Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Bidirectional navboxes?

A year ago, after suggesting it here and getting no response, someone added "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional". To me, that seems insufficient to achieve bidirectionality. Template:Beyond Fear is transcluded in Beyond Fear and rightly links to the article. OK. But the template also links Yngwie Malmsteen and that article, probably sensibly, does not transclude the template so there is no link back (except in the article text).

Even the first part of the advice seems wrong. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt transcludes {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} but we wouldn't want Ancient Egypt including in the template. Would we? Thincat (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:UCS and WP:IAR. :) –Quiddity (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually Thincat, you've got it spot on. To achieve bi-directionality, if the article transcludes the navbox, the navbox must include the article. And vice versa. If it's inappropriate to include the article in the navbox, it's inappropriate to transclude the navbox in the article. And vice versa! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I also agree that the navbox must include the article, but included the qualifier "normally" to cover unforeseen cases. The "related articles" section of the {{Beyond Fear}} navbox that contained a link to Yngwie Malmsteen is very odd. The whole purpose of a navbox is to provide bidirectional links between related articles, hence including a related article subsection in a navbox is redundant and completely unnecessary. In my opinion, if Yngwie Malmsteen should not link back to Beyond Fear, then Yngwie Malmsteen should not be in the navbox. In any case, Yngwie Malmsteen was removed (in my opinion appropriately) from the navbox in this edit. Similarily Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt should never have transcluded {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} and was removed (again, in my opinion appropriately) in this edit. Boghog (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Is transclusion of a navbox in Talk, User, or Wikipedia space not innocuous? --P64 (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree that transclusion of a navbox in Talk or User space is innocuous. Furthermore the text currently contain in this guideline "Every article that transcludes a given navbox ..." explicitly is restricted to navboxes that are transcluded into main/article space. The purpose of a navbox is to provide links between related articles. Hence if a navbox is transcluded in main/article space, that navbox should contain links to all articles in which it is transcluded so that the navigation is bidirectional. Boghog (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the guideline to elaborate on the reciprocal nature of "bidirectionality" as it wasn't clear. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this edit may overstate the case. Headings in templates are often linked to articles that do not transclude the template. This is common usage in thousands of templates. I agree that the added guidance is applicable for non-heading articles included in the navbox, but I think more discussion is needed to determine if the same rule applies to links on headings in navboxes. 15:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
But these headings should not be linking. A navbox is for navigation, not information. I keep seeing, for example, navboxes that list cities, with "City" linked. What purpose would this serve? Only related articles should be linked. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
That perhaps may be a valid question, but I think we need a discussion with much broader participation to determine a consensus for a change that affects usage that is so widespread. older ≠ wiser 16:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
"If it's inappropriate to include the article in the navbox, it's inappropriate to transclude the navbox in the article." I disagree with this. In many cases, an article might be part of a wider main topic, and the article might not be appropriate for the navbox due to the number of articles. Example: a television programme with hundreds of related articles (episodes, characters, etc). One wouldn't expect to include all those hundreds of articles in a single navbox, but doesn't it make sense to include the main navbox on every page? And in addition there might be separate navboxes for episodes and characters, etc. –anemoneprojectors– 12:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
That is what "bidirectional navigation" implies though. Look at the mess with {{The Beatles}} which seems to appear on every Beatles related article. How is that supposed to ease navigation? What we should have is small, separate concises navboxes, each relating to a single subject or subset of the subject. Take for examples {{Glee episodes}}. It is appropriate to have that on Glee (TV series) and on the season articles and individual episodes, but each episode does not need the template {{Glee}} on it (although this would appropriately also be on the season articles), as you can link back to the main article from {{Glee episodes}}. The way I see it is that you should never click on a link in a navbox, and then not see the same navbox at the target, and you should not see a navbox on a page without seeing the current article in bold, so as a visual aid, its relation to the subject is apparent. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Well I agree that the Beatles template is a mess and doesn't ease nagivation. OK yeah, I might come around to this ;-). Yes, Glee (TV series) has all the templates, but an episode of Glee should just have the episodes template (though all the ones I've looked at have both templates). But also some articles are missing templates, and perhaps lots of links should be removed from templates. How do you decide which to do? –anemoneprojectors– 15:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Templates seem to suffer a fair amount of abuse. I like tidying them up when I see them, but sometimes the resistance to change from other editors just isn't worth it! On the other hand, there are some really good templates around that manage to only show the relevant pages and achieve bidirectionality perfection. I happened upon {{Doctor Who episodes}} earlier and was surprised at its functionality. Have a play! As far as removing/adding links/templates, generally it's a common sense issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
{{Doctor Who episodes}} is an excellent template and I tried to do something similar recently but I couldn't get it to work or something. I think I should have another try. –anemoneprojectors– 15:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
While I'm here, is there a rule about including links to categories in navboxes? I know of a few that do this. –anemoneprojectors– 15:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm unsure of this too. I tend to leave it alone when I see it, but I think as long as it meets the bi-directionality requirement (i.e. if the template is visible at the category), it's okay. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if navigation templates belong on categories, and in most cases I know of, there's no bi-directionality. Oh well. Perhaps in some cases, a list could be written and the category link replaced with the list article. –anemoneprojectors– 15:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #1

