looks like only 2 percent of our readers ever see them.--Moxy (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Since navboxes can't contain external links, I assume you're referring to the Portals list alongside that section? I still don't see how that has anything to do with this, since you'll notice that none of those portals are related to any performances or roles from Elizabeth Taylor's career. They are all related to her personal life, which is what one would expect on an article about Elizabeth Taylor. WP:PERFNAV already doesn't have any applicability there, with or without this change. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Moxy: Whoops, sorry, no. I hadn't expanded the "Awards" navbox container below. (Only 2% of users indeed!) Wow, that is a lot. Still, she's won a lot of awards. "Honorees" is different from "Performances", with or without this change. The template on NdGT's article... is also an "honoree" template, hrm. I'm still quite following how this relates to the proposed WP:PERFNAV change, though. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - For reasons I already laid out pretty extensively at #WP:PERFNAV and its relationship to news anchors/presenters; I can't think of anything to add to that. The few navboxes "allowed" by certain interpretations of this policy are Just. Not. Useful. In any way. (If you're wondering why I'd even have an opinion on this after declaring "Policy doesn't interest me", well, rest assured that I asked myself the same thing.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

List of Toy Mechanisms

Who needs such pages - ununderstandable list of accidental subject, unsourced.Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The capitalization is wrong, but I've seen similar. Sourcing would be trivial though. There are other reasons for not having such a list. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Time Team

Any comments gratefully received at Template talk:Time Team#This navbox and WP:PERFNAV --woodensuperman 12:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? Discussion stalled. --woodensuperman 14:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Bolding links in navboxes

FYI

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Bolding navbox links to help reach a consensus. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Separate vertical from horizontal templates

In the help, treat vertical templates (article series, sidebars) as separate from the horizontal ones, because the latter are significantly different, for example they go at the bottom of the article and they contain more elements. Also, a short how-to on using template:sidebar, and a kind of coordination of all the vertical template formattings would be great. -Inowen (nlfte) 20:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal on overly long entries in lists

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists#Overly long list items

Gist: Add brief advice about what to do about excessively large items in lists, to either WP:Manual of Style/Lists or WP:Summary style.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Full filmography in navbox

Further input requested at Template talk:Busby Berkeley#Full filmography. Thanks. --woodensuperman 09:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Viking navbox

Additional opinions needed at Template_talk:Viking#"in_popular_culture"_section. --woodensuperman 14:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

How to create a Wikipedia page with minimal effort?

One of the best ways to create a new page with almost no work is to copy a Category content into a List page. You claim that a page "may" contain additional information. Surely, it "may". But some authors don't care to add anything. Generally such a list will become obsolete, because it doesn't import new items like a Category does. Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Xx236, so old school, you make either of those into a nav box these days; transclude them into any article you can connect to the 'topic' and make the categories and lists redundant. Voila!, the death of due consideration and triumph of redundant creation. Happy editing, cygnis insignis 14:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

LOL :) --woodensuperman 14:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC on permitting "List of foo" mainspace titles to redirect to categories instead

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#RfC about redirects to categories
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Portals in navboxes

