Essays High‑impact

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages High This page has been rated as High-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

• Note: In navigation boxes about musical ensembles, it may be appropriate to list all of the members of the ensemble, to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act, provided that at least one member of the ensemble is notable.

This makes absolutely no sense. Why is it an exception to list members with no Wikipedia articles with the justification "to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act", while this rule is entirely ignored when dealing with songs and albums with no Wikipedia articles that can be justified with "to avoid the perception that the ensemble has released fewer songs and albums than it has in reality"?

I bring this up as a result of what happened on Template:F.T. Island, where another editor removed all songs and albums with no article entries. As a result, the template looks incomplete and entirely ridiculous, especially when members with no articles can remain because of the exemption noted above. It removes most of the band's discography: most of their Korean- and Japanese-language studio albums, most of their Korean-language EPs, all of their Japanese EPs, all of their other albums (live albums, compilation albums, and a cover album, in both languages), most of their Japanese-language singles, and the entirety of their Korean-language singles, both promotional and digital. I'm sorry, but this version looks absolutely pathetic in comparison to this version.

I'm well aware that the purpose of navigational templates is to link existing articles, but this inconsistent exception makes no sense at all to me. This type of needless bureaucracy is far more hurtful to navigational templates and to the readers of related articles than it is to simply list songs and albums without articles. — ξ^xplicit 02:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if the members of the band without articles are removed from the navbox, too. The navbox is not intended to serve as a discography for an artist (unless, of course, each of the artist's albums has an article), that's what F.T. Island discography is for which is clearly linkable from the bottom of the navbox. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree...many editors actually believe navboxes serve more than navigation, but to represent the topic as a whole. I think we should make it explicitly clear thats not the case.Lucia Black (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of navigation template if you aren't even presenting topics what are related to the topic, even if the articles don't exist yet? The "that's what F.T. Island discography is for" excuse renders all music-related template like this one entirely useless with such logic. You're essentially saying that, even if all the articles existed, the template doesn't do the job the discography does, so use that instead. Removing 84% of the band's discography from the template isn't helpful to anyone who wants to quickly glance at a neat horizontal presentation of releases without needing to navigate a discography page that can be ridiculously long. — ξ^xplicit 02:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad somebody finally brought this up. A navigation template should only contain working links to extant articles. Period. These are article navigation templates after all, not infoboxes or discographies. Text which does not link to a Wikipedia article serves no purpose within an article navigation template. I've never really understood why we list members in a bar above the rest of the content, and generally put all members' names whether articles about them exist or not. I've been thinking for a while that the title banner for any navbox should say "Wikipedia articles on <subject>" or "Part of a series on <subject>", the way that {{Socrates}} and some other navboxes do. That would make it clear that these things are lists of Wikipedia articles, not infoboxes or discographies. The members should then be taken out of the upper bar and placed in a section labeled "Members", only including those that have articles. For example, my version of Template:Black Flag would look like this:

--IllaZilla (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this was the "good old days." Just tried to enforce it and was rv by someone pointing out Wikipedia:Navigation_templates#Navigation_templates_provide_navigation_between_related_articles. Where is the discussion for that? I guess I missed it! Student7 (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a thread at Template talk:The Beatles. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia:Navigation_templates#Types section, it says that sidebars are useful for "smaller amounts of directly relevant links". Beside it is the Geodesy sidebar for illustration. Is this really a good illustration of the criteria? RockMagnetist (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Oxford Professor of Poetry. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the smallest syntax error near the bottom. I've fixed it for you, and restored the name. Seemingly it can't live without a name either, choosy beast.--Lockley (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lockley: - Many thanks for your help...totally missed that small error at the bottom. I saw one of the help pages mention an example without the name parameter, hence why I removed--since their example there worked (but didn't for me). I appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to assist! --Lockley (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{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) 03:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WT:NAVBOX brings you to this page which turns out to be the talk page for WP:NAV, but not WP:NAVBOX. Can people here get the Shortcuts reassigned correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to stop the duplication between the present advantages section and that of the guideline. Thanks for your comments. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The advice given under the "Alternatives" section (to not create a template that significantly overlaps with an existing category page) seems to contradict the guideline that overlapping categories and navigation templates are not considered duplicative. Is there a good way to reconcile these? Pigby (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Outlines#outline_sections_.28not_articles.29. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 to WP:EXISTING. The super-template includes all templates relating to the war, including the one which actually includes CofS. But the rest do not.

