Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Opinions requested

I am seeking opinions on creating the best navigation box for the topic of Pittsburgh Panthers football at Template talk:Pittsburgh Panthers football navbox#Navbox contents. Three possible examples are provided in addition to the current version. The current navbox seems to be bloated with dates and redlinks. Any comments would be appreciated. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Need many more templates on pages

Sometimes things get out of control. Is this an asset to our readers?Moxy (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sports in general is pretty bad with this, having navboxes when they aren't needed. --Izno (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the fundamental problem is that some guideline says (or said, once upon a time) that whenever navboxes ought to be placed on every page that they link to (so if the box has 15 links in it, then it must be placed on those 15 pages). Popular subjects can consequently be "required" to have a bunch of navboxes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I think WP:NAV says it, but I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that not everything needs a navbox and some projects... just don't get that. --Izno (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, these navboxes aren't always the result of project wide consensus. They tend to be created on a whim by individual editors. Template:BullsFirstPick was just created yesterday. (And we'll probably be seeing similar templates in the future.) Some people just think it's fun to put these things together. Zagalejo^^^ 18:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
This is a general problem for any topic where lists are prevalent. See actress Meryl Streep for an example in films.. There needs to be more guidance on WP:NAVBOX No. 3 "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent" and No. 5 "You would want to list many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." In sports, I can see championship team rosters being suitable, since a championship will inevitably be written about in a bio, with some mention of key teammates.—Bagumba (talk)|
Meryl Streep is bad too but at lest the templates follow of policies/guides on accessibility. Alot of the Bball ones are hiding links from our readers and dont use the proper contrast for blind users or readers that printout pages or device without a color screen - WP:CONTRAST (Help:Link color) WP:NAVBOXCOLOUR (Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts). Think it may be time to make a proposal to wp:Bball to see if they are willing to address these problems.Moxy (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Accessibility is a valid concern, but I would suggest a new discussion thread for that independent topic.—Bagumba (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Section headings for horizontal navigation templates

Discussion regarding whether to close RFC

General comments:

  • 78,37% of participants consider that adding a section heading for horizontal navigation templates should be discouraged or forbidden, with the majority of those expressing an inclination to the "forbid" option.
  • Several users have proposal the placement of the navigation templates under the "See also" section. A thorough discussion fir this proposal is beign held at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#See also and navboxes.
Final result
  • Consensus is that horizontal navigation templates should not have a header. The addition of a header is generally discouraged, and a considerable size of the community forbids this practice.
  • As a result, the current wording of the guideline is to be modified to: "Navigation templates located at the bottom of articles may be given a section heading such as "Related information", although the use of such headings has been discouraged by community." or a similar wording. — ΛΧΣ21 07:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this somewhat simplistic analysis seems to violate Wikipedia:Vote. As you may note, there is a "synthesis" section at the end of this discussion. Granted, I have been busy and not able to start that discussion, but I don't believe that is a reason to default to "discussion closed." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry. If discussion is intended to keep going, I have no issues. Although, the results are going one way for what I could read. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 17:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been nearly a month since you announced your intention to produce a summary of the discussion – and in fact, you said that anyone who wants to beat you to it is welcome to do so. I think it's obvious that the Forbid/Discourage voters have won the day, so I can't imagine that your faithfully-reported summary would differ much from Hahc21's above. In any case, given the strongly-held opinions of both sides, I really think this debate should be formally closed by an uninvolved editor, and not by one of the most vocal "section header" proponents. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
If Wikipedia disputes are resolved by votes then I cannot dispute your conclusion. However, I think that is not the case. With regard to the issue itself, I suggest that a look past the votes tells us that there are more than two sides. Unfortunately, doing justice to the various thoughts expressed takes time and I haven't had it of late. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record. I took two hours or so to read all the page, and I reached those conclusions. The straw poll used here is the most clear cut way to see where this goes. Most users expressed that they want the addition of headers either discouraged or forbidden, with the majority leaning to forbid. I saw a discussion regarding moving the navboxes to the "see also" section, a discussion about the neutrality of the RFC, as well as some comments that elaborated about how adding a header would be redundant and confusing. There is, then, no other outcome but to modify the guideline stating that adding a header for navboxes is discouraged. There is no way this could have a different evaluation, in my opinion, and a big amount of the comments that have taken here were not completely related with what was originally asked, so they cannot be completely weighted for the result of this RFC. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 20:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
That is the beauty of discussion, it can lead down paths that are "not completely related" but nevertheless productive. No doubt that is one of the reasons for the Wikipedia:Vote guideline. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed :) but if such discussions are not related to what was asked in the first place, they can be explored at other venues. This RFC was started to see if community wanted or not to add headings to navboxes, and the answer has been a clear no. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 00:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

There is a dispute prompted by the following text to this editing guideline: "Navigation templates located at the bottom of articles may be given a section heading such as "Related information", although the use of such headings has not yet been widely adopted."

Question for the community: Should navigation templates (navboxes) have a heading (eg. "==Related information==")?

Examples: Mozilla Firefox article with section heading for navigation templates. Mozilla Firefox article without section heading for navigation templates.

02:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No, we should forbid or, at least, discourage navbox headings because: Yes, we should mandate or, at least, encourage navbox headings because: We should allow but neither encourage nor discourage navbox headings because:

Premise: Most readers know to look for navboxes, which already stand out visually.

  • Section headings over navbox break the visual flow of the page and are aesthetically unpleasant.
  • Navboxes visually stand out and already have their headings.
  • Navboxes are not part of the articles' content, so they should not appear in TOCs.
  • Navboxes screw up the formatting on printed/offline versions of articles, because navboxes are not included, but the section heading would be.

Premise: Buried at the end of the page and increasingly collapsed, content-rich navboxes are as good as Easter eggs to casual readers.

  • A heading creates a table of contents entry that—
    (a) alerts all readers that an article has navbox information and
    (b) increases the chances that a casual reader will discover an article's navbox information.
  • A heading separates external links in the External link section from internal links in navboxes.
  • For more, see NAVHEAD essay.