While there was no broad agreement above to the suggestion for bidirectionally, there is was no strong objection to it either. Furthermore the current text reads Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. which is a suggestion, not a requirement. In practice, most navbox links are bidirectional. Furthermore the purpose of a navbox is by definition an aid to navigation, which is a lot easier if the links are bidirectional. Hence I think the current wording is a common sense suggestion. Boghog (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the previous text is that only describes one direction, thus not demonstrating the bidirectionality it is supposed to describe. I've restored the addition, as it is confusing if it professes "bidirectionality" but only gives "monodirectionality" as an example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for restoring the second sentence which I agree is needed. I didn't notice that the reversion had only restored the link and not the full text. Boghog (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There are many reasons why BIDIRECTIONAL is only a suggestion and not a requirement. In templates regarding works, there are several types of subjects that should not be bidirectional. Suppose for example a template about a work has links to all of the characters (some fictional and some historical, e.g. {{The Last of the Mohicans}} or {{Henriad}}). Suppose for example a historical character in a work is King of England. We don't want every template about a work that includes the King of England or even a specific King of England to be included on that page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Except for the fact that that is exactly how navboxes are supposed to work! --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
yes, navboxes are for navigation, not substitutes for lists and tables in articles, where every tangential topic needs to be listed. Frietjes (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. One of the important features of navboxes is that the article name is bolded within the navbox to make it clear how this article relates to other articles in the navbox. This is particularly useful if the navbox is subdivided into sections and the bolding makes immediately clear which are the most closely related articles relative to the current article. This will only happen if the article that is transcluded by the navbox is also included in the navbox. Boghog (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I mentioned this a while back, but one of the flaws in a pure bidirectional model is when there are hundreds of potential links, which are kept at a list article. It makes far more sense for the navbox to link simply to the list, not to the several hundred individual articles. There is a place for monodirectionality, particularly bringing a user from a tangental piece back to home base, so to speak. Montanabw(talk) 03:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Paraphrasing Frietjes above, with monodirectionality, the navbox is no longer a navbox, it becomes a list. Boghog (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Both regular articles and lists contain wikilinks to other articles. If a navbox is transcluded into a list article and the list article is also included within the navbox, the links are still bidirectional. In this respect, lists and articles are identical. Boghog (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
And looking at those specific templates, I think the best thing to bring these in line with the guidelines would be to remove the historical characters. Tony's very quick to accuse me of having an agenda, yet seems to have his own rules when editing navboxes that don't have a lot in common with the guidelines here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Seeing as the clarification of the meaning of "bidirectional" has been reverted yet again, do you think we should start an RFC? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think an RFC would be a good idea in order to obtain wider consensus. Boghog (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The RFC should fairly illustrate the potential scope and impact. For example, consider the following navboxes (and these are only sampled from geographical topics an area that I browse frequently and have some familiarity with this very typical navboxes):
would those advocating strict 100% bi-directionality want to require that the all links on headings in these navboxes be removed? Or that every one of these (and kindred templates) appear on each of the articles linked in the headings? older ≠ wiser 10:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
At a cursory glance, for the most part, these seem to comply to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL anyway, although {{Shawnee County, Kansas}} has some issues - we shouldn't be linking to "town" or "city" here! But then, they shouldn't be linked anyway, whether we change the wording or not. "Bidirectional" means just that, whether it is explained fully or not. The change to the text is only to explain what "bidirectional" means to those that don't grasp it. And I don't feel the cross-namespace link to the Wikiproject in {{Russia topics}} is really appropriate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I realized afterwards that the first in the list is not such a great illustration of links in headings. Consider instead Template:Districts of Bayankhongor. Are you saying the link to Sums might not be helpful for readers? Or a link to CDP in Template:Shawnee County, Kansas? Should we simply assume that readers will understand whatever arcane terms might be used on navboxes? My point in listing these is that these sorts of links are commonplace. The change in text does not allow for any flexibility (other than WP:IAR. older ≠ wiser 11:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The change to the text doesn't change the guideline, it merely clarifies what "bidirectional" means. When we click on a link in a navbox, we should expect to see the same navbox at the destination - that's how they perform their navigation function. That's bidirectionality. We already shouldn't be linking to broad-topic articles. A navbox contains links to a group of related articles. The broad-topic articles are not directly related. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Have a look at the first three criteria for navboxes, namely: 1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject; 2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article; 3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. Including a link to "city" or "town" fails all of these. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Criteria that are prefaced by Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines! I think I'm suggesting that links in headings might be considered as a type within a navbox typology distinct from the groups of links to related articles linked in the body of the template. If your interpretation is correct, then many thousands of navboxes are out compliance and the proposed language affords no flexibility. older ≠ wiser 11:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a lot of the navboxes are a complete mess! --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The funny thing about linking to "town" for example, is that if it was in an article, it would be de-linked as a clear case of WP:OVERLINKING! Rules should be (and kind of are) stricter for navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trying to defend every instance of linking in these templates. Unless there is a special meaning for town or similar such terms (as there are for many areas), then I'd likely agree it is overlinking to be linked in the template. But where the term has a more specific article applicable to the context of the navbox (for example, linking to Township (Pennsylvania) or Township (New Jersey) in navboxes for subdivisions within those states.) Also while it may be that a lot of the navboxes are a complete mess! I don't think it is a reasonable approach for a tiny group of editors to agree among themselves to change an editing guideline in such as way as to instantly invalidate the established practices in many thousands of navboxes. older ≠ wiser 12:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, take for example {{Delaware County, Pennsylvania}}. If you click on the "Township" link, you end up at Township (Pennsylvania). However, at that target, the navbox is missing. Therefore, the navbox fails as a navigational aid, its only function, as it is no longer present to perform its task. And we're not changing the guideline, "bidirectional" is a concept that has been in the guideline for years, we're just clarifying what it means, as it is only half-explained. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Another thought: If (for example) even Aston Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania doesn't provide a link to Township (Pennsylvania), is it really so necessary to include a link in the navbox? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec) You're assuming a strict 100% interpretation of bidirectionality and that readers are incapable of distinguishing between a link in a heading (which logically is NOT the same as one of the topic articles linked in the body of the template) and also that having links to unfamiliar terms in the navbox is unhelpful. FWIW, if it would help clarify things, I'd be fine with ditching the term "bidirectional". Well, Aston Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania probably SHOULD link to Township (Pennsylvania). That it doesn't merely suggests that the general PA township article was created later than the specific locality articles and the 1500+ articles on specific townships haven't been updated yet. This is not a particularly good argument regarding whether the link is relevant for the navboxes. older ≠ wiser 12:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It was more a musing or an observation rather than an argument. Everyone's quick to say how imperative it is that the headings are maintained in the navboxes, but it seems it's not so imperative that they should be linked to in the articles. Which is arse-about-face to my mind, but it's tangential to the discussion here. And of course I don't agree we should remove "bidirectional" from the guideline altogether - it's a very good concept, and by adhering to it, we make sure that readers don't end up "stranded" (or "Up township creek without a navbox" if you will).  ;) --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
As I said, you're making an assumption about usability -- that users are incapable of distinguishing that a link on a heading in a navbox might lead to a higher level of article than a link in the body of the navbox and that the higher level article might not contain the specific navbox. older ≠ wiser 13:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2

  • I wonder if it would be an improvement to delink all city names in {{Mayors of the largest 50 US cities}} as BIDIRECTIONALITY would mandate or if it would be beneficial to delink all courts in {{Current US state Chief Justices}}. I don't think so.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have just removed Template:Boris Johnson from the Rachel Johnson article because I was being misled into thinking one of his achievements was in fact hers. This is how her article was looking. Now, vaguely remembering bidirectionality, I came here and found to my horror the thread I started a year ago (and had forgotten) is still going on. Should there be a Boris navbox? Yes. Should Rachel be in it? Yes. Should the template be in the Rachel article? No. If there are no objections I propose to remove "so that the navigation is bidirectional" from this guideline and seek the deletion of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL redirect (the only links to it are from talk pages and TFDs). No adequate justification has been provided for bidirectionality. It may be appropriate in some cases but not in others. Thincat (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Robsinden was the main proponent of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL and he is no longer active. I think it is misleading and feel it would be good to remove it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I object to removing it, but see no problem with adding language that it is a guideline, not a policy. we generally want navigational boxes to be bidirectional, but there is no rule that they must be strictly bidirectional. also, what part of the current verbiage, "every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional", is in conflict with the removal Template:Boris Johnson from the Rachel Johnson article? Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
        • The guideline already says it is a guideline but I don't object if anyone wants to say it again. I am pleased you think that removing Boris's navbox from Rachel's article was not in conflict with the guideline although it makes me wonder why anyone would think this change to the guideline was a good idea. Thincat (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Oh, it seems we are both mistaken. My removal of Template:Boris Johnson from Rachel Johnson has been reverted. Thincat (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I also object to removing it. Furthermore Robsinden was not the only proponent of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. I also support this guideline and I am still very much active. Finally what part of this guideline is misleading? Boghog (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
In answer to

