Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes

Navboxes

As Basique suggested at the WP:CMC talk page, we ought to create some guidelines for the creation and use of character navboxes. Conflict arose in the editing of {{Batman}}, and it might not have happened if we had some guidance in place.

First, I think we have to answer some questions, including:

1. Why do we need Navboxes? What purpose do they serve?
2. What sort of information belongs in one?
3. What should the Navboxes look like? How large can they be?
4. How should they be organized, particularly with regard to other media?
5. How/why/when should characters be listed, and when is it better to link to "List of characters" articles?--Chris Griswold 03:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Incidentally, here is the category for the WP:CMC navboxes: Category:Comic book navbox templates--Chris Griswold 20:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please add your own questions/sections to this page and share your thoughts below:

The authority to do anything?

Does WP:CMC really have any particular wuthority to even SET a standard that all others must adhere to? I think that's the first part of this discussion. IF Jimbo Wales deputized the WP:CMC to have more powers than other editors, then I guess we don't really need all this FALSE civility, since WP:CMC will do what they already do. Come in, do what they want, and ignore other editors, then as they leave, link to a page like this and say 'see? we do have the authority, come lavish us with praise for our behavior'. I've said it before, I'm saying it again. I won't back down from bullies. Given your representatives in this situation proudly display infoxoes stating they ARE bullies, I see no reason to continue paying any attention to WP:Comics demands and hostile actions. In the future, I will simply summarily revert any such attack edits.ThuranX 13:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What are "infoxoes" and who uses them to proudly proclaim they're bullies? I believe the standards we're trying to set with this discussion are for WP:CMC navboxes alone (as you can see from the title of the project page). The idea is to create standards for regularity and consistency, which can help prevent editors from seeing consensus-driven edits to navboxes as attacks. I think we'd all appreciate your input into this discussion, citing policies, guidelines, and sensible, rational arguments for how you wish these tools to look, instead of your denouncing of our efforts toward consensus. Remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but is rather driven by discussion. --Newt ΨΦ 17:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

ThuranX does bring up a valid point in that while many of these navboxes are based on comic book characters, (and thus we feel, as WP:CMC editors, they fall under our domain) they could have creators from the TV or Film wikiprojects among others and we should work together with those editors to create a consensus as well before changing bits that they may see as necessary or informative. --Newt ΨΦ 20:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully we can prevent cases of navbox overload such as in the case of Spider-Man's page. --Basique 03:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of Navboxes

• The navboxes has the same purpose as Categories ?--Brown Shoes22 14:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Similar purpose. The categories link together any related subject on a separate page, however a navbox actually appears in the article, and can give context to entries in it.--Toffile 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally, never really having thought about it, my first intuition about navboxes is that your {{X-Men members}} or {{Avengers members}} is of little more use than a category or list, and can look a bit gaudy. However your {{Batman}} and {{Superman}} give context to what articles could be in a single category but would look rather haphazard and nonsensical. That said, the latter are also quite large and could use the hide function of the former. --Newt ΨΦ 18:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think templates like {{X-Men members}} have a purpose, but it shouldn't go overboard. Large superhero/supervillain teams can benefit from these kind of templates (so no navboxes for two appearances, five member teams), because it's just a much easier navigation tool, and that's ultimately the purpose of the navbox: navigation. Kusonaga 19:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Navboxes are panels designed to help a reader find related articles of interest quickly and easily. They should be small, pleasing to the eye, concise, and well-organized so that it's not a hassle for a reader to search through it to find what they want. A reader should be able to casually browse the listings. I think that {{LostNav}} and {{X-Men}} are good examples. --Chris Griswold 20:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, as the members navbox offers no more information nor organization nor context than Category:X-Men members. However, {{X-Men}} offers context, and organizes navigation among X-Men related articles. --Newt ΨΦ

The information navboxes should contain

Individual characters

• Long member listings don't belong; we have articles that take care of that, and navboxes can link to those. Navboxes should be more than a simple list, they should be a collection of information that would not fit into one list but which might all be interesting to a reader of the article into which the navbox template is placed. --Chris Griswold 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • For instance, I don't think we need {{X-Men members}} and instead should use {{X-Men}}; unfortunately, there is no article that serves the same function: List of X-Men redirects to List of X-Men teams. Maybe if that article served the purpose of simple listing the characters, the SHB on the X-Men article wouldn't be a fourth of the size of the page. --Chris Griswold 20:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I think we should let the category do the heavy lifting and leave the members navbox out of this navigation. How hard is it really to click on the Category:X-Men members link at the bottom of a page and navigate to all the X-Men members? It's roughly the same thing, just an added click, and without the huge box at the bottom. --Newt ΨΦ 20:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Navboxes style

For large navboxes, I do think the hide function should be available and the default setting of the box for the aesthetic of the article. Too many or too large navboxes can make an article look bad. --Newt ΨΦ 18:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned that {{X-Men members}} had a hide function; I hadn't seen it until then. JQF added that, and it was a great idea. Really, I think all of these should have one. Is it possible to set "hide" as a default?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGriswold (talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 August 2006

There has to be (User:Cyde has a template that hides by default) I was actually thinking of something similar, but I've been trying to track down the exact bit of code that does allow you to hide. Sadly I'm not too good with coding templates, so it's been tricky.--Toffile 19:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and think that actually all navboxes should be on hide on default. It's better in aesthetics and in organization. Some articles are going to end up with multiple navboxees, and that's usually quite a sore eyesight, so if someone's got the template skills, I say, go for it. Kusonaga 19:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I also like the idea of hide by default. --Basique 03:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Organization

• Elements should be grouped alphabetically, rather than by importance, which would not only might raise POV debates but also be confusing to a reader unfamiliar with the subject. --Chris Griswold 20:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Template Talk (Navigating Navboxes)

There has been some recent editing conflict on some of the superhero navboxes, specificly for characters of Flash (comics) and Green Lantern. I thought this would be a good opportunity to discuss exemplars, format and style, to provide a certain degree of uniformity to the hero pages. I have thought that the Batman, Superman, and Captain Marvel navboxes have served a great models to follow.