As far as I can make out, it seems that there has been a unilateral decision from the portals project in order to promote portals to start a campaign of actively adding these portals to lots of navboxes. Is this a good thing? This is a bit of an extension of the sister project discussion, but don't portals have their own templates to be added to articles, rather than using the navboxes? Personally, I think that they shouldn't be included as they then can appear on tangential articles with no connection to the portal. --woodensuperman 15:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd have to see some examples before I say it's a good idea or bad one, but my initial leaning is not to do it for reasons of placement rather than content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's a few: [1][2][3][4][5] --woodensuperman 16:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Icon portals is the right way to go. So now my only concern would be guidelines for when portals should be included and when they should not. For instance, if a band nav template wanted to include a punk rock portal, that would probably no be a good idea. Similarly, if there was a sporting club in Brazil that had teams in multiple sports and someone added a "football in Brazil" portal to it, that would be problematic on the basketball, volleyball, and futsal articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, if they are to be included, they need to match the topic of the navbox exactly. This one is definitely not acceptable. But I'm still not convinced that this is the right way to go. Portal and navbox placement should be independent of one another, surely. Placement in navboxes could result in duplicate transclusion of the same portal on articles, or we'll end up with a situation where readers would not know where to find the portal if they're hidden in a navbox. I also don't know how compatible portals are with mobile browsing, but I know navboxes aren't. --woodensuperman 16:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with the exact match requirement for all portal links, but in navboxes I agree.. I suggest that the match should be the best available at the time. If there was an ITV portal then that should be used, but if there is not, then links to portals that include the topic, like British TV (if it exists) are appropriate. when there is not an exact match there may be more than one portal that includes the topic, and in these cases the link should not be from the navbox, but from portal link templates like {{portal}}. A portal link from the navbox should be used for topics in the navbox because that is the natural use of a navbox. Where a topic is within the scope of several navboxes it will naturally be linked to any portals in those navboxes, but could also be linked to other relevant portals via {{portal}} type templates because navboxes do not necessarily exist for all topic groups. (That Brazilian sporting club could be an example, if one of the sports has no navbox.)

There is no current rule that a portal must be based on a single navbox, so we can't reasonably constrain portal links as if there was such a rule. As it happens, most of the new model portals are based on a single navbox, because that is simply the easiest way to mke them, but we have to allow for other styles unless the rules are changed first. I think that would be resisted quite strongly by some people, so an RfC would be necessary. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know there is also no rule that the portal link in the bottom of a navbox must have the same title as the navbox. I am inclined to think that there should be, but until there is, it is not enforceable. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Portals like categories are cotent related and are simply different ways to navigation pages designed for public viewing (WP:GOVP) ....thus unlike administrative pages should be represented in content-related navigational aids ...as different people use different ways to navigate Wikipedia. We should not choose for our readers which format is best but let them choose the format they wish to use. Our policies and guidelines prohibit external links because English Wikipedia has no control over the content of sister project.... we have no guideline prohibiting content-related pages in navigation templates.--Moxy (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems we are discussing preventing a useful feature from happening to avoid a problem that may happen in a minority of cases. It's better to use common sense to move forward rather than a blanket prohibition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The portals project or its participants, are not, to my knowledge, working in concert to place non-matching portal links on navigation footers. The situation that Mr. Wood is describing is the placement of related (rather than matching) portal links, by a particular editor.

Note that matching portal links, outline links, and category links have been added to navigation templates as standard practice for over ten years. The "below" section is generally where they are placed, though they are sometimes displayed in the "above" section, or even in a template's general "topics" section. Since they match, the links are generally displayed as the singular words "Category", "Outline", and "Portal", rather than as the whole page name.

Many navigation templates have a lists section. I don't see a problem with adding portal links, that are on-topic, in a similar fashion. But, I do not agree with including any links (including portal links) that are beyond the scope of the template. So, for example, a link to the parent topic in the form of Culture, Category:Culture, Portal:Culture, or Outline of culture, would be out of place on Template:Sport, in my opinion. Off-topic links reduce the accuracy of the title of the template, which is supposed to indicate what subject the template is about. That template is about sports, not culture in general. Nor would I expect to see a "See also" or "Related topics" section on there either, since those could contain almost anything that happened to be on the same topic tree, like crafts or even knitting, another common pastime. Some people like to kick a ball around for fun, while others make sweaters. They are both pastimes, and therefore, related. One of those is the most popular sport in the world, but the other has nothing to do with sports. Let's keep nav footers focused (on-topic), please.