No adequate justification has been provided for bidirectionally.
— User:Thincat

I previously wrote:

The purpose of a navbox is by definition an aid to navigation, which is a lot easier if the links are bidirectional.
— User:Boghog

Boghog (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn't suggest the guideline was misleading (though it is seriously so, see later). What I suggested was misleading was to have Boris's navbox in Rachel's article because, for example, it makes it look as if she was MP for Henley from 2001 to 2008.[1] I am not clear whether you think the navbox should or should not be in Rachel's article. If it should not be, then fine and dandy. The guideline is misleading because 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". The statement is misleading because it suggests that "so that the navigation is bidirectional" logically follows from the first part of the sentence, which of course it does not. Thincat (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

though it is seriously so, see later ... which of course it does not.
— User:Thincat

Simply stating that some does not logically follow because "of course it does not" is not an argument. You must explain why it does not. Furthermore I do not see how inserting the {{Boris Johnson}} template in the Rachel Johnson article could possibly suggest that "she was MP for Henley from 2001 to 2008" when the template clearly identifies Rachel Johnson as the sister of Boris Johnson. Hence I do not think your edit is justified. Boghog (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry I did not explain this to you. I thought it would be utterly clear. As Rob Sinden said above 'The problem with the previous text is that only describes one direction, thus not demonstrating the bidirectionality it is supposed to describe'. He went on to say 'it is confusing if it professes "bidirectionality" but only gives "monodirectionality".' When he said "previous text", he was referring to the text we have at present. Perhaps you think it would be helpful also to include the navbox in the four aricles in "journalistic career" and two in "political career" none of which (when I checked earlier today) include the navbox. This will then mean that when people navigate from Rachel Johnson to the Express & Star they will be able to navigate back again. This will be a lot easier for them since they will not have wanted to go there in the first place. Thincat (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Thincat: You have completely misunderstood Rob Sinden's comments. Rob stated that the explanation of the bidirectionally in this guideline was faulty, not the concept of bidirectionally. Furthermore he clarified the prose in this edit. I have restored Rob's clarification in this edit. I have little interest in the subject of Rachel Johnson one way or the other. But if you object to having the {{Boris Johnson}} template transcluded into the Rachel Johnson article, then you should delete Rachel Johnson from the Boris Johnson template. Boghog (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
"Perhaps you think it would be helpful ..." – Straw man argument. Boghog (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
To give everyone an idea of where I am coming from, I have put a considerable amount of work in constructing navboxes like {{G protein-coupled receptors}}, {{Ion channels}}, and {{Transcription factors and intracellular receptors}} and have made sure that these navboxes are bidirectional. Boghog (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #3

@Thincat:, @TonyTheTiger:, @Bkonrad:: can someone please provide me with a general argument that does not rely on obscure examples for why the suggestion of bidirectionally is a bad idea? Boghog (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's really helpful for context. I have no problem at all with navboxes that are bidirectional, and I dare say the ones you cite are fine. If Boris writes some books and has some books written about him specifically, that also seems to me to be a bidirectional situation. But Express & Star where he worked as a trainee? His template should not be on that article (it is not and his traineeship is only mentioned in passing). It could, I suppose, be removed from the navbox. As for his sister, well, my son had an English exam yesterday and a quote from Rachel Johnson in The Times was on the paper. I looked at her article to see when she might have written it and, by ctrl-F, found 1985-1986 which was certainly wrong. So, for this there would need to be Template:Boris Johnson's family for bidirectionality to apply. I can't bear to read all the stuff about Ernest Hemingway and the Beatles so don't know if there is a technical (nesting?) solution. I think bidirectionality may well be the usual situation but that there are sufficient times when it should not be applied as a matter of principle, to make it something possibly to be addressed in the guideline but not to be uncritically advocated (even with permission to ignore). I'm sorry this doesn't answer your question but I'm just giving some thoughts at this stage. Thincat (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
That is not what bidirectionally means. If Boris is a famous author with a Wikipedia article who has also written several notable books each with a Wikipedia article, then it would be appropriate to link Boris with each of his books through a bidirectional template as is done in the {{Boris Johnson}} template. Bidirectionality does not require in addition links to books that were written about Boris. There also appears to be some confusion as to how navboxes should be used. Navboxes should never contain links to articles where the connection is "only mentioned in passing". If an example like this is found, the link should be removed from the navbox and the navbox should be removed from the article and the example should not be used as a straw man argument against bidirectionally.
It is also important to keep in mind:

The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?
— Wikipedia:Navigation_templates#Navigation_templates_provide_navigation_within_Wikipedia

Several of the examples you have presented may be inappropriate uses of navboxes. Bidirectionality is not the problem, rather the link should not have been included in the navbox in the first place. If a navbox only contains appropriate links, then bidirectionally is also appropriate. Boghog (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
No, no, no. This is not a good way to discuss things. In Boris's template under depictions, the book is about him, a biography, not where he is "only mentioned in passing". And the play is about him (along with David Cameron) and is in Cameron's navbox as well. Obviously, if you think navboxes should only have bidirectinal links, you will think that navboxes should only have bidirectional links. However, when this requires removing relevant articles or including irrelevent navboxes in articles, it will impede navigation. Thincat (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
To state the obvious, if a navbox is irrelevant for an article, it should not be included as a link within the navbox. Furthermore navigation is facilitated if the links are bidirectional. Finally in order to achieve bidirectionally, including both books written by and about an author in the same navbox is not required nor is it prohibited. Bidirectionally only requires that every article listed in a particular navigation template has the template placed on its page. Boghog (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what constitutes, obscure. Here are examples {{Mayors of the largest 50 US cities}}, {{Current US state Chief Justices}}, {{Julius Caesar}}, {{The Last of the Mohicans}} and {{Henriad}} are all exmaples of content that is quite relevant to a template that should probably be linked in the template, but where the template does not belong on all linked pages.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The purpose of navboxes is to aid navigation between related pages. If the template does not belong on the linked page, then the link should be removed from the template. If the navigation template does not belong in most of the linked articles, the navigation template probably should be replaced with a standalone unidirectional list. Repeating what I said above, bidirectionality is not the problem, rather the link should not have been included in the navbox in the first place. Boghog (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
If I understand what you are saying it is that links should not be in an template unless that template should be on the page of the link because that is how you understand templates to work. However, you do not seem to be developing an understanding of templates in practice. You are talking about delinking cities in {{Mayors of the largest 50 US cities}}, delinking piped state abbreviations with courts in {{Current US state Chief Justices}}, and delinking historical characters in {{Julius Caesar}}, {{The Last of the Mohicans}} and {{Henriad}}. None of these seem to be improvements.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
If in practice most of the target links in a navbox do not transclude the navbox, it is no longer a navbox. It is a unidirectional list that falls outside the scope of Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates. A navbox is by definition a tool to aid navigation between related articles that should not have to rely on the web browser's back button or history. This navigation is only possible if the links are bidirectional. I am not suggesting that we do mass delinking. I am only suggesting that a more appropriate format for some current navboxes maybe a list that would preserve the existing links. Also you have not explained why the {{Mayors of the largest 50 US cities}} template does not belong on each of the pages it links to. I have done a spot check of this template and it does appear to be completely bidirectional as it should be. Boghog (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with what Frietjes wrote above: "an even better option would be to delete {{Mayors of the largest 50 US cities}} since 50 is an arbitrary cut-off." The problem with this template is not bidirectionally, but that the template should never have been created in the first place. Boghog (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