For responses to "No" points, see NAVHEAD answers.


Premise: Wikipedia is a constant work in progress.

  • The "yes" and "no" arguments both have merit, but neither makes a compelling case.
  • Wikipedia is organic and we should allow the concept to grow or wither based on usage.

Question

Question: Should navigation templates (navboxes) have a heading (eg. "==Related information==")? (Note: Whether navboxes should be allowed in the ==See also== section is a separate issue.)

Rather than "Yes, they should have a heading" or "No, they shouldn't have a heading", consider providing a more specific response, like these:

  • Mandate The section headings for navigation templates should be made mandatory for all pages with navigation templates.
  • Encourage The section headings for navigation templates should be generally encouraged, but shouldn't be made obligatory.
  • Allow The section headings for navigation templates should be generally allowed, but should not be either encouraged or discouraged.
  • Discourage The section headings for navigation templates should be generally discouraged, but should not be disallowed.
  • Forbid The section headings for navigation templates should be explicitly forbidden in this guideline.

Responses

  • Encourage. Good idea for the reasons stated in the "Yes" box. But shouldn't mandate for the reasons in the "Neither" box. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Forbid. Also, I question whether it is neutral to include "responses to No points" prior to the Responses section, much less the essay. If you want to make your case, and it is your case, you should do so here, not prior to the question posed. --Izno (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Discourage The navboxes need no headings, since each has its own built-in heading. If there is a large stack, we can enclose the less-important ones in {{navboxes}}, as here. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Discourage Navboxes stand out enough on their own. There is no need for an extra heading. David1217 What I've done 01:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Forbid. Navboxes are not part of the articles' content. All the other alternatives except Mandate will lead to inconsistency and quite possibly edit warring. The concept was never forbidden, still it failed to gain support in Wikipedia's 12 first years of existence. Consensus can change, but it hasn't, and the circumstances haven't changed much either. The organic growing process is over and it's time to put the actual good practices into the Manual of Style. jonkerz ♠talk 14:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Discourage for all the reasons given above, and because I'd like to think that most readers understand what navboxes are. And if they don't, I can't imagine that a section heading would clarify the matter. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Discourage - as the main related articles should be linked already in the text and if not in the see also section . No need to highlight sections like this that are just templates to unrelated topics/people.Moxy (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Discourage. It's not something that people should get in trouble for doing, so we shouldn't downright forbid it. However, it's not helpful to have such a header, since the existence of a header implies that there's page content below the header, rather than just a bunch of links to related pages. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Forbid This is not the sort of thing someone would be looking for in a TOC, just like I don't like having subheaders for different types of external links. Headers for navboxes would do nothing to improve navigation and it looks strange having a header without an actual section below it. Reywas92Talk 16:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Forbid per Reyway92, that is essentially my opinion summarized quite succinctly. Imzadi 1979 → 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Encourage. I'm not much of a one for mandating anything, but I think navbox headers are a good idea. Navboxes at the bottom of the page are as good as easter eggs to the casual reader. And IMO they should as often as possible be at the bottom at the page, since it's horrible to see an article (especially a short article) overwhelmed by a huge navbox running down the right-hand side. Hence, yes to navbox headers, so that the TOC alerts the reader to their existence. Bishonen | talk 00:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC).
  • Forbid - There are way too many navigation boxes already, not to mention the repulsive and disruptive horizontal navigation box templates. Giving them a heading only encourages their proliferation. Here's an idea: stop wasting time designing navboxes and start improving articles. Carrite (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Discourage Navboxes each have their own header and are not part of the article itself, but metacomtent, therefore should not be part of the article's ToC. oknazevad (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Forbid. Navboxes, as pointed out by Oknazebad, have their own headers and are not article content. dci | TALK 00:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Forbid except where there is no see also section. If all the articles you would expect to find in see also are in the navboxes, then we may as well provide a header, as an equivalent to the "see also" header the reader would normally expect. Apart from that situation, I agree with Reywas92. For the record my second preference would be "allow". Please do not close this as "discourage" or "encourage" – such wording is a troll's wet dream. —WFC— FL wishlist 01:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    It is a common misconception that navboxes are see also links. They are not, and when someone mistakenly puts them into the See also section I move them to the end of the article where they belong. They are more like a list of all of the articles in a particular category. Apteva (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Mandate, encourage or allow because they are part of the See also material that allows readers to make connections between articles. If they are not actually relevant to the article they should simply be removed. Material that allows or assists readers to make connections to other articles or material - such as the see also links, the external links, the categories, and the references, are not part of the main body of the article, but they are part of the article page. Some navboxes are prominently positioned at the top of articles, others are tucked at the bottom, but there's no way of differentiating why one is placed at the top and one is placed at the bottom - and one can find both sorts of navbox in the same article. I think it would be helpful to have all navboxes collected in one section at the bottom and identified as such for the reader so they can be quickly identified and found. SilkTork ✔Tea time 05:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Forbid having navboxes in their own separate section, but instead move them into the "See also" section. In many articles, links listed in the See also section are already duplicated in the navboxes. IMO, "See also" and "related information" are basically equivalent terms. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    See above for comments on see also. Both navboxes and infoboxes are intended to duplicate, not replace, information that is in the article, including the see also section. See also links are links that are important to understanding the subject but are not linked in the article. Apteva (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Allow and sometimes Encourage. They're not "External links", and neither are the "Categories" below them. They are "Related [onwiki] information". Adding this header also removes some of the prominence (and thus mis-use) that the EL sections gain from being last-in-the-list. –Quiddity (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd far rather a technical solution to the "I want to get to the very bottom of an article" problem were implemented than leaving this to editor discretion. Nonetheless, editors have overwhelmingly rejected the option of a footer section in practice, and so in lieu of a technical solution we should stop offering up an option which reduces article consistency for gains which are at best marginal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Forbid. Navboxes are not content, and should not be presented as if they were. Placing them at the bottom of the page is quite sufficient. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Forbid as TOC clutter. I'll also echo Izno's objections to the non-neutral presentation of the question. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Discourage; there may be some special cases where the number of navboxes merits a separate section, but they should be rare. Powers T 23:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Forbid navigation bars are visually prominent, do not need extra emphasis. Overall the header would be more of a clutter both in the TOC and the bottom of the page. --ELEKHHT 23:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Discourage, strongly. Doesn't provide any useful information. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Discourage, per ELEKHH and Powers. I don't feel terribly strongly on the subject and some of the pro-arguments are persuasive, but my gut is that it's unnecessary and not particularly desirable. If other editors feel strongly on the subject, I'm not gonna get upset about it, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OwenBlacker (talk • contribs)
  • Forbid We don't need to use them, they are unnecessary and confusing. For years we have included the navboxes into the last section of an article (usually below the references) and I believe there is no reason to change that, neither allow the adition of headers. Navboxes are beyond that level. — ΛΧΣ21 23:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Forbid This is a solution in search of a problem. Ben MacDui 13:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Forbid. The system we have is fine. Section headings are only so you can click on them from the TOC and to organize paragraphs of text with, well, section headings. If anyone wants to get to them they can click on the last TOC heading - and it would be worth adding a note to generally place them at the end of the article, although that sort of layout information can be located in the MOS. Having a section heading would imply that there was some text that was supposed to go there. Also at the end of the article are language links, coordinates, categories, and person data. None of them need a section heading either. Apteva (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    Positioning at the end of the article is already recommended, and is also in the MOS - see MOS:FOOTERS item 6. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Discourage with extreme prejudice. With respect to the need for a technical solution for "getting to the bottom of a page"; where I come from, we call that the END key, although on my mac laptop I have to use command-downarrow. Also, whether there is a reader need to "get to the bottom of a page" is not in evidence. I almost went with forbid, but I'm not convinced that there won't be some singular, exceptional case that it would make sense in, so I'll leave that as my 2nd preference. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Forbid, look ugly and do not anything to the content. Users do not come to the article just to look at navboxes at the bottom.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Forbid; just adds more clutter, and navboxes, like infoboxes, are not part of article content but an "add-on" for Wikipedia-internal purposes. We have too many page-bottom headings as it is, and the points against this proposal (printing problems, confusion of on-wiki navigation with repurposeable article content, etc.) completely overwhelm the baldfaced convenience and ignorance arguments made by proponets. See related proposal labeled Alternative at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#See also navbox, which would move "See also" section to bottom of page (it's the least relevant information on the page, after all, even including WP:EL-valid, non-spammy external links). That proposal makes more sense and would effectively give proponents of this one what they want, and fix this relevance issue, and fix the fact that the navboxes and the "See also" material are really the same kind of thing, all at once. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 01:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Forbid—firstly I am against simply discouraging and taking no stance because it would hurt the consistency of Wikipedia, so the remaining options are either mandate or forbid. I mainly support forbidding it because there's no point in changing the current status quo. A section heading would not look good and would add nothing of value in my opinion. —Ynhockey (Talk) 09:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • DiscourageNavboxes should be included in the See Also section. Creating a separate section would be redundant. filceolaire (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Forbid - For the reasons given in box at the top, and I don't think the project should sit on the fence with this issue. I'm also not convinced by the case in favour of putting them in the see also section, since I don't it will look right with the external links underneath, although I'm open to changing my mind. CT Cooper · talk 20:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Encourage The navboxes would be too clunky to fit in the "See also" section, and having a separate section would gain people's attention easier. Thus, it would be more helpful to the casual reader who may not have noticed them otherwise. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments