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) 02:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to paritcipate in the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#Sport(s) navigation template names. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment Should we link to sister projects such as Commons or Wikiquote? It seems useful for readers and is common in the below section of navboxes. What do you think? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We want our own articles in navigational templates. WikiCommons is okay as a generic template in itself. I think I've seen a generic one for Wikiquotes. While we don't want to deny readers access to possible references, we don't want to feature them as highly as our own.

In point of fact, they are not directly linkable (considered external links). Student7 (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please comment in this thread. Frietjes (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the discussion happening at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Consistent_formatting_of_template_titles_for_navboxes_of_literary_works.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll humor a particular part of the comment made in this diff: Where is edit warring occurring? Why is that relevant to this essay? If someone is edit warring, it should be trivial to take care of the problem by taking it to WP:EWN.

As in my note in my recent revert, the text never had consensus for addition and was not there for the majority of the past 5 years; I'm not sure why you think it has consensus. --Izno (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the person edit-warring over it is using his own edits to the guidelines as a bludgeon to remove material from navboxes without consensus. We fought this out a year ago, now he's back doing the same thing. Trying to nip it in the bud without wasting everyone's time and energy at some drama board. Montanabw^(talk) 19:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the text in question never had consensus, so to suggest he's using "his own edits [..] as a bludgeon" (emphasis mine) is a good bit off the mark. I don't see how it was "fought out" a year ago, else the text would have remained in the essay... which it did not. There's no discussion on this talk page anywhere of the section in question from the time period in question.

If indeed he is editing in such a fashion as to be "edit warring", why has he not been shipped to WP:AN3 or WP:ANI or who knows? You have yet to provide who this person in question is (I suspect I know but I shan't go chasing for that information) or whether you have attempted to resolve the dispute.

To get past the behavior point of it, removal of red links from a navbox necessarily follows from the fact that navigation templates provide navigation within Wikipedia, not to red link pages (which aren't a part of Wikipedia yet). So I happen to disagree also with the attempted addition. Even so, I believe the text Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles still sufficiently says what should be said--that red links should be avoided... not removed or banned from all navboxes. (Take care that WP:IAR isn't the only rationale you provided for keeping red links in a navbox.)

That all said, this is an essay, and citing it in any discussion should be made with care. You don't need to agree with the contents of this essay, and certainly don't need to even follow the thoughts expressed in this essay, even though it is widely cited. The (most) relevant guideline is WP:NAVBOX, which from memory is silent on this topic. --Izno (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is quoted on this page comes from WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia". Redlinks are not "within English Wikipedia". They are also excluded at WP:NOTRED: "Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes [...] since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles". --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect I'm the one who is the target of the bad faith accusations here. If you care to look at the history, you will clearly see that all I did was revert the text that never had consensus for inclusion as Izno points out. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the substance of the 'red link' debate

I'm the editor who originally inserted the short amount of text which is the topic of this recent edit war. I didn't raise any strong objections when it was deleted in 2013, but since we're talking about it, I'm going to encourage a discussion.

Let's take an example. The template First Nations in New Brunswick. Oh dear, look, there are some red links in there. Of the fifteen First Nations in New Brunswick, five of them show up as redlinks.

To me, it is more responsible and conservative to allow those five redlinks to remain than to sweep through and delete them. This template represents a "well-defined and complete set of data". Assuming the contents of the template is correct and complete, a visitor stumbling across this template would be better served by seeing a complete list, even if some of them don't lead to completed articles yet. (If the template's list is not correct and complete, that's a different problem.)

The alternative, to come through and delete Eel River Bar Band and the other four, would create an error. It would leave a template which says it is comprehensive but is not. That's misleading. It leaves extra work and research to be done for a future editor to realize, oh, this template seems to represent 100% of the First Nations of New Brunswick as they exist in New Brunswick, because that's what it says, but what it truly represents is 100% of the First Nations of New Brunswick as they existed in wikipedia the last time this template was updated.

Another example. The filmography template for film director Charles Barton has been "fixed" already, meaning that a well-intentioned editor came through and removed a film that Barton directed but that doesn't have an article (yet). The film is Rose Bowl, 1936. That edit left a false impression. Nobody is going to confuse "Rose Bowl (1936 film)" with La Dolce Vita in cinema history but that's not the point either. The template says "Films directed by Charles Barton" which seems like it should be correct and complete, but it really only represents "Films directed by Charles Barton as documented by wikipedia January 17 2015".