As already mentioned above, there may be exceptions to the bidirectionally requirement, for example headings. In addition, I think linking the states in {{Current US state Chief Justices}} is probably OK since these are similar to headings. However I think the remainder of the links in the templates should generally be bidirectional. For example, I don't think the {{Julius Caesar}}, {{The Last of the Mohicans}} and {{Henriad}} templates should include links to historical figures unless there is more than a passing mention of the character in the historical figure article. Each of the main article already contains a list of characters and having them in the navboxes is redundant.

As a proposed compromise, I suggest the following language that makes it clear that there may be exceptions to this general guideline:

Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. Likewise, to achieve this bidirectionality, every article linked in the navbox should have the template transcluded. Exceptions to this general guideline include but are not limited to navbox headings that need not transclude the navigation template.

Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

seems like an improvement. Frietjes (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I also propose that we add an explanation for why bidirectionally is desirable:

Bidirectionality in navboxes has the following advantages. If the article that transcribes the navbox is included as a link within the navbox, the title of the article is bolded within the navbox which makes it clear how this article relates to other articles in the navbox. In addition, a navbox is a tool designed to aid navigation between related articles that should not have to rely on the web browser's back button or history. This type of navigation is only possible if the links within navboxes are bidirectional.

@Thincat:, @TonyTheTiger:, @Bkonrad:, @AnemoneProjectors:, and @Robsinden: (with apologizes for the mass pinging): Thoughts on the above proposed compromise? Boghog (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This all sounds reasonable to me. It doesn't mention the obvious solution that if the linked article is not very relevant to the overall template, we could simply de-link it on the template. {{Mayors of the largest 50 US cities}} is a good example where the city links each only really have one link of relevance on that template (the city's mayor). From my own topic area, I could easily transclude the year links of {{Olympics5000metres}} into {{Footer Olympic Champions 5000 m Men}}, but not linking them and choosing to split links between more relevant templates gives a better navigational experience – just as a {{Largest 50 US cities}} should be used to link the cities separately, if desirable. SFB 09:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
One additional thought. Bidirectional navboxes conform to the Principle of least astonishment. If one follows a link in a navbox, one expects to see the same navbox in the linked article. Boghog (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

A revised version that includes some language written by Robsinden above and also refers to the Principle of least astonishment:

Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. Likewise, to achieve this bidirectionality, every article linked in the navbox should have the template transcluded. Exceptions to this general guideline include but are not limited to navbox headings that need not transclude the navigation template. It should be kept in mind however that the main purpose of navboxes is navigation and not information. Furthermore navigation is facilitated with bidirectional links. Hence unidirectional links to articles that do not transclude the navbox should generally be kept to a minimum.

Bidirectional navboxes have the following advantages:

  • If the article that transcribes the navbox is included as a link within the navbox, the title of the article is bolded within the navbox which makes it clear how this article relates to other articles in the navbox.
  • If one follows a link in a navbox, one expects to see the same navbox in the linked article. Hence bidirectional navboxes conform to the Principle of least astonishment.
  • A navbox is a tool designed to aid navigation between related articles and should not rely on the web browser's back button or history. This type of navigation is only possible if the links within navboxes are bidirectional.

Boghog (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

  • You have nicely stylized that with which I disagree, but have not changed its substance. Ergo, I disagree. You have not taught me how the examples that I presented would be improved by conforming to your thought, thus making your arguments pedantic/useless to me. You have a view. Conforming to your view seems to mess things up. Until you can explain how conforming to your view would not mess things up, I don't agree. Let's start for example with a template like {{The Last of the Mohicans}}. How do you propose addressing historical characters in such a navbox?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I would propose historical characters in fictional works as an allowed exception. In this particular case, every single article about the historical figure in the {{The Last of the Mohicans}} navbox at least briefly refers back to the book. The key phrase in the proposed language is "Exceptions to this general guideline include but are not limited to ..." which should be sufficient to cover special case like this. Also please keep in mind that this is a guideline where WP:IAR applies. Finally I would disagree that my arguments have no substance. Bidirectional navboxes have real, tangible benefits. At the same time, there may be cases where bidirectionally may get in the way of building an encyclopedia and that is why I have specifically allowed for exceptions in the proposed guideline. Boghog (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
    O.K. so what are your thoughts on {{Current US state Chief Justices}}. Do you think a conformation would improve this type of template of which I imagine there are several. In this case we are piping State Supreme Courts under official state two-letter abbreviations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
    Keep in mind there are plenty where this came from {{Current Speakers of U.S. state Houses of Representatives}}, {{Current U.S. State Senate Presidents}}, {{U.S. State Secretaries of State}}, {{Current U.S. Governors}}, {{U.S. state attorneys general}}, etc.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    These are already covered by exceptions to this general guideline include but are not limited to ... and WP:IAR. We may disagree about specific examples, but there are an infinite number of unforeseen possibilities which is why the WP:IAR policy was implemented to begin with. Nevertheless in practice, most links in most navboxes are bidirectional. Furthermore there are real tangible benefits to bidirectional links. Hence unless there are specific reasons for some links not to be bidirectional, I think bidirectionally should be encouraged and therefore included with the appropriate caveats in this guideline. Boghog (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    I am beginning to think that the majority of navboxes will be exceptions to your rule, whioh sort of makes it clear that the rule should not exist. Since you have stated that two of my main reasons for objecting to the rule are valid exceptions to the rule, could you clarify what your position is on the cities in {{Mayors of the largest 50 US cities}}.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    Even in the examples you have provided, a majority of the links are bidirectional. Furthermore the suggested language is not a rule, it is a guideline that is intended to encourage editors implement bidirectional links because they have real tangible benefits to readers. There may be exceptions where bidirectionally is not needed, but in most cases bidirectionally is appropriate. In the {{Mayors of the largest 50 US cities}} navbox, all of the linked mayors also transclude the navbox as they should. In my personal opinion, the links to the cities should be removed. Finally as stated before, 50 is an arbitrary cutoff and per WP:OC#ARBITRARY, this template probably should be deleted. Boghog (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    What about University templates like {{Ivy League student radio station navbox}} or {{Big Ten Conference business school navbox}}? In both of these (like many of the examples above) half of the links are not bidirectional. Would you change these if Bidirectionality became a policy or guideline?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    @TonyTheTiger: Again, this is a guideline and not a policy. Furthermore my opinion on individual implementation of navboxes is not particularly relevant. What is relevant is the big picture and in most cases, bidirectional links in navboxes are appropriate. The above proposed language is intended to alert editors to issue of bidirectional links and encourage their use when they are appropriate. IMHO, making editors think about what they are doing is a good thing. Boghog (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    It seems to me that there are far too many exceptions for this guideline to be useful.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