Thank you. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   08:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: Beware of portal links that are redirects to the "next most relevant topic". Some editors have begun redirecting missing portals to their parent portals, like missing country portals in the Caribbean to Portal:Caribbean. That makes those links off-topic, as far as navigation footers are concerned. Just a heads up. -TT

Thanks for your comments. I think there have been a couple of overzealous editors not only adding relevant portals to the templates, but also tangential portals, commons, wikiquote, wikisource and even wikivoyage links with poor wikimarkup and making a bit of a mess! I made a comment to one of them here - hopefully if they add any more, they will do so in a more orderly manner. --woodensuperman 09:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

We are all enthusiasts here, but about different things. On the other hand, making a mess is not a good thing, particlarly when someone else has to fix it. BRD applies in the usual way. If you think a change is wrong you can revert as long as you give a rational explanation why.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Isn't Extreme knitting a thing yet? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC) (PS; not an entirely serious question)

Is "next most relevant topic" not a legitimate option? Where is this specified? (I agree that is is not optimal, but it was probably quite general with the old style portals, and may remain the only option when an article has no navbox, or if the navbox is too small for a stand-alone portal.) · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Not in a navbox, as it is potentially tangential, or could end up multiple times on the same article. This is all part of why I questioned this method of using navboxes to populate articles with portals. --woodensuperman 15:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Although I have no problems with portals in nav templates....User:Pbsouthwood would be best to spend your time fixing up see also sections ..... as 60% of our readers -the mobile viewers - don't see the templates at all and and only 2% of the remaining 40% will not scroll to the bottom to see the template. The see also section is one of the most clicked on in table of contents so best to concentrate efforts on making sure that see also sections have the proper portals instead of things at the bottom of the page that are barely seen. --Moxy (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  Moxy, That is interesting. Do you have a source for your numbers? I don't use mobile at all and tend to not know how mobile users see out product. It is a pity that big chunks are not available to most users. Most See also sections do not have anywhere near the amount of information and navigation guidance provided by a good navbox, so it is a big loss. A good see also section has to be created individually for each article and loses the power of transclusion available for navboxes. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Topviews Analysis - see % Mobile
• Page Views for Wikipedia, Mobile site, Normalized
• Research:Which parts of an article do readers read
• Why We Read Wikipedia....--Moxy (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• Where portals are added to navboxes, I would say that they should generally be an exact match for the topic of the navbox. Portal:Video games could be added to many templates in Category:Video game navigational boxes, but it would be inappropriate because it is not a topic closely tied to the particular portal. Our general guidance for navboxes (here and at WP:NAV) requires more than tangential significance. --Izno (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• Portals, as with Wikiquote, Wikisource, and maybe Commons for artists templates, are all fine for Wikipedia navigational templates because they do nothing but help the readers. They do absolutely nothing to hurt the project, although I'd personally ditch the intrusive icons (when were icons approved for templates?). Importantly, since mobile readers do not get the real Wikipedia, Wikipedia should provide those who do make the effort to fully experience it with those few simple links at the bottom of the templates, three or four at most, which provide massive amounts of information (i.e. who wouldn't want a link to wikiquotes and wikisource texts at the bottom of Mark Twain's template?). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

  as with Wikiquote, Wikisource, and maybe Commons This is not about those topics. If you wish to have that discussion again, please start a new section. It is tendentious to bring it up over and over (WP:FORUMSHOP). --Izno (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to follow this discussion, but it seems there is little agreement with the idea that portal links absolutely must be exactly matched to the title of the navbar. Nor do I see anything wrong with using portal links to illustrate a main topic of a more tightly focused navbar. Nor does there appear to be anything about it in this guideline.

As for considering Commons links et al. as "external links", that too has been interpreted incorrectly, and I remember discussions in the past where external links were found to be outside websites, such as newspapers, magazines and fan sites. Commons links have never been considered "external links" by the community.