  • It's needlessly redundant and potentially confusing – In the context of an article, the phrases "See also" and "Related information" are essentially synonymous. Having both as headings clutters an article and has the potential to confuse readers and editors. For example, editors might add other material besides navboxes to the "Related information" section, thus forking the "See also" section. Readers may scratch their heads bald wondering why we have two headings that are so similar in the same article. Still others may just point to it as an example of Wikipedia's amateurism and lack of professional-level quality control. The Transhumanist 22:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's superfluous; Navbox titles should suffice – navigation footers typically provide a concise outline of either the current topic or (one of) its parent topic(s). The title at the top of each navfooter serves the purpose of a heading for these, and is much clearer than the vague heading "Related information". Because of the nature of footers (they are called "footers" because they always are situated at the bottom, or foot, of a page), they don't need a TOC heading to introduce them. Anyone who knows what a footer is knows where to look for them, and those who don't learn soon enough. The Transhumanist 22:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • One See also section – WP:SEEALSO states that "the most common title for this section is See also." Other titles in use include "Related topics" (e.g., see Land-use planning#Related topics). The guideline WP:APPENDIX strongly implies that articles should only have one see also section. Both of these guidelines apply to all see also sections, regardless of what they are titled. The Transhumanist 23:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Already in use for something else – "Related information" as a heading seems to already be in widespread use for another purpose. If you type "Related information" in the Wikipedia searchbox, many results appear for "Related information" sections. Editors are apparently using it as a miscellaneous heading when they don't know where else to place the info, or when a more specific title fails to come to mind. The Transhumanist 23:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Gee, Transhu, I just can't tell whether you like the idea or not. I note that the question presented above is whether navboxes should have a heading "e.g." Related information. Your first, third, and fourth comments all seem to take issue with the particular heading title rather than the concept of the heading itself. An alternate title ("Navigation boxes"?) would seem to resolve those comments. Your second point is substantive and brings into focus the real issue in this debate: Should we help casual readers find content hiding at the bottom of the page or, because helping them would create "clutter" for experienced readers, should we leave them to their own devices and hope that they somehow "learn soon enough." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Accessibility should be a major consideration. How do navboxes appear to people using assistive technology, with and without specific headers? Would using headers benefit them? I'll mention this debate on the accessibility talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Use this section to ask questions, respond to other people's comments, or discuss the idea.