    • I also do not favour this proposal. The first bulleted point I think I agree with but it is not related to bidirectionality and so should not be given as an advantage of bidirectionality. The second point is a circular argument. If you are not expecting bidirectionality you are not astonished to find that the target article does not include the navbox. Indeed, sometimes the navbox in the target article would contain "astonishing" links (e.g. Boris Johnson's achievements in Rachel Johnson's article). Third point – it is unclear why clicking back is undesirable. If you navigate from Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M1 to Smoothened via Template:G protein-coupled receptors, surely the best way to return is to click back. The method proposed is to scroll down to the end of Smoothened, decide upon the appropriate navbox, unhide it, unhide "Class A: Rhodopsin like", and (under "Neurotransmitter, other, acetylcholine") click the link "M1". Would there be anyone who would not use "back"? Thincat (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    • the first bulleted point ... is not related to bidirectionally – By definition, bidirectionally has two components. Forwards and backwards. The first bullet point relates to the the forward direction of bidirectionally.
    • The second point is a circular argument – You clearly don't expect it, but that does not mean others would not expect it. The majority of links in the majority of navboxes are bidirectional. I have not exhaustively checked the examples given above, but based on spot checks, it appears that a majority of the links in these examples are also bidirectional. After using these templates for navigation, many readers would become accustomed to having another copy of the navbox on the target end of the link so that they could continue with their navigation journey. Consistency is a basic element of good user interface design and hence the argument is not circular. Furthermore if following a navbox link to an article causes any kind of astonishment, this probably means the link was inappropriate to begin with and suggests that it should removed from the navbox.
    • surely the best way to return is to click back – Surely not. The implementation of the {{G protein-coupled receptors}} is not entirely complete. I just added the "g1" subheading to the template in the Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M1 article to demonstrate how it should work. Now if you revisit this article and open up the navbox, you will find that only the most closely related receptors in the Rhodopsin-like receptor family are initially displayed. If one is looking at a muscarinic receptor article, one is more likely to want to navigate to the most closely related receptors than a distantly related receptor like Smoothened. If one uses the back button to return to the parent GPCR article, one looses the context as to which receptors are the most closely related. (Note: I will systematically add group headings to all the GPCR articles that transclude the {{G protein-coupled receptors}} as I find time. To get a better feeling for how collapsible groups in navboxes are intended to work, please take a look at {{Transcription factors and intracellular receptors}}.)
    Boghog (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
    Navboxes should not be a way of "publicizing" articles that might be related. They really should aid navigation among articles that are known to relate. Otherwise we wind up with thousands of navboxes at the bottom of each article, placed there for reasons obscure to the reader, ignored by all readers. We see folks inserting material in "See Also" that is already linked in the article - to "make sure" that the reader goes there too. These mis-uses of see alsos and navboxes is a bit Wiki-Spammy IMO. Student7 (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    I agree that navboxes should only be used to link articles that are related to a reasonable extent. This is consistent with the language already in the navbox guidelines. If his condition is met, I believe it is also appropriate that links in navbox should be bidirectional. Boghog (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

    Bidirectionality revisited

    @Thincat:, @TonyTheTiger:, @Bkonrad:, @AnemoneProjectors:, and @Robsinden: (with apologizes for the mass pinging):

    Previously I suggested adding the following language which clearly allows for exceptions:

    Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. Likewise, to achieve this bidirectionality, every article linked in the navbox should have the template transcluded. Exceptions to this general guideline include but are not limited to navbox headings that need not transclude the navigation template.

    I believe bidirectionality should be included in the guideline if for no other reason to makes editors think. First of all, not all editors may be aware of the real, tangible advantages of bidirectional links and are more likely to include appropriate bidirectional links in navboxes if bidirectionality is mentioned in the guidelines. Second, it will make editor think harder about whether a link that is not bidirectional is appropriate to begin with. Again, there may be cases where bidirectionality is not necessary, but what is the harm in making editors think? Boghog (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