I hope you see the difficulty. I propose a change to the essay which includes this language as previously drafted: "Red links should be normally avoided unless they are likely to be developed into articles. Red links may be appropriate when the navigation template is meant to represent a well-defined and complete set of data: geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first." Lockley (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with this view. The drama I endured last year by one editor who was obsessed about bidirectionality and redlinks was destructive and a waste of time. Sometimes, as with {{Horse breeds of France}}, significant research went into finding these and the navbox represents a tool that's being used to help port over articles from Fr. wikipedia. My example would be {{KentuckyDerby}} where not all articles are yet created, but one can use the navbox to tell at a glance which ones are and aren't. Classic case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. So this language is helpful guideance. As for the drama board argument above, trust me, it ain't worth it. Better to fix the problem here. Montanabw^(talk) 05:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree heartily. Some things have a set, finite number of entries, and all of them are likely to eventually get articles. A navbox is principally for navigating between existing articles, but these aren't cases where someone is just going to make up stuff. These are known, limited sets of topics, and including a red link or two only serves to ensure that readers are not misinformed. And as always, red links let potential editors know that an article needs to be written. I offer wonder if the push to remove red links without actually writing an article has contributed to the difficulty in recruiting new editors. Not only does it hid the fact that there's work that they could help with, but it's just generally hostile ownership-type behavior. Some people seem to forget that the English Wikipedia is never complete, and that there's no deadline. oknazevad (talk),

Precisely; even where it's more than a "couple" of redlinks (for Kentucky Derby it's 52 out of 141, but all the more reason to keep them! Montanabw^(talk) 16:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the feedback. Let's leave this here for a couple of days for any additional opinions. Lockley (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All right! Based on the opinions here, I'm restoring this text to the essay: "Red links should be normally avoided unless they are 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. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first." Lockley (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it. A wider opinion is needed (I also note that @Izno: hasn't contributed). Otherwise you could conceivably end up with filmography navboxes or similar that have 50 films, only half of which are notable (because notability isn't inherited), but because of this essay we end up with a sea of red. Discography navboxes, which would follow the same rule, are even more problematic, as you can conceivably end up with a large number of singles by a notable artist, that aren't notable in their own right (example). Navboxes are not WP:LINKFARMS, they are here for one purpose only - to aid navigation. Redlinks and unlinked text actually hinder that function. You all seem to be missing this vital point. If you want to look at a filmography, look at a filmography article, don't expect a navbox to duplicate that function - that isn't what it's here for. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I would probably agree with you with regard to {{KentuckyDerby}} (which the provision at WP:NOTRED takes into consideration), but not {{Horse breeds of France}}, where the redlinks have not yet proved themselves notable. --13:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, as a compromise, I've mirrored the text from the guideline WP:NOTRED, namely: "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, and the like." Hopefully this is non-controversial and satisfies everyone. This would except {{KentuckyDerby}} but would not except {{Horse breeds of France}} mind you, nor filmographies, bibliographies or discographies. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your changes, [[Rob Sinden, for two reasons. First, procedurally, you've come in after a discussion and changed the essay back to what makes sense to you. With all due respect for your contributions, you appear to have a habit of treating this subject as your personal territory. That's not appropriate. Second, you did not address the central argument. I'll repeat it. Deleting red links can leave an incomplete and misleading template. That's also not appropriate. It screws things up. I'd like you to advocate your position, join the discussion, and reach some kind of consensus with the rest of us before you make any further changes. That's only reasonable. Lockley (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Rob, you lost last year with your rant about the Horse breeds of France navbox too. Drop the stick. And stop editing against consensus. Montanabw^(talk) 23:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to describe it as a rant. I happen to agree with Rob and so do I suspect many others, so no, it doesn't make sense to drop the stick. --Izno (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, decisions are made by those who show up, and one person making 10,000,000 edits to a talk page doesn't magically make their opinion 10,000,000 times more valuable. It's still one person's view. And, more to the point, for anyone who actually creates content, redlinks are a blessing, because otherwise article creation means painstakingly searching wikipedia to add a link to dozens of other articles; if people redlink navboxes and probable places elsewhere, it is such a blessing to other users to instantly de-orphan articles and alert project members to an article's creation. Montanabw^(talk) 05:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for this change which makes an assumption that redlinks in filmography navbox are allowed. There is strong opposition to this interpretation, so allowing in this essay is controversial. Copying the text directly from guideline WP:NOTRED however is uncontroversial. My position is based on two guidelines: WP:NAVBOX: "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia". Redlinks are not "within English Wikipedia". And WP:NOTRED: "Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes [...] since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles". It doesn't matter if filmographies in navboxes are incomplete, they are not supposed to be, that's what filmographies in articles are for. Notability is not inherited. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will remind everyone what the core of WP:RED is about: " In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic...Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." In short, an obsession with removing red links or an insistence that one category or another should restrict redlinks in navboxes for arbitrary reasons is not conductive to improving the encyclopedia. The best solution to red links is to write the articles in question. Montanabw^(talk) 08:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sinden, please just bore off and go play on the rides on Brighton waterfront. Your obsession with red links needs to stop. If editors are working towards filling re dlinks and you're hampering them you're being as disruptive as a vandal. Just let people get on with it. Red links are a good thing and show what is missing, even if not pretty.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. WP:RED makes an exception for navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk)