There are always those who disagree, but if it's not in the policy or guideline, then where is their leg to stand on? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  14:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

OR, NPOV, RS? Portals, and the nav boxes, are redundant side-steps of these policies. It is distracting cruft. pointless or harmful. Apologies to those who create this stuff, you've been misled and it is not good use of your time; be wary of those who tell you otherwise because improving proper content is not on their agenda. cygnis insignis 15:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

See here regarding commons links. --woodensuperman 08:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

That discussion still doesn't seem to preclude the use of Commons links in the Below sections of navbars. That discussion took place in the Summer of 2015 where nine opposers overshadowed three supporters of the question, "Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes when they are appropriately within scope of the navboxes topic?" Then there was the somewhat cryptic closing statement of "There seems to be insufficient support for a change to the WP:NAVBOX guideline." That guideline says almost nothing about Sister project inclusion beyond possibly, "...external links should not be included in navigation templates." And that is where the controversy begins, because the basic question of "Are Sister project links defined as 'external links'," has been debated for many years and is still debated. So it appears that the vague guideline still leaves it to be a matter of local editorial consensus. For example, I remember some time back when an editor reverted the addition of Commons to a navbar made by another editor. That other editor left the reversion intact to see if a third editor would happen by and add the Commons link back in. Then I came along and did just that. And to my knowledge, the Commons link remains in that navbar. So why would you cite such an obscure discussion with such a cryptic closing statement? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  23:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does. The purpose of that RFC was to determine exactly that and the result was quite conclusive. We do not include sister project links in navboxes. We could update the guideline if you are having problems understanding this. You're just wikilawyering now. Time to move along. --woodensuperman 06:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if you think I'm being facetious in some way. The fact remains that the guideline was not updated in 2015 and it should not be updated until a far more widely acknowledged community consensus decides to update it. So things remain as they have been, which is to allow sister links in navbars until a strong consensus says they shouldn't. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  06:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