    This is not agreed upon. "every article linked in the navbox should have the template transcluded" is controversial. I have presented several exceptions in previous debates such as a template for a work that has links to all of the characters (some fictional and some historical, e.g. {{The Last of the Mohicans}} or {{Henriad}}). Also for a long time Barack Obama managed its template clutter by omitting {{United States Senators from Illinois}}. There is simply no consensus for the changes proposed. See the ad nauseum debate above on this page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    @TonyTheTiger: To say that this has not been agreed upon is in itself not an argument. The only cogent argument that you have presented to date against including this text is that are exceptions. The proposed text acknowledges those exceptions. In addition, you have not answered the questions I posed above. I repeat, what is harm in making editors think? I would appreciate an direct response to my question. Boghog (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    There is no harm in making editors think, but I don't think we need counterproductive policy to get editors to craft template content and place the templates thoughtfully throughtout WP.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    First of all, this is not a policy, but a guideline where WP:IAR applies. Second, what is counter productive about a proposed guideline which in most cases is appropriate? All guidelines have exceptions and this proposed guideline is no exception. Boghog (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    What do you mean by "most cases"? Do we want a guideline that is only right 2 out of 3 times.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    After excluding navbox headings from the guideline, what I mean by "most cases" is "occasional exceptions may apply" which is consistent with the "guideline for guidelines" (see WP:GUIDES). Boghog (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    The only objection that you have raised is that there are exceptions. The proposed guideline explicitly allows for those exceptions. Therefore I do not understand your objection to the proposed guideline. Boghog (talk) 08:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    You pointed me to something about "best practices that are supported by consensus". Did you send me to the right policy? Or did you mean to send me to the one about "Guideline pages should be used in situations where their mere creation is likely to lend support to deleterious practices by those carrying its banner".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    The link that I sent you was to a guideline and not to a policy. And yes, I did send you to the right policy guideline. What I am attempting to do here is to build consensus through discussion. Consensus is not the result of a vote but rather strength of arguments. Unsupported statements like creation is likely to lend support to deleterious practices is not an argument. Why is it likely to be deleterious? Please explain. For the reasons that I have already stated above, bidirectional links are beneficial in most cases. The proposed guideline acknowledges that there are exceptions. So how can this proposed guideline possibly be deleterious? Boghog (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, I see you previously suggested this and, so far as I can judge, those responding to you all disagreed with the suggestion. It seems strange to me that, whilst saying you want people to be "aware of the real, tangible advantages", that you have removed the part of your earlier suggestion explaining the purported advantages. As you know I do not find the advantages to be persuasive, indeed I think there are specific instances where applying bidirectionality leads to an unsatisfactory application of navboxes. Clearly, there are situations when is is perfectly fine, even desirable. What proportion of the time this is the case I am really not sure. Thincat (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Thincat:
    • those responding to you all disagreed – Please re-read "you have completely misunderstood Rob Sinden's comments" above. There are at least two other editors that have agreed that bidirectionality should be included in this guideline, Rob Sinden and AnemoneProjectors.
    • you have removed the part of your earlier suggestion explaining the purported advantages – I can easily re-add those if you like. I was just trying to make the present discussion as simple as possible.
    • I do not find the advantages to be persuasive – I have given a point by point response above to your criticisms of the list advantages which you have not yet responsed to. Boghog (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    Not understanding the arguments completely, the statement about Obama caught my eye. I think editors handled it correctly by omitting template:"Senators from Illinois" = way too much information for an article on a person who has held so many offices. So we have a praiseworthy case where one template, at least, is not where it should be, by mutual consent. Not sure whose side I am favoring here. Didn't really mean to rain on anyone's parade by this observation. Student7 (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Student7 If you think it was correct not to include the template in the article, do you think his name should be removed from the template as some suggest here?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    @TonyTheTiger: What part of "exception may include but are not limited to" don't you understand? Also since you have not responded to my question above, I take it that you now support the proposal? If not, I would appreciate a response to the question I posed above. Boghog (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    The fact that I have tired of responding to your demands for responses in no way is a sign of support.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    • These are not demands but questions that are aimed at reaching a consensus and you you still have not responded to my last question. Concerning {{United States Senators from Illinois}}, 51/52 (98%) of the links are currently bidirectional. This example is clearly consistent with both the letter (there is an exception) and the spirit (most links conform) of the proposed guideline. So what is the problem with the proposed guideline? Boghog (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • You also claim that there is simply no consensus for the proposed guideline. Reading through the above discussion, there have been only two editors that have objected (yourself and Thincat) plus Bkonrad in an edit summary saying there is no consensus. Furthermore the objections raised to proposed guideline all boil down to one issue: there are exceptions. That is it. The proposed guideline explicitly acknowledges those exceptions. The arguments in favor of the proposal are summarized here and at least two other editors, AnemoneProjectors and Robsinden have expressed support for bidirectionality. Consensus is more than a majority opinion. It is based on the strength of arguments. Boghog (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Actually AnemoneProjectors now appears to support the proposal (see diff). P64 comments were directed to the forward direction of bidirectionality which is already included in the current version of this guideline. P64 only pointed out transcluding navboxes causes no harm, but P64 didn't express an opinion as to whether or not bidirectionality was desirable. Boghog (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Tony: sorry to make you try to keep up with two somewhat different lines of thoughts. To answer your above question, no, we can't very well rm Obama's name. So, yes, we're violating bi-directionality. But everywhere else, the template points to Obama. It's "just" that the reader can't get to other Illinois senators by remembering that Obama was a senator there once and trying to get to another senator's article, whose name s/he can't remember. Yep! Not really that bad an outcome IMO, but does violate "the rule." Student7 (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

    Got the ping. FFS! We are STILL debating this nonsense? Pure 100% bidirectionality is impossible and would result in either bloated navboxes or too few to be helpful (we have one that is on about 400 horse breed articles, and then we have a list article that covers them all. This was settled a year ago, why are a few tendentious people still trying to wear the rest of us down - we actually have to create and use these, get a grip on the real world. Montanabw(talk) 07:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

    • @Montanabw: A 100% bidirectional model is NOT what is being proposed. The current proposal acknowledges that there are exceptions. Also you mentioned this issue was settled a year ago. A link would be appreciated Boghog (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It is important to keep in mind that the proposal does not concern a policy, but rather a guideline where WP:IAR applies. Of course, if a series of related articles like List of horse breeds becomes very long, the links belong in a list article, not in a navbox. Furthermore the links between {{Equine}} and List of horse breeds are bidirectional so that it is fully compliant with the proposed guideline. I do not see any conflict whatsoever between your example and the proposed guideline. Boghog (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    I don't see any benefit to codifying this as a "rule". I don't even see that much value in stating it as a generally desirable principle. It really doesn't matter that you claim exceptions are permitted -- there are editors who will see this rule and go forth with a blunt instrument and edit war accordingly. older ≠ wiser 11:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It is a bit disingenuous to call this proposed guideline a "rule" when it clearly is not, even if "rule" is put in quotation marks. Edit wars over a navigation templates are not common. To suggest that a guideline with a built-in disclaimer could be used to start an edit war is a bit over the top. By that logic, we should eliminate all guidelines because they may lead to disagreements.
    • Why not discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the actual proposal rather than raising hypothetical outcomes that are unlikely to occur? What I do see are occasional inappropriate and excessive uses of navboxes. I believe that the proposed guideline would encourage editors to think more carefully about how they are using navboxes. This in turn will lead to better designed templates and an improved reader experience. Boghog (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Not sure where you've been, but it is disingenuous to say edit wars over navigation templates are not common. I suppose it depends on what you mean by common. I've seen enough that it is a concern. You've been trying unsuccessfully to convince myself and others of what you seem to consider the self-evident benefits of this rule (and yes, however you want to phrase it, these guidelines are seen as rules by many editors -- guidelines represent consensus on what is recommended practices -- so far we do not have agreement that this is a practice that should be recommended without some fairly nuanced qualifications). older ≠ wiser 16:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Rob's issues at the beginning of this talk page were the tip of the iceberg, he changed the rules unilaterlally and then tried to change templates to meet the rules he changed. Any" guideline" is taken literally by some people and they loathe IAR and rigidly insist on no changes. Montanabw(talk) 19:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