Which you wrote and keep adding there to create a circular argument here. You tried that last year too, and it is inappropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 08:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you suggesting that I wrote it? It's been in the guideline for over 5 years, and I had no hand in it. Stop misrepresenting me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't drop it Sinden I'll be proposing a topic ban on you from editing navigation templates. And believe me there's enough people who would support it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, back to your bullying tactics again? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this should not be controversial

The clause I inserted shouldn't be controversial. In essence it says that editors should not edit a navigation template to leave an incomplete and misleading result behind. Editors should not create errors. Easiest thing in the world, stating the obvious, what's possibly wrong with that?

I haven't seen one single counterargument based in logic, common sense, or a discussion among editors. To my eyes the opposition seems to amount to "oh, then we'll have too many horrifying red links", and "that's not what this other essay says", and "you aren't allowed to TOUCH THAT, because I own and operate Wikipedia:Navigation templates." All this noise is troubling and irritating but mainly off-topic. Is anybody going to explain why it's a good idea to create errors? Lockley (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my comments, above, before implementing your reversion? I am skeptical. --Izno (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Izno, actually, no, I only see your complaint from 1 June that there was no discussion about that clause. I responded to it by opening a discussion about that clause. Did you join that discussion? Nope. I left it open for a few days, got hearty agreement, made the change fair and square. I still don't see any shred of logic that would defend (for instance) deleting the four red links from Template:First Nations in New Brunswick to leave an inaccurate, confusing partial list behind for others to find later, untangle, research, and fix. If you're fighting for your right to "leave an incomplete and misleading result," that's an interesting position you're taking. You're invited to explain it. Lockley (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant comments I made were starting at To get past the behavior point of it in response to Montana at 2:26 UTC on 1 June, and then you forked the discussion subsequently.

I did not join the discussion because I was AFK that entire week, and the change was implemented in the span of days... --Izno (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After giving you two or three fair explicit invitations, I'll conclude, with respect and good faith, that you're unable to defend your argument. Lockley (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, I think it's just not worth commenting in this forum any more, given a wide-ranging RFC as I advertised below covers this exact conversation. I was more interested in pointing out the facts just to nip this no "one single counterargument" "argument" in the bud, because it's patently false. --Izno (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the discussion at WP:RED does cover what's happening here, too. Montanabw^(talk) 05:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Users watching this topic/page are likely to be interested in WT:Red link#Revision proposal. --Izno (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All, there is a RFC on a topic of interest to this page at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#RFC: Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes.3F. Please join the conversation, and help us figure out the role of links to other Wikimedia Projects in Navboxes, Sadads (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor creates an article that would fit into a navigational box template created sometime ago. The editor may be new or doesn't work much with templates, so s/he doesn't think about adding it to the Navbox. You come across the article and realize that it wasn't added to the appropriate Navbox. What would you do?

1. Add a link to the article into the Navbox template,
2. Slap an {{Update}} tag to the template? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add it. Update tags are unsightly for a navbox. Just easier to add it (and add the navbox to the article, too!) oknazevad (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to modify section Wikipedia:Navigation templates#Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles to add verbiage to explicitly call out the fact that {{interlanguage link}}s are permitted when the language links are blue, even though the English link is red.

The first bullet of this section currently says:

Red links 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. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first.

I would modify this bullet to append the following text:

Use of {{