Not part of article

Would those saying that navboxes are not part of the article please help me understand why "See also" links are part of the article but navbox links aren't? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC) This question is now replaced by the out dent question below. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Who says that ==See also== is part of the article itself? It's on the same page as the article, of course, but none of the appendices are normally considered "part of the article". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
So if we discourage or forbid a heading for footer navboxes because they aren't part of the article then we should do the same for See also links because they aren't either? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Until this edit on 26 June 2010, the optional appendices and footers fell into two groups (see here). The five optional appendices conventionally had a heading; the four optional footers did not. The list has since increased from nine entries to twelve, but the three new items (coordinates; persondata; defaultsort) were all inserted below the navboxes, so I consider them to count as "footers", not "appendices". The amplification at WP:SEEALSO states 'Title: The most common title for this section is "See also".' --Redrose64 (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
This history seems to make the distinction fairly artificial. I wonder whether, regardless of the label given to the content ("appendix" or "footer" or whatever), there is a substantive reason to consider wikilinks in See also as article content while considering wikilinks in navboxes as not article content? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
There's a name for this logical fallacy. I should go look it up.
Q: Is there a substantive reason to consider wikilinks in See also as part of the article content?
A: No, there is no good reason to consider the contents of ==See also== as part of the article. In fact nobody except you says that ==See also== is a part of the article. Appendix is a noun meaning something added after a book or article. Appendix does not mean "part of" the book or article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I am understanding the above postings by jonkerz, oknazevad, and dci. Are they not opposing the idea because navboxes aren't article content. And, assuming that they have no objection to the See also heading, doesn't that mean that they view See also as article content? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
No: opposition to ==Related information== tells you nothing at all about their opinions on ==See also==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Then what am I to make of their "not article content" rationale for opposing a navbox heading? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Nothing except what they said: they oppose this idea for this reason. You should not infer from this that they have any views at all on the ==See also== heading. Perhaps they also oppose that, but realize they'll never win. Perhaps they think that ==See also== is so entrenched that no reader will its meaning. Who knows? They're not telling you that here. They're only telling you what they said about this heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Would those saying that navboxes are not part of the article please tell me (1) whether they believe that See also is part of the article and (2)(a) if it is, please help me understand why links in "See also" are part of the article but links in navboxes aren't or (2)(b) if it isn't tell me whether you would discourage/forbid the See also heading (and, if you wouldn't, why the difference?)? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"See also" sections are edited within the article page itself, and edits are made to each page individually at that page. Therefore the edit is specifically to that article. Meanwhile navboxes are edited at the template page separate from the article code; an edit to a Navbox affects many pages at once. They're not part of the article, just displayed on the article page.oknazevad (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
So this heading is improper? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Let's say that each "See also" entry contributes one edjoule to the article ("edjoule" being the SI unit of editor brainwork). If a navbox template is used in 100 articles, then each entry, as it is seen by a reader, adds only 0.01 edjoules to the article. Therefore, a navbox (or any other template that generates canned visible text in the article) inevitably lowers the the "brainwork density" of the article, unlike a "See also" section or in-text wikilinks. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Parts of an article; standard convention

Wikipedia articles, which are usually electronic and presented on a computer screen, share aspects of both printed pages and printed books.

The see also section is a standard part of an article – it is an article appendix, analogous to the appendix of a book. A book appendix is to a chapter as a see also section is to a Wikipedia article section.

The navfooter is also a standard part of an article (covered under the same guideline as appendices), but the applicable analogy is to a page rather than a book. A page's footer is to a printed page as a WP navfooter is to an article page. Footers don't show up in a book's table of contents, because it is a page feature, not a chapter or chapter subsection. Likewise, a navfooter doesn't show up in article tables of contents, because it is a page feature, and not part of the article per se. (Articles resemble both books and single pages).

Navfooters are part of Wikipedia's formal navigation system (which also includes categories, lists, and outlines), and they often go far beyond the scope of an article's title. They share much in common with categories, which are also not included in the table of contents. The reason we have navfooters in addition to categories is that categories are automatically generated, and many human editors feel they can do better with a direct hands-on approach.

I hope this explanation helps. The Transhumanist 23:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Failed to gain support / rejected in practice

I question the premise upon which this argument is made. The idea of a navbox heading is relatively new, and a substantial number of editors revert the heading because they think it is forbidden. So the idea hasn't really had a fair opportunity to gain support and become accepted in practice. The only way to do that would be to make it clear in the policies (most importantly wp:Layout) that the heading is permitted. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they reverted it because they thought is was a bad idea, not because they thought it was forbidden. I agree that this is very much a catch-22, and way too much time is usually needed to change trivial things here on WP, but how much time do you think is needed to give navbox headings a fair chance? You created the first draft of Wikipedia:Related information back in March 2009 and the essay has been linked multiple times in previous discussions from 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only 49 pages containing a section with the exact title "Related information". Based on usage, there is a consensus to not use this type of headings. And based on the above links, time has been given. jonkerz ♠talk 23:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I reject the unfounded assertion that editors revert it because it is forbidden, because (anecdotally) I have yet to see that reasoning in the wild. Also anecdotally, it's never been the same reasoning for which I have reverted the addition of the heading. Otherwise, I would tend to agree with Jonkerz just above in that it is readily apparent that attempts have been made to include this heading in the wild (usually by Butwhat) and that its inclusion has a heading has failed in the wild. --Izno (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Here is one example that I remember off the top of my head (from number 9 in Jonkerz's list): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Absinthe&diff=next&oldid=385641457 The primary reason it has failed in the wild is that folks who really don't like it seek out the heading and revert for that reason. By the way, please refresh my memory, what explanations have you given when you revert it? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you would be hardpressed to say that SandyGeorgia reverted it because it was forbidden, but for the reasons given on her talk page at #9.
Don't worry about my own explanations as they are primarily above and covered by many of the other editors expression their opinions here. My comment in that regard is offhanded. --Izno (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of RFC

In response to the comments about the RFC question being "non-neutral" because it links to a page with more detail than fits in the table (whose size was constrained arbitrarily, not because of any policy), I have three thoughts:

  • The "NAVHEAD answers" page was written a couple of years ago, so it isn't about people's responses in this RFC. It's just a relevant essay, and it is generally appropriate to link to relevant essays.
  • The question was drafted over the space of several weeks. More than 100 active editors are watching this talk page. If someone thought it was actually biased enough to affect the answers, then he should have spoken up a long time ago.
  • It's usually the people who are "losing" RFCs that claim the questions biased. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll respond in order.
  • The editor who initiated the RFC is the same as the editor who started the answers page and the associated essay. I would tend to disagree that this represents a neutral question.
  • I came here from WP:CENT. Some people just don't watch the page. (I do now.)
  • I spoke up about my concern, largely prior to any other responders and hence prior to the time when it would be possible to judge whether a side was "losing" or "winning". I would certainly rather express my concern before the RFC sees substantial response, because I don't want to get the same response as you attempted to give in your second bullet, after the RFC was closed or even earlier than that, when it was apparent that one particular response was "winning" or "losing"! I'll rest easy, considering that it appears to be the case that this RFC is headed toward "discourage", but I won't count my chickens before they hatch. --Izno (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Your assumptions are wrong: Czarkoff originally drafted the RFC and I started it, and at least four editors were involved in drafting it. Butwhatdoiknow wrote only part of it, and he didn't even fuss when his contributions were pared back. Butwhatdoiknow really has behaved like a model Wikipedian not only in the drafting of this RFC but through the last couple of years of off-and-on discussions over an idea that he strongly supports. If the rest of us were as polite and willing to submit to consensus whenever we "lose" as he has proven himself to be, then Wikipedia would be a much better place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Move into see also

While I see this as being out-of-scope of this RFC (the choices seem quite clear to me), and while I agree that navboxes should always link internally, I would tend to disagree with the notion that it would be appropriate to move those into the see also section, most primarily because they would a) decrease the relative prominence of the links selected for that section greatly (and for the external links/references sections as well), and b) because they would quite simply look unaesthetic anywhere but at the bottom of the article (taking as an assumption that the see also section wouldn't move, as I doubt there would be any consensus for that). I would also be concerned that the article would become inaccessible to both users without Javascript and to users with screen readers (of which the latter set is a subset of the former). --Izno (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. It's where people go to find related articles anyway. Having the navboxes hidden away at the bottom of the page is just bad. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 15:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been giving some thought to a line entry in ==See also== saying something like "See the navbox at the end of this page for more related links." (I previously tried something similar as a template box in See also but that went over like a lead balloon.) What about that as a compromise solution to the problem that some see of navboxes hiding at the end of the page? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
What was the problem with placing the navboxes (possibly closed) into the see also section? These things are one of the triumphs of wikipedia and fit perfectly into the purpose of the see also section as far as I understand it. The commons link box goes in the see also section, why not navboxes? It's intuitive, easier for the reader. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 21:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I just listed the problems! (It's the reason I started the section!) Did you not read what I had to say? :) --Izno (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The first problem is easily avoided by placing the navboxes at the bottom of the see also section. The prominence of external links is a seperate discussion altogether. IMO they certainly shouldn't be placed in a more prominent position than the navboxes anyway. Even so, they at least have theyr own section and can therefore be easily found by anyone looking for them. Aesthetics should be a secondary consideration to function and accessibility. I can't comment regarding the technical stuff you mentioned since I lack the requisite proficiency. At the end of the day navboxes (possibly closed) are a logical and highly useful addition to the see also section. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 21:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It's been mentioned before, that since navboxes are always full-width, they "draw a line" under article content, and some readers stop reading at that point. As currently advised by WP:FOOTERS, the only content that is visible by default after the navboxes are the stub templates (if any) and the categories. The fact that the navboxes are full-width does mean that on an article with a tall infobox but little text, a blank area might be created between the last reference or external link, and the first navbox. If the navboxes were higher up, this blank area would be larger, and would be an even stronger "that's all, folks" psychological cue.
The {{commonscat}} template is not full-width, and text can flow around it, so it doesn't cause a psychological endpoint (and please note, the preferred position is not inside "See also" but "External links"). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Couple of thoughts. The wall of references also creates a perceived end to the article. Navboxes don't have external links they have only internal ones, so why is the preference in favour of the External links section?
My concern is that many readers are missing out on a really great way of getting around wikipedia by subject area. In the end, I don't care in what way this is fixed, but it is problematic that many people probably don't even see the navboxes buried under the sediment of sources and external links. --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 22:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm with you U5K0, but the reality is that (human nature being what it is) even the idea of only allowing a single, collapsed navbox in See also is not going to happen. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Navboxes really only "draw a line" when they're collapsed. When they're open, they do something more like "blot out the rest of the screen". Content below an uncollapsed navbox (which is normal for less-important articles) is invisible unless you happen to be specifically looking for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hundreds of thousands (and perhaps millions) of articles have navigation footers. To change the standard placement of footers would be a major change to the encyclopedia's standard format. Unless you get widespread consensus, the community will likely reopen the issue and squash it as soon as you start moving footers en mass. When the Main Page was redesigned, the proposed new version was submitted to the WP community, and over 1000 editors turned up to vote on it.

You do not need to be worried about navfooters going unnoticed. People are clicking on them by the millions.

I don't know of any way to discern this directly. But, by using the traffic statistics tool, you can do a before and after test of traffic. Place a navfooter on many relevant pages. Then watch the traffic of the pages listed on that navfooter. That will give you some idea of how much traffic is going through the navfooter. Then multiply that number by a lot to estimate how much traffic is going through all navfooters.

Another point that should alleviate your worry about readers missing the links in the navfooters is this... Wikipedia's navigation system has redundancy built in, which makes it more likely that users will find relevant links. The redundancy is provided by 9 overlapping navigation systems: Embedded links, infoboxes, see also sections, navfooters, categories, portals, outlines, indexes, and lists of items.