We already have a strong consensus NOT to allow sister project links in navboxes and have had for 3 and a half years. That was the indisputable result of that RFC. The reason it was closed with no change to the guideline is because the closer clearly interpreted sister project links to be external links which were already precluded. Whether or not sister project links are treated as external links elsewhere is irrelevant here, as the RFC determined that they are not permissable in navboxes. Anyhow, this is NOT what this discussion is about, we've already been through this conclusively. --woodensuperman 09:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hold your horses. There was not only not a strong consensus but the 2015 closer said that he missed reading late-coming information that might have changed the decision: the {{Wikipedia}} template had hosted sister-project links for six years up to that point Even with those eye-catching ugly icons. With nobody complaining. The RfC question was also badly put, as someone else wrote it before I did and asked for an unlimited number of sister-project - I was suggesting a maximum of three for each template (unlike the Wikipedia template, which had them all). For example, a writer's template would only have two - Wikiquote and Wikisource texts. And here's the kicker: I'd said that nobody cared or was hurt by adding those links, which I had done for a year before you complained (and many still exist). Then you and the misworded question and a closer who said they missed key facts shut down the process with the links existing on many hundreds of templates which I then had on my watchlist. And ever since, from 2015 until now, the only editor who has ever removed any is you. Nobody else minded them or mines them. So please don't misinterpret a close, a process, or the fact that not one other editor has ever removed the reader-valuable links from those templates. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Randy, stop it. You are the only one who never accepted the consensus and you have used every excuse you possibly could ever since to try and disrupt that consensus and drag it up again and again. This is just bullshit. There is 100% clear and definitive consensus at that RFC. --woodensuperman 10:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Did you even read the above? Of course I didn't accept it (although I've never added one since), the closer admitted it may have been a mistaken decision because he missed the late added information about the Wikipedia template. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia navbox is not special in any way. It is not some kind of "blueprint". Just another navbox with a load of external/sister links that should never have been there! --woodensuperman 10:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia template is the mother-ship template, the one that defines the project. The first among equals, as they say. And it held sister-city links for six years with nobody complaining, nobody worried, and apparently gladly used by readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't! It's just another shitty old navbox like any other. And you cannot claim that nobody was worried and they used it "gladly" as you cannot know this. Stop this bullshit Randy and move on. Again. --woodensuperman 10:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a grand old template. You are trying to add the mislanguage into the guideline, I've reverted you twice. Let's not edit war, leave it as is, and maybe now you can drop the stick? Randy Kryn (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You need to drop the stick, you've been bringing this same old record up every bloody time. Well done for hijacking yet another unrelated thread with it. I've had enough. Sister links are not allowed per that RFC and the language in the guideline seems to need updating for the benefit of our late-coming friend here, and other editors, who need to see that in the guidelines, rather than hidden on an archived talk page. Now, please revert your revert so that the guideline can reflect consensus and we don't need to go through all this unnecessary bullshit every. single. time. --woodensuperman 10:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth is not late-coming, he's a veteran editor who knows how to interpret closing language and does so fine here. The closing language does not reflect your wish to change the guideline language, so the stick is back in your hands and the poor horse is getting a beating it doesn't deserve or is called for in the closing language. As for hijacking, you and Paine brought it up, and this discussion reflects directly on the portals-in-navboxes topic, as none of these are outside links. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Late-coming to the discussion. And what the fuck does "so the stick is back in your hands and the poor horse is getting a beating it doesn't deserve or is called for" mean? This flowery language is just a smokescreen to confuse people. You need to drop the stick. There is no ambiguity in the RFC which was specifically to determine whether we allow sister project links. It was determined conclusively that we do not. You know this. Whether or not they count as "external" links is irrelevant. Move on. --woodensuperman 10:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Sister city projects are gold, and have only improved since 2015. In the spirit of Wikipedia 2030, portals and sister city projects are all in the same family of information to share with readers and researchers. And they should again be shared on templates (although I'd deep-six the unneeded icons). No, I'm not trying to confuse anyone, rather to clear up this misunderstood conflict and help build the encyclopedia to be the best possible resource for its readers. That resource, again in the spirit of Wikipedia 2030, would include adding back links to Wikiquote and Wikisource text to William Shakespeare's and Mark Twain's templates, and allowing people a link on each of Claude Monet's pages to enjoy the Commons collection of his paintings. I've never understood why you wanted to remove such fine connections in the first place. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No they're not in the same family at all. Portals perform a navigation function within Wikipedia, Sister projects take you to sites that are outside of Wikipedia. Note (again) that the function of a navbox is stated clearly in this very guideline: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia.". Linking to other Wikiprojects does not remotely meet this brief. But you've had this explained to you so many times Randy, I'm really starting to wonder... --woodensuperman 11:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I know, I wonder about myself sometimes, thinking that things like Wikiquote are somehow related to Wikipedia and Wikimedia 2030. Sister-projects must mean something other than "sister", since you say they are "not in the same family at all". Should the language be changed to "Step-sister projects"? Starting to wonder in Seattle, Randy Kryn (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

or "ugly sister projects"? Thincat (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

It's just another shitty old navbox like any other. -- woodensuperman
Forgive me, but that's telling. You don't like "shitty old navbox"es, so you tear away at them piece by piece? I'm with Randy – I don't understand why anybody would want to remove links and connections that have been helpful to readers and editors for many, many years. Why would they? Why would you? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  16:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Not true. I like a good navbox. The illustration was that there is nothing special about that navbox over any other, and the language was my frustration. As many editors pointed out, the purpose of a navbox is not to navigate outside of Wikipedia, but within it, so that's the reason to remove the links. So we had an RFC. And the RFC concluded rather decisively that navboxes should not have sister project links. Quite simply, it's not its job. Sister project links have their own templates. So please, no more WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. We've already been through this. --woodensuperman 17:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I guess I should take that IDIDNTHEARTHAT comment as not AGFing on your part, but then I would be guilty of the same thing. I DO hear you WS, I just don't understand your seeming obsession with blocking useful links that are part of the Wikimedia/Wikipedia encyclopedia project. They are not external links like Times news or some fan site. I mean, COMMONS, really? COMMONS is one of the best things about Wikipedia, and a great many of the images on Wikipedia come from COMMONS. Are you going to get rid of all those images next? No more images in WP articles because COMMONS is an external link? I'd just like to know where you plan to go with all this? First, you revert several of my Portal inclusions in navbars, then you come to my talk page with a slightly nasty finger shake in my face, then you link to this discussion as if to invite me in, then you call me a "latecomer" to a perennial debate that's gone on and on for many years. I get your frustration; however, I don't think you realize that you cause frustration in others, as well. I'm just trying to understand why anyone would hold the position you hold on this issue. And "we've already been through this" just ain't the right answer to my question. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  17:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think portal links on navboxes are great if they are specific to the topic, like the Dragon Ball navbox having a link the Dragon Ball portal next to the category, I think that is helpful to navigation. I do not support having overall music portals like "Rock music" linked on every rock musicians navbox on the other hand.★Trekker (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