    I don't have time to catch up with this. I did once comment somewhere that I don't like visiting a category such as and finding that a navbox relegates the familiar and useful lists of subcategories and pages to the second screen. See cat Colleges of the University of Oxford which displays/transcludes navbox {{University of Oxford}} but is not linked from that navbox ("Colleges" in the left column links the Colleges article). In contrast the parent cat University of Oxford does not display the navbox but is linked from "Category" in the navbox footer bar. See also cat Oxbridge. The navbox violates bidirectionality with respect to the grandparent category as well as the child and parent. --P64 (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

    I don't know whether any exception for "navbox headings" covers a link(name) such as "Characters" in the header bar of navbox {{Dragonriders of Pern}}. I do believe that such a navbox benefits from linking either a Characters category or a Characters list (article), whichever exists. This navbox header bar links, from left to right, three articles that transclude it and one category that does not transclude it.
    Those four links are useful. I don't know whether any current policy bears directly on transclusion of the navbox in cat Category:Dragonriders of Pern locations. --P64 (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

    Circumventing bi-directionality on a major scale

    An editor has inserted {{American Revolutionary War}} into Committee of Safety (American Revolution). This appears to be a way of circumventing the limitation of templates. The super-template includes all templates relating to the war, including the one which actually includes CofS.

    The problem is, without specific guidelines/policy, where does this all end? Can I include a supertemplate "American History." If not, why not? Where does macro inclusion of templates end? Student7 (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

    Embedded list of notables with a see also to the corresponding category

    At some point over the past few years, I saw an article for a city that had a list of notables and at the top of the the list was a see also to the corresponding category for notables from that place, and I started implementing that practice in hundreds of articles. For example, the Notable people section in the article for Dumont, New Jersey has a see also link at the top of the section to Category:People from Dumont, New Jersey, and there are hundreds of other articles for places in New Jersey and the surrounding area that implement this as well. This practice serves several purposes: 1) In the exact spirit of WP:CLS, it allows the embedded list to be updated from the corresponding category and to have the category updated from the embedded list in synergistic fashion when one gets out of synch with the other, allowing links and entries to be updated from each other. 2) It serves as a marker to remind those adding notables to the embedded list to remember to add the entry to the corresponding category. 3) It allows the category to be readily carried over when the embedded list is turned into a standalone article. 4) And it provides a gateway to allow readers to use the category system to navigate across other categories for notables from the same area. I have seen this method used elsewhere, but there are editors who have raised an issue with this technique. Does this practice contravene policy? Is there any issue with doing this in articles? Alansohn (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

    You raise some good arguments for doing it, though I can't say I've encountered the issue before so maybe I'm just not yet aware of counterarguments. Have you notified the other editor who disagrees with you of this thread, and/or posted a link here from wherever you were previously debating this? postdlf (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    I am the other editor involved, and I have edited hundreds--perhaps thousands--of articles about US cities. The only place I have seen a category placed into a "notable people" section is in New Jersey, and the only editor I have seen do this is Alansohn. In fact, he has created all the categories being linked to. There has been discussion about this here and here, and I left a detailed edit summary here. Alansohn also explained his rationale on my talk page here. My overriding concern is whether this practice will allow readers "to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles", per WP:BUILD. In this case, will adding a link to a category entitled "People from Foo, New Jersey" enable readers who are looking at the notable people section of the Foo, New Jersey article--actually learn more about notable people from that city. My answer is...maybe. In order to be in the category "People from Foo, New Jersey", all an editor has to do is add that category to a biography. In my experience, categories are added with little precision to biographies. Said another way, not everyone in the category may in fact have a connection to Foo. For this reason, many editors insist that names added to a notable people list within an article be accompanied by a reliable source. If the notable people list gets too long, as often happens with large cities, a separate list of notable people can be created (with sources for each addition). Again, this is helpful for readers because there is some assurance of accuracy, since any editor patrolling either the notable people section of the city article (an "embedded list") or the "List of people from Foo" article (a "stand-alone list") can scrutinize new names that are added to be sure they have a reliable source. This practice is suggested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people. This is the least we as editors can do for readers of an article who wish to find out more about the notable people from that city: offer them some assurance of reliability. Indeed, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline even suggests a criteria for inclusion on a list of notable people: that they should only be "famous or notable individuals that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city." A category, on the other hand, which may get added to a biography in good faith by an editor not familiar with these strict criteria, is bound to be less accurate. The category "People from Foo, New Jersey" is definitely a valuable resource for those wishing to discover new names to add to the list of notable people, but so is Google, or the "what links here" button. Alansohn may not have the same degree of respect for reliable sources as I do, but his insistence that all of New Jersey be edited his way is disruptive. I have tried to address that here under the title "New Jersey is NOT owned by one editor". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    This is an interesting discussion not unlike the US County template proposal a year + ago in which this issue was mentioned. The bottom line is simple, YES or NO, did the notable person discussed, from ANYWHERE reside in, contribute to, remain there or compose or create something there that required LIVING THERE??? If NO, then they are NOT NOTABLE to the specific place. IF the Beatles stopped at a restaurant in Burnt Corn, Alabama, did they reside there? NO. How about if Ringo enjoyed the local BBQ and stayed there for 3 days, did he reside there? NO. Its overkill and confusing to make the same person NOTABLE for a city, a state, a category etc etc etc. The person is notable, NOT where they resided. ALL of thois does nothing more than implicitly makea location notable and not the actual person.......UselessCoal town guy (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    Face palm. I asked User:Magnolia677 to state his case in neutral fashion. Beyond that failure, he goes off to blatantly WP:CANVASS User:Coal town guy (see here) who promptly shows up and shares his rambling nonsense. I was hoping to get some independent input from anyone out there. Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    My independent input is that Magnolia677 seems to essentially concede your points in favor of including the cat link. The complaint about the wrong articles being placed in categories is 1) not relevant here on the issue of where a category link should be placed, and 2) fixable by editing the improperly categorized articles. I also have no idea what Coal town guy is talking about, but whatever it is it doesn't seem relevant here. postdlf (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

    Postdlf, you just watched an editor denounce another editor's input as "rambling nonsense". This same editor yesterday left an edit summary stating "Rv preposterous BS excuse to remove category, as no category can be verified; Time to cut the crap and learn to work collaboratively." You're an administrator. Didn't you feel some obligation to comment on this incivility? Shame on you. Your comments are worthless to me. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

    I am too old for this...perpetual disappointment is a choice not an obligationCoal town guy (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    The problem is that categories are fairly sloppily maintained. Horribly maintained in some cases. Otherwise great editors who maintain content with great precision ignore the categories. Can't easily double check a category. Nor can one insert a citation per WP:NLIST or WP:LISTPEOPLE as required. At least, not easily. It is a way of circumventing those requirements IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