Wikipedia is interlinked very well, and rather than worry about the placement of a component, time would be better spent building tools to maintain and further develop the link coverage of the navigation systems themselves. There are many missing links, and there are many missing nav pages.

I hope these thoughts have been of help. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with U5K0 that it would make more sens to move all the navboxes to the see also section. And the Manual of Style/Layout - See also section says this about links that may other wise be appropriate to go there but are already in the articles navbox(es): "As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.". I feel this guideline is indicating that navboxes serve to function as a more well organized way of presenting see also links. And if they serve the same or even a similar function I as, both a writer and reader of Wikipedia would find it helpful to have them in the same place. --Devin Murphy (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

  • This idea has been broadly opposed before, and is currently being opposed at this related discussion at the MOS:LAYOUT talk page where this entire debate actually belongs. Basically, putting the navboxes there looks like crap. They do not belong in the middle of the article. An alternative proposal there would move the "See also" section to the bottom and merge it with the navboxes, effectively giving you want you want, without negative side effects, other than that it would be a "big change", which is not really reason enough not to do it if it makes sense for various reasons. WP absorbs big changes all the time, from the invention of infoboxes to the end of date linking and autoformatting. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 02:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
A more moderate proposal
Note: this type of proposal/template has been rejected/deleted in the past - see {{Navbox link}} (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 3#Template:Navbox link)Moxy (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The focus of that discussion was a rather flashy sidebox. The focus of this discussion is a rather innocuous line of text. So I submit that this type of proposal has NOT been considered in the past. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Back to my question: Any problem with having a "* More links in the navboxe at end of this article" line in the ==See Also== section? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
A note to that effect makes sense to me --no bullet point; "page", not "article", of course; perhaps "Navigation boxes at the foot of the page ..."
The (internal) navigation box templates should follow all the External links including {{ Authority control}}, so that the latter does practically make {{ WorldCat}} redundant (for the subject of a biography in the footer of that biography).
--P64 (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I have seen this proposal before - I think that in general its sounds logical - however will have to oppose as we have so many pages that are just spammed with navboxes that are not all that related. Having a see also section with 15 to 20 navboxes is not user-friendly. i.e below of what can be found on many page (just fixed the Spielberg article). They are footers ...they look great at the bottom.
Moxy (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
It sounds like you oppose moving navboxes into ==See also==, but what it your opinion about adding a note under ==See also== that says More links in the navboxes at end of this page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I would not be opposed now (I was before)- however the deletion of {{Navbox link}} (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 July 3#Template:Navbox link) would lead me to belive most will oppose as they did before....but things can change.Moxy (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Change will almost never happen if change fails for the sole reason that most oppose it (decision making by ballot rather than consensus) because the reaction of most folks to any new idea is negative. And change will never ever happen if the reason is that the change was opposed in the past because you can't change that outcome. So, if you have good reasons to not be opposed now then I encourage you to "be the change" now. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
It is unneeded, because navboxes are so widespread. They are on so many pages that it is virtually impossible for a user of Wikipedia to go very long without noticing them.
Another way of putting this is that they are extremely obvious. Pointing out the obvious on the millions of pages that have navfooters would be a massive waste of resources. Pretty much everyone who uses Wikipedia knows they are there.
Ask around. Only absolute newbies haven't noticed a navigation footer.
And the nicest thing about navfooters is that they are self-explanatory: their titles tell what they are about. The Transhumanist 01:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Transhu, let me begin with your proposition that all but the newest or least observant readers know that some articles have navboxes and that tho reader who do know about navboxes have no trouble finding them by going to the end of the page and looking to see whether a particular article has navboxes. And let me go even further and accept your position that there is no significant benefit to giving navboxes their own heading. If I do that will you go so far as to agree with me that, at present, the only way a reader knows whether an article has a navbox is by jumping to the end of the article and looking? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Jumping there? No. I would expect most readers would probably spot a navigation footer for the first time by reading (or skimming/scrolling) to the end of a page. The same thing applies to categories, which are always at the end of an article. But we can't move those to the See also section because their placement is automatic. The Transhumanist 00:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
But once you know where they are, the end key is very convenient for jumping to them. This convenience would go away if you moved them all to the See also section. The Transhumanist 01:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
All true. But this "more modest proposal" subsection is offering an alternative to putting navboxes in See also: allowing a line of text in See also when an article has one or more navboxes that says (not in so many words) "this article has navbox information at the end of the page." The reader would then be alerted that he or she can hit the end key to jump to the navbox section. What is your thought about that idea? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I already posted my opinion above, but here it is again: "Pointing out the obvious on the millions of pages that have navfooters would be a massive waste of resources." But moving the See also section to the end of the page, right before the navfooter and categories, might be viable. See the relevant section below. The Transhumanist 21:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I follow your reasoning (even if I don't completely agree with it) as far as "almost all readers know about navboxes." However, you lose me when you seem to say that it is "obvious" that any particular article has a navbox. It seems to me that that is only obvious if the reader thinks to hit the end key and looks. Do we, perhaps, simply have different definitions of "obvious"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Notes

After this talk and outcome - Should reexamine (edit) our guide at WP:NAVBOX - that says = " Navigation templates located at the bottom of articles may be given a section heading such as "Related information", although the use of such headings has not yet been widely adopted."Moxy (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that whatever outcome happens here, the NAVBOX proposal ought to reflect it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the NAVBOX page should be updated to match what's resolved here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • So should we work on some text - as the conversation seems to have run its course.Moxy (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Move "See also" to bottom and merge with navboxes

 – Pointer to a relevant discussion elsewhere.

This reasonable option has been proposed (as the "Alternative" proposal) at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#See also and navboxes. It would put the "See also" section at the end of the article, just before categories, with navboxes at the bottom of this section. Kills 3 birds with one stone: Gives navboxes a heading, merges navboxes and see-also items (they serve the same function) and it moves the least relevant links – to other, tangential topics – to the bottom.