RFC:Navboxes for record producers

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus in favor of the proposal that discographies be allowed in navboxes. This does not mean that they must be included, but rather that they can be included, subject to normal editing conventions (BRD, discussions on a case-by-case basis, etc). I'm happy to answer any questions about this close. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Should record producer filmographiesdiscographies be allowed in navboxes? --woodensuperman 09:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• No. As far as I can see, these should follow a similar rule to WP:FILMNAV, in that the producer is not the "author" or "primary creator" of the material, but a "facilitator" or "secondary creator", and these production discographies should not be included, and best left for categories and lists (similar to how we currently treat soundtrack composers for films). There's a bit of a discussion at Talk:Phil Spector#Navbox, and I think as it stands only {{Phil Spector}} and {{Todd Rundgren}} are affected. Note that there are no {{John Leckie}}, no {{Rick Rubin}}, no {{George Martin}}, no {{Steve Albini}}, no {{Bob Clearmountain}} navboxes (the list goes on). Producers with navboxes, such as {{Dr. Dre}} and {{Quincy Jones}}, are currently restricted to works that they are the musical artist on, not the producer. --woodensuperman 09:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• There's not a 'George Martin' template? Should be, hopefully someone in the music or Beatles projects will work one up. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, there probably should, but it should include his own works, and not a list of works he produced. --woodensuperman 11:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

His work and innovations with the Beatles is essential to much of their music, so he was a main creator of those albums (and they would be allowed on a template), as well as a radio show. Thanks for pointing out that his work lacks a template here. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that their entire discography should be replicated in his navbox. The Beatles' albums belong on a navbox devoted to The Beatles, not to one for a record producer. This causes an WP:UNDUE issue. --woodensuperman 13:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Of course they should. Any important record producer should have their works listed in a navbox. The idea that works by a producer are not "real" works somehow is ridiculous. Woodensuperman has once again failed to give any real reason for not listing productions in a navbox. Phil Spector's navbox should contain his productions, just as George Martin's (future) navbox should, and if Joe Meek or Rick Rubin get navboxes, they should list them as well. Why? Because they're producers. I'm flabbergasted anyone would even argue against this.—Chowbok ☠ 13:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that these are not "real" works, but that the authorship belongs to the musical artist, not the producer. Can you really not see how it would be an incredibly bad idea to create a navbox that replicates Rick Rubin production discography? --woodensuperman 14:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Why would that be any better or worse than The Beatles or The Rolling Stones having discographical articles and navboxes, with overlapping content? —Chowbok ☠ 23:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

And you're wrong, by the way, that "the authorship belongs to the musical artist, not the producer". Sometimes it does. Sometimes it's a collaboration. And sometimes, like with many of Phil Spector's productions, the artists were almost interchangeable. Spector released a "Crystals" single that was actually by the Blossoms, and nobody noticed or cared.—Chowbok ☠ 23:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