    Please add See also

    In a discussion on deletion of a category, somebody suggested replacing it with See also in the individual articles. The advantage that I can think of is a small footprint for small classifications. The disadvantage that I can think of is that we don't know the classification going to stay small and it may not be maintained consistently across pages in the classification. Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

    Even if guidelines for See also exist elsewhere, it would be useful here to distinguish when to use it in place of a category or list.Thisisnotatest (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

    I suppose that a WP:See also section should never be used in lieu of a category or standalone list. In practice, I suppose, that might be implemented under a bold heading or in a second column within section See also, in order to distinguish the pages on like objects from regular See also pages.
    What are some example categories or lists whose replacement in See also sections seems appropriate to you, or its suggestion has been decisive in favor of category or list deletion? --P64 (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    Related discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines#outline sections (not articles). Fgnievinski (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

    Images in navigational box titles

    please comment in this thread. Frietjes (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

    Parents, children, and a dubious category addition

    I'd like to restart the discussion above, "Embedded list of notables with a see also to the corresponding category", which became acrimonious and did not lead to consensus.

    On many articles about cities and towns in New Jersey, the category "People from...", has been added as a hatnote. An example can be seen at Salem, New Jersey.

    The specific hatnote used is {{See also|Category:People from Salem, New Jersey}}.

    My first concern about using this category/hatnote is that template:See also doesn't list this as an example of how to use the "see also" template. There's an explanation of how to use this template to link to a category using a colon trick, but the examples on the colon trick help page don't seem relevant to how it is being used on the New Jersey articles.

    To me, this seems nothing more than a fancy category addition. For that reason, I feel it should follow the rules for categories. Specifically, WP:CATDEF, which states that "category declarations are placed at the end of the wikitext, but before any stub templates". On New Jersey articles, the category has been added to the text body.

    As well, this category is redundant on most articles it is included on, because its parent category is included on the same article. For example, Category:Salem, New Jersey includes the child Category:People from Salem, New Jersey. Listing both the parent and child is redundant, and WP:SUBCAT addresses this by stating "a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category".

    This concern was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Removal of a redundant category, but generated no discussion. It was also posted at Talk:North Bergen, New Jersey#RfC: Should the parent and child category both be added to this article?, but generated only one short response (excluding the comments from the editor who posted the category). Before I continue removing the "people from" category, I'd appreciate the input of other editors. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

    • To respond to the issues raised here:
    • In summary, this is not a "fancy category addition", nor is it particularly fancy; No category is added. There are no parents, no children and no category addition, dubious or otherwise. As no category is being added, WP:CATDEF's dictate to put the definition has no relevance here. As no category is being defined, WP:SUBCAT is also irrelevant; having a see also link to Category:People from Salem, New Jersey doesn't conflict with the Category:Salem, New Jersey defined at the bottom of the article. I'm not sure what Magnolia677 is trying to accomplish, but I am extremely dubious that there is any good faith purpose here. A definitive response here may get him to end the persistent harassment and edit warring. Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment. I agree with what Alansohn has written above. He covered the issue well, and special attention should be paid by Magnolia677 to his #2, which I think is where the heart of some confusion may lie. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment. I was skeptical of the new way of including a category when I first came across it for alumni of Universities, now I add it regularly. It is very clever, especially when the alternative is to create a parent category just to contain a single category below it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

    Appropriate navbox subjects

    Today I came across Template:Organ transplantation in fiction. It seems I may not know the outer bounds of what is appropriate for a navbox template. It's not about the subject but rather a bunch of example fictional works which happen to deal with organ transplantation. Does the fact that we have an article organ transplantation in fiction justify it? By the same logic would Solar System in fiction or Svalbard in fiction qualify for a navbox which collected fictional works dealing with the Solar system or Svalbard?

    It seems like an "in fiction" section is a viable link or section of broader subjects' navboxes. For example time travel in fiction is both a link and a group in Template:Time travel, which makes perfect sense to me. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

    My suggestion is to make a template, add it to a few articles, see if anyone takes it to TFD. Keep in mind this guideline as well as the handful of essays linked to it. --Izno (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    Hmm. I wasn't asking about the appropriateness of a new template I'm thinking about -- I'm asking about the general scope of what is appropriate, pointing to the organ transplantation template as an example of one that looks dubious to me. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    Oi. Yeah, that one probably fails #1, #3, and #5 of WP:NAVBOX, and it looks like #4 sooner rather than later. It's unlikely that that particular template could be saved in any form, though a category related to that information might be interesting. --Izno (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

    Producer/writer/composer filmography navboxes consensus

    Please see this discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

    Longstanding consensus regarding acting roles in navboxes

    Would anyone like to comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Filmography in Madonna? Any thoughts on bringing the longstanding consensus into the guideline? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

    Template:Aviation lists

    Please see the discussion at: Template talk:Aviation lists#‎RfC: Should this navbox be removed from non-mentioned articles?. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

    Links to templates in navboxes

    As far as I know its not recommend to add links to other navbox templates in navboxes?. But I cant find anything about it on this page (or other pages). Only that external links should not be included. Christian75 (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

    WP:SELFREFERENCE is pretty close to what you're looking for but doesn't call this out either. Basically we don't want to direct people away from the mainspace if we can avoid it. --Izno (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Izno: - thanks, but it could be nice if it was written like the external links. Im not sure how to write it, and if it is consensus. Its diffucult to say "we don't want ..." in a discussion (at Template_talk:Medicine_navs) Christian75 (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Christian75: Sometimes editors will put together nav templates to navigate between templates. This is sometimes useful when you have a lot of related templates. So long as the template doesn't end up in the mainspace, I don't see an issue. It's really just a handy organizational element at that point. --Izno (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Izno: Okey. All the templates you see at that page are used in main space (its not just a collection). E.g. see template:Amino acids; all links below "Index of biochemical families" are to other templates... Christian75 (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Christian75: I'm not sure I understand. I checked Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Medicine navs and found no mainspace pages. Is your query resolved? --Izno (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Izno: All the "subitemplates" at Template:Medicine navs (its just a list) contains links to other templates, and are used by theese templates: Category:Templates that use a Medicine navs subtemplate which are used be theese articles Category:Articles that use a Medicine navs subtemplate. E.g. template:Amino acids (which transclude template:Biochemical families navs which is purely links to other templates) and therefore the amimo acids template has a lot of links to other templates. About the query - I just gave up - two other editors likes the idea to navigate between templates. Christian75 (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Christian75: Just realized your issue (with your link to T:Amino acids). Yes, that's an inappropriate use of navboxes, basically for WP:SELFREFERENCE reasons. --Izno (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    I have nominated one for deletion as a test case. Please follow up at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 May 29#Template:Infestation navs. --Izno (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_7&oldid=1083650130"