Discussion should take place at that MOS page, since a) it was proposed there, and b) it's a page layout style matter (as is all of the above; this page is the wrong venue for any of this). If discussion continues to fragment, both RfCs should be closed, all of these options from both pages should be put into a new RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout, and this advertised via both the Village Pump and WP:CENT so that discussion is broader and centralized. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 01:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis

I hope to put some sort of summary of the above in this spot, but I don't have the time to do it now. Anyone who wants to beat me to the project is welcome to do so. Just keep in mind that the goal is to be a faithful reporter, not an advocate. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Still on my to do list ... Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm getting to the place that even I don't believe me anymore, but it is still on my list. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

URLs on category pages

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Reference resources about whether WP:External links should be permitted in the descriptions on category pages. If you have an opinion, please comment there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The use of footer templates to link to other navboxes.

I've recently noticed that there is a trend toward footer templates navigating the user to templates of similar topics. For one example see ‎Template:U. S. Network Shows footer. These break all the rules regarding inclusion and transclusion at WP:NAVBOX and WP:NAVBOXES. A reader expects that a link in a navbox takes them to another article, not out of article namespace and into template namespace, which is not part of the encyclopedia, but part of Wikipedia administration. I'd propose that we explicitly add something to the guideline to advise against these. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

To change that, my English is not good, I mean that the role of this template should be written policy which, of course, need to remove some of the networks this template to streamline points.--Qa003qa003 (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
against. It is not apart of the stict WP administration "WP:name" are. Other wise having catagories would be problematic as they take you out of the article namespace and should be deleted. Most normal Navboxes link to the template space via the "V T E" links, so that once again shoot major holes in your argument. How did you come up with what is or is not a readers expection? I would expect as a reader if this navbox doesn't have what I want (or what to head down a different direction) to click quickly to the right one. It make sense to send some one to a similar navbox as the navbox may had to split up do to too many links. Spshu (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
The "V T E" are editing tools, not for navigation, much in the same way that each article has a "talk" and an "edit" tab at the top. They cannot be considered in your argument. And the category system is an indexing system if you like - the expectation when you click on a category link is to be taken into that category where you will find similar articles. When you click on a link in a navbox, you expect to be taken to another article. Per WP:NAV: A navigation template is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles. Editing of a navigation template is done in a central place, the template page. The emphasis is mine, but navboxes are not articles. As you can see, the guidelines pretty much already show that they are intended only to link articles, and the template space is for editing, but as this doesn't seem to be apparent to some editors, the intention here is to make this more explicit.
As far as your point regarding "similar" navboxes goes, the argument is much like saying that we should have reciprocal links for all the navboxes for all the towns in Britain. They are about completely different subjects: {{Brighton}} is not the same as {{Manchester}}, they just have similar attributes. Remember, navboxes are not articles or categories, and should not be treated as substitutes for them. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Template for discussion

The template {{Characters and names in the Quran}} has been nominated for deletion. Discussion is occuring at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_29#Template:Characters_and_names_in_the_Quran. Student7 (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Change to policy

A phrase cautions originators of navigational templates:

"There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template." This phrase should be supplemented with the words, "The subject article should contain the names with explanation in the text of the articles contained in the navigational box." I would call the "subject article" "the parent article" instead.

In other words, even unknowledgeable editors should be able to check if the template was properly inserted in an article. Right now, an editor may insert a template "Concepts in the Constitution of the United States" (assume for the moment there is such an article. Then include in the template, "Prohibition against praying in school," "The Right to SSM," etc. The problem is that the Constitution is just the right size and, after 200 years of interpretation by the courts, just too complex to contain in the single article "Concepts in the Consti..." every little (or large!) detail that has been discovered by a court of law. Therefore, an editor from Bengal (for example), could not check the parent article to see whether the template had been correctly placed or not. Knowledge of Constitutional Law would prevent most Americans from checking for valid placement! This violates the idea of a navigational template and should be made clearer IMO. I would abbreviate this to WP:PARENTMUSTCONTAINCHILD! (Talk about a mouthful! But it's clear, I think. Student7 (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Basic navbox design for college basketball teams

Please join discussion at the College Basketball Wikiproject for forming a consensus on the creation of a basic navbox for college basketball teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Extremely large navigational boxes

I have started a thread at Template talk:The Beatles. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Navigation templates on Category pages

Why I'm asking is a case like these[1]. The towns are already linked to. So what does a navbox possibly do but add more links to the same places?...William 13:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In that example, it shows redlinks, which are useful (to some). It also organizes the links semantically, rather than alphabetically, which can often be helpful. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The example transclusion of navigation template at Category:Populated places in Washington County, Oklahoma is useful, I agree (although it no longer shows redlinks). Indeed I believe it's more useful than the category tree (category plus all subcategories and pages, which extend one level down in this case) because it displays the entire tree semantically and compactly.
Does it work only because the tree is so small in that region? Or may a large well-designed navigation template also be useful in that way? See Category:Colleges of the University of Oxford. The straightforward alternative, or complement, is to put the navbox in the category and sort it to the top (before 0-9 A-Z), perhaps under +
+
Template:University of Oxford
rather than sort to the bottom (after 0-9 A-Z), under τ for 'template'.
(Sometimes that alternative puts the navbox in a parent category and also in its templates child category, which some editors do not permit. As for the Harry Potter navbox and main category:

(2014-02-21, expand the next three lines -P64)

That is, I and Lord Opeth revert each other with four-month lag.)
--P64 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Great examples P64!
I dislike using colon category as a reference or "see also." I'd rather have the tiny Washington County template, than to have only the category. Someone deserves a medal for Harry Potter. Very imaginative and easy to read. Yes, I've seen messy ones like U of Oxford. Often for US States. People trying to make it the Template of Everything. Where are are the template police when you need them? :)
I'm wondering if the Harry Potter one shouldn't be on the Project Page to show what can be done with information that could get messy otherwise? Student7 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I do try to good illustrate well.
Regarding the design of navbox Template:Harry Potter that you admire, see also Template:Narnia. I have never done any more than observe in one place that the other place has done something well.
Regarding categorization of those navbox templates among others, and sorting them in categories, I have tried to get them in the main category and sorted to the top of the Pages, rather than merely buried in subcategories.
More complete disclosure: just above I expanded my last week's Potter annotation and linkage to show that I am the person Lord Opeth reverted many moons ago, vice versa. The relevant edit summaries are clear. --P64 (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with external links?