And there you have it. "Sometimes". The editorial judgment as to when is WP:OR and to include a complete production discography is WP:UNDUE. --woodensuperman 09:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous argument. If deciding what is and is not significant about a given subject is OR, then every single article is OR. Delete the entire site!—Chowbok ☠ 05:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Chowbok, notability covers article content, although navboxes are somehow exempt for policies on content. cygnis insignis 15:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• No binary option if a work is closely associated with a producer, such as Robert John "Mutt" Lange with Shania Twain and Def Leppard, and there were a documentary film about the second subject and Lange was a key element of the film, then that film should appear in the subject's nav box. It's the key element that is required. In most other cases, FILMNAV is correct. If the subject is not the creator of the film, and not the subject of the film, that film should not be listed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Apologies, I just spotted a glaring mistake in my initial wording. I had written "filmographies", when I meant to write "discographies". Now corrected, but this may affect your response. --woodensuperman 16:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Same concern. If they're not a key element of the album, no. The Lange example applies again. Most producers should not have a nav box and when they do, albums they've produced should not be listed in it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Record producers are often, if not usually, "key elements" of albums and songs they produce, and certainly in the case of a producer like Phil Spector or Joe Meek. The music they produced is instantly recognizable as theirs, and it sounds very different than it would have been were it produced by anyone else. I don't think the film producer analogy is really very helpful, actually, because a record producer does many things that would be handled by separate individuals on a film; a record producer is the equivalent of an editor, cinematographer, and (at least partially) director of a movie.—Chowbok ☠ 23:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

But for an editor to make that claim is WP:OR. It must be proven using reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

In agreement on the WP:OR issue, but also, if you want to draw that comparison, editors' and cinematographers' filmographies are not permitted in navboxes, as they too are "secondary" creators of the material, and do not have claims to authorship. --woodensuperman 09:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Then those should be modified as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Cinematographer Gregg Toland, for example, shares the title card on Citizen Kane with director Orson Welles, and was definitely a creator of the film. This alone should go towards a case-by-case inclusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

We do not have any navboxes for these roles, and this should not change per longstanding consensus. --woodensuperman 16:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, why not? You just keep repeating that we shouldn't do these things, but you never say why. "Because we don't, that's why" is not an argument.—Chowbok ☠ 05:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

See WP:FILMNAV. --woodensuperman 11:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The last I checked, record producers are not film makers. Shall I assume you mean that the same principle should apply? If so, we should revisit that guideline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, same principle should apply, that's what I said in my original comment. But I can't see a reason to revisit that guideline. It would be a ridiculous idea to start allowing navboxes for every crew member - the bottom of every film article would be drowning in navboxes. We've already been through this loads. --woodensuperman 16:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Prefect. Time to fix that clearly lazy guideline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there's nothing to change and echos what we've been saying here: "unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question". An example there would be George Lucas, who does have a nav box: Template:George Lucas. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at this in the archives first: Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 13 --woodensuperman 16:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, when editorially appropriate. Editorial judgement is not WP:OR, it is an essential and desirable part of creating an encyclopedia. Thincat (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, blatant nobrainer.★Trekker (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I thought this meant if a discography list should be allowed in a navbox. Not if producers should have their own navboxes. Wording was a unclear. I have no real opinion on if producers should have their own navboxes honestly.★Trekker (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Worth noting I feel, at least to some extent, that as far as film goes the producer is often considered the main "owner/creator" of a work, that's why Best Picture/Film goes to the producer at the Academy Awards. Worth thinking about I feel.★Trekker (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, not on all but on a provable case-by-case basis. George Martin, Phil Spector, and many other producers were prime creators of their projects. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

How is this "provable"? This leads to the same WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE issues, except in extremely rare cases, which would not warrant a navbox. --woodensuperman 16:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

By sources. George Martin, for example, is a prime creator of much of the sound and creativity that the Beatles are known for, and his influence in their music is undeniable and profound. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Fully agree. Martin is always linked to the Beatles' work and Spector is inseparable from the Detroit Wall of Sound. Not OR, but common knowledge. Other examples are Lange (for the cases I mentioned above). There are other examples. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

