Template talk:Inside No. 9

Inclusion of redlinks

@Woodensuperman: I confess I am struggling to understand what you believe you are adding to the encyclopedia in your edits, here. Please familiarise yourself with the bold, revert, discuss cycle. The guidelines you are referring to very explicitly say that "Red links and redirects [in navigation boxes] should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result." Both of these criteria are the case, so the inclusion of these redlinks is overdetermined. You have quoted back to me that "Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first." That's fine. But that doesn't in any way condone or support the removal of redlinks that do meet the criteria. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

A WP:NAVBOX exists solely to provide navigation between related articles. A whole group consisting of redlinks does not provide any form of navigation in any way. TV episode articles are often deleted as not being independently notable, and if you look at nearly every other NAVBOX for any other TV series, you will note that only notable episodes are included. As far as BRD goes, you boldly added these without consensus in the first place, so the burden lies with you to demonstrate how the addition of these entries aids navigation. --woodensuperman 06:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"A WP:NAVBOX exists solely to provide navigation between related articles." If you say so, but, as established, the guidelines are clear that "Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result." This is very clearly the case here, so I don't think we need to argue about the purpose of navboxes. "TV episode articles are often deleted as not being independently notable..." Ok: Do you believe that these episodes are not notable? A quick Google should confirm that this is not the case. "...if you look at nearly every other NAVBOX for any other TV series, you will note that only notable episodes are included." Agreed. But these episodes are notable. "...you boldly added these without consensus in the first place..." Nonsense. That's a perversion of the BRD cycle, and you know it. "...so the burden lies with you to demonstrate how the addition of these entries aids navigation." I have repeatedly quoted the guideline-based reason for the inclusion of the links. You are doing the best you can to not hear what I am saying. You are the one who believes that the guidelines do not apply in this case. So the burden of proof is with you to justify that. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)