[2] in particular? Tim AFS (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Navboxes are for navigating between existing articles within Wikipedia - their function is not to be a dump for external links. It's simply not what their function is. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
To be more particular, they also introduce the potential for point of view, which in templates is something we should avoid. Too many future problems could arise because of that. --Izno (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:The Sun Also Rises use

{{The Sun Also Rises}} keeps getting removed from The Sun Also Rises. Does anyone care to comment at Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises#Template_removal?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Index

Writing as someone who can't tell an index from a list ... could someone please add indexes to this article. Thus Categories, lists, indexes, and navigation templates. Thanks, 99.65.176.161 (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a guideline, not an article. What exactly do you mean by "index"? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of entries (with respect to WP:NAVBOX)

(discussion moved from here)

  • Yes, there is no timeline but that's typically relegated to articles themselves. NAVBOXES by definition are boxes containing links to a group of related articles. If there are no links, they offer zero value to readers who may be navigating to the topic. A navbox is not a substitute for a discography; it is intended for navigation. The fact that there are many navboxes with unlinked items just means those ones weren't done correctly either. I remove or hide them as I come across them but I don't go looking for them. Per WP:EXISTING, unlinked text should be avoided. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I think you missed the note statement in that guideline (btw, the idea that WP:DEADLINE only refers to articles appears to be your own interpretation). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
      • The note refers to members of a music ensemble and I did not remove any members from the group who are unlinked and don't have articles. And, sorry, but I only see mentions of articles in WP:DEADLINE, nothing about templates. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Who's to say it can't include templates? Anyway, if you really have a problem with this, then wouldn't you try removing all the unlinked entries in all the navboxes in Category:Rhythm and blues musical group navigational boxes? I'm pretty sure you'd get some opposition if you did that, so why only attack this one? (Also, "it doesn't suggest that at all"? How doesn't it?) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
          • I've been correcting navigational templates like this for years, so I am hardly "attacking" this one. In February 2010, I made this edit to {{Kool & the Gang}} for the same reason. I don't go looking for them, but I fix them when I come across them. I cleaned up a few more as you recommended but a lot of them in the category were already done properly. A navbox is not intended to represent an artist's discography; it serves as an aid to navigate amongst existing articles related to the topic. Thanks. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
            • "I cleaned up a few more as you recommended..." That is definitely not the point I was making. Anyway, I don't recall ever stating that a navbox was a substitute for a discography; that seems to be your interpretation of what I'm saying. (BTW, you didn't answer my final question.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 18:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
              • Yes, it was my inference that by you wanting to include unlinked items in the navbox that you wanted to represent the artist's discography since you think by not including songs and albums without articles implies they don't exist. So, based on that, I did answer your question. My point is that that is not what a Navigational box is for. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What part of "I don't recall ever stating that a navbox was a substitute for a discography" are you not understanding? And even if that were what I was doing, WP:NAVBOX doesn't state anything prohibiting that. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

What part of "it was my inference" do you not understand? You said "that seems to be your interpretation" and I agreed with you. And based on my interpretation, I answered your question. You act like I avoided your question altogether.
By definition, navboxes "are boxes containing links to a group of related articles". If it doesn't have a link, it means it doesn't have an article. In WP:EXISTING, it says specifically "unlinked text should be avoided". --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, WP:EXISTING does state that, but...right after that, it gives an example of a "notable guests" section, and that I can agree with being omitted because not only is the idea of being notable debatable in that sense, but said guests wouldn't have any real connection to the navbox's subject. Anyway, I'm not sure how countering WP:NAVBOX with WP:EXISTING will work after all in the long run, as the former is an actual guideline while the latter is an essay. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
That's just AN example and I already quoted WP:NAVBOX twice above: NAVBOXES are boxes containing links to a group of related articles. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, you described your own definition of navboxes, while I cited what WP:NAVBOX actually says...which contradicts your definition. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 17:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Where in "navboxes are boxes containing links to a group of related articles" is my own definition? You haven't stated anything that WP:NAVBOX actually says, only what it doesn't say. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
What I meant is that you created a synthesis by combining WP:NAVBOX with the idea that WP:DEADLINE only refers to articles...thus that is your own definition. (BTW, I'm saying what NAVBOX doesn't say? What?) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 06:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Normally, I would take the issue to WP:3, but another editor was previously involved in the dispute. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 06:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I have always been advocating the inclusion of unlinked band members and full discographies for band-related navboxes. See /Archive 5#Discographies and lists of publications in navigation boxes. De728631 (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Reply - I agree with the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_128#Navboxes_about_music_ensembles_should_list_all_of_the_band_members, that unlinked albums and songs should not be in a navbox, but that unlinked musicians should be. People will tend not to speak of a "5 album band", but will speak of a "5 member band". --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
All due respect, Jax, I was hoping for more comments from people who weren't already involved in the discussion. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Navigational boxes don't belong in articles that don't contain themselves and therefore, when present in that situation, are more like "portals" rather than providing navigation. They try to interest the reader in "something else" that is not joint between the article and the navigational template. Student7 (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Not sure that this is germane to the issue, but one could have a separate nav template "The Dorkheads", contain X, Y, Z, as bios. This could also be contained in the article on the Dorkheads which could then contain the nav template which contains the Dorkheads as one of many bands. So the navigation would be indirect to the bios. Student7 (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
"Navigational boxes don't belong in articles that don't contain themselves..." No one was ever disputing that... Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Navbox titles

Is there a standard for how navboxes should be titled? For example, should {{Presidents of Yale University}} be as such or as {{Yale University presidents}}? I looked around and didn't find anything definitive. czar ♔ 18:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

the best, in my opinion, is if they match the title of the parent article. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_6&oldid=1140108828"