But what about other works they produced - to suggest that Martin would be a primary creator of say, something like No Place to Run, Wired or Bridge on the River Wye, and inclusion of those in his navbox, would be WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. This would lead to selective inclusion, which is not acceptable for a navbox, and is exactly why production discographies should not be permitted. --woodensuperman 09:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

What about them? Again, if the subject's article is well-sourced; if the work is well-sourced; if all secondary sources state the subject was key to the work, the work belong in an infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The articles do not state that he was an important force behind the creation of the albums, merely that he produced them. This is exactly why record producer navboxes are problematic. --woodensuperman 16:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Easy enough to fix. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It really isn't. Sources will not always exist to detail the extent that every producer was involved with every album that they produced. And let us assume he couldn't be considered "primary" creator in these cases, we are then left with a navbox with only a partial production discography, which drive-by editors are then going to populate with the full discography, and then other producer navboxes will start appearing, as editors think that they are all acceptable, and the whole thing becomes a terrible complicated mess. We really need to nip this in the bud. This is already well covered by categories. Let's leave it that way. --woodensuperman 16:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not sure what you checked, but Abbey Road has Martin's name all over it, as do several other albums. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's not get hung up on Beatles albums. There has been so much written about the Beatles, these are an anomaly. --woodensuperman 16:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

But we were discussing Martin and Specter in particular, but I agree with you: if there are no sources to state that a specific producer was instrumental in the release of an album, that album should not be on the producer's nav box. The whole project—Wikipedia that is—is a terrible complicated mess and this one correction won't affect it that much. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• Obviously, especially for artist/producers such as Phil Spector, Todd Rundgren, Brian Eno, and so on. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes best not to have an dead fast exclusionary rule.....best the editors at the article decide the best links as they are the content creators and would know best.--Moxy (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes It is information that can be listed. Why not. scope_creep^Talk 15:10, 6 February 2019 (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.

What to exclude from nav template/when to reasses recent

Do we have guidelines for judging which of a large category of articles to include in a nav template? The specific template that made me wonder is Template:Veganism_and_vegetarianism, which includes Books as a section. I kind of feel like simple notability of a book might not be enough and the book should actually have been influential. The reason I ask is that I just removed a 2005 self-help cookbook (Skinny Bitch) that made a small splash at the time of its release (and does have several followups) because while notable, it didn't really have any actual influence on vegetarianism/veganism beyond that. I feel like if every vegan/vegetarian cookbook that becomes arguably notable gets added, we'd have a really long list. The earlier books, I totally agree with, but there's an article in this list that is currently up for deletion about a 2004 book Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Raw_Food_Made_Easy_for_1_or_2_People which I don't think anyone could possibly argue is an important or influential book to include in the nav template unless we're going to include EVERY book in it.valereee (talk) 12:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I've added back Skinny Bitch, an influential bestseller (you started a discussion on the template page and then quickly removed the book). The Raw Foods book you removed and then put up for AfD, maybe a good choice but maybe a bit far to AfD it even though others joined in. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for comments on List of Photographers

You are invited to join the discussion regarding edits to List of Photographers. The discussion is addressing the following questions:

• Within each section, should the entries by sorted alphabetically or chronologically?
• Should date of birth and date of death be added to entries?
  • Should nationality, date of birth, and date of death information be supported using reliable sources if that information is in the entry's corresponding article?
• Is the Photographers' Identity Catalog (PIC) a reliable source for nationality, date of birth, and date of death?
  • If a source is deemed reliable, should there be a limit on how many times it is used?

Your contributions are welcome. Thank you! Qono (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of navigation templates for mammals

I have opened a discussion at a project on navigation templates for mammalia, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Article_templates, which links to a request for views at the Tree of Life project. Those with an interest in article navigation may wish to be aware of, or contribute to, the discussion. Some or all parts of the large set may be nominated for deletion and notices will be forwarded if requested, I will try to centralise discussion where possible. cygnis insignis 11:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)