• 1. There is a question on whether under "Creators" whether this should list the creators of the original specific characters; or if the creators should list the creators of any subsequent character who has carried the mantle of GL or Flash?
• 2. What establishes an enemy as a "major villian" and thus their inclusion in the box?
• 3 What is consider a storyline for the characters?
• 4. I would also encourage discussion of what is looked for in a navbox, to establish a general format to build from.

I feel this discussion could help to resolve or avoid future editing conflicts. 66.109.248.114 22:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

My intial response to these discussion points. 1: I feel that the creators should list exclusively the initial creators to the character/mythos. The further addition of every subsequent character creator serves to dilute the lists, these writers and artists can still be found on the individual character pages (which can be found on the Navboxes), 2 different characters have been called Batman (in universe) and still only Bob Kane is listed on that Navbox, and the same for Shazam. As featured articles, I feel we should follow the precidence of these boxes. 2: Major villians should have an established publication history against the superhero (whether that be a featured villian over several years or featured in major story arcs). 3: A storyline for a superhero contrasts in my opinion from a storyline that features a superhero. I would consider Crisis on Infinite Earths, not to be a Flash or Supergirl storyline, but rather a series that featured these characters in supporting roles, as such, I would not encourage Crisis being featured in a Flash or Supergirl Navbox. Storylines are those featured either in the character's book(s) and/or where the character in the main character in the featured story. 4. Like previously stated, I have looked to the Superman, Batman and Shazam templates as examples. As such I feel the Navboxes should include the initial creators, characters/supporting characters featured in the books, the major villians of the characters, and then some miscellenia (which I feel should include the likes of locations, storylines, publications, and miscellenia) 66.109.248.114 22:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just my thoughts on the points:

1. Creators: The "First" works well for if were only dealing with two things: Single characters or single concepts. Batman, Superman, Captain Marvel, Captain America, Spider-Man, etc are good examples of both situations. Flash and Green Lantern are not. Both encompass multiple characters and at least one definitive break in concept. I'm of the mind that in cases like these, if the creators of the original concept are in the 'box, so should the creators that resurrected and revamped it.
2. Villains: With the inclusion of the full lists, I'd say this be limited to a handful of "Signature" villains. Holding it to 10 to 20, but not requiring 10 as a threshold. Some of the character I see are a stretch:
   • Flash - Black Flash, Manfred Mota, and Rogues. The last should be replaced with the list article since the Rogues already are in the ;box. Also: note the lack of Golden Age signature foes
   • GL - Same lack of Golden Age signature foes.
   • Captain Marvel - Blaze and Satanus.
3. Story lines/arcs: I'd start with the arcs from the characters own title(s). I'd then move on to cross-overs the publisher has collected under the character's name. Finally, I'd add the cross-overs where the character is the primary focus. Again, I'm seeing problems:
   • None listed - Batman and Flash.
   • Superman - This is collecting plot elements and arcs in the same place.
   • GL - Final Night and Rann-Thanagar War. The first was not a "Focus on Hal" story, save the fourth act. The bulk is a DCU story. The second is more a Hawkman/Adam Strange story than a GLC one.
4. Supporting characters: (Added) As with the villains, this should be the signature supporting cast. It shouldn't include "new this month" characters. Nor characters that are headliners in their own right or are concepts that were developed without the 'box concept. This would mean:
   • Batman - Damian Wayne does not belong. The character comes from on arc and a one-issue "possible future" story. Harold and Bat-Mite have stronger claims as supporting characters.
   • Flash - The supporting characters need to be separated from the four "lineage" characters.
   • GL - Same thing, though the "lineage" could be "The Corps" with the 8 GLs and the "List of...". And "Allies" replaced with the supporting cast. This would mean that both the JLA and Green Arrow would be removed.
   • Superman - As with Batman, but replace Damian Wayne with Chris Kent.

Also, look at the Marvel side, most of those 'boxes are media driven: comic series, arcs, television, film. Across the board consistency may not be possible, but we can at least hit the threshold of what should, and should not be in the templates.

One last though, going back to what happened with the JLA and Avenger 'boxes and the JLAvengers article: We also need to keep in mind that these should not be placed on every article related to the concept.

- J Greb 01:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Specific Navboxes

{{The Batman}}

Intersting. it's no longer a template, it's now a NAVBOX. Interestingly, I designed a template. however, now that I know the intent of WP Comics is to produce a Batman navbox, I wish you all well. Since that was the purpose of the massive edits to Template:The Batman, I can now revert them, and allow WP:Comics to produce it's own Navbox elsewhere. I wish you all well.ThuranX 04:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The template you created is a navbox, just like {{Superman}}, the one you used as a base. Navboxes help a reader navigate to related subjects. Guy, seriously, calm down. Please take a look at all of the other templates listed in Category:Comic book navbox templates and see that they all do the same thing {{The Batman}} one does. --Chris Griswold 04:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A navbox is a type of template, designed to provide information and links on a topic in a standardized format. I know that you're angry, ThuranX, but there's no need to behave this way. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Membership navboxes

These need to go. Character articles already have prominent links to the groups they belong to; those team pages either list the entire roster or link to separate page that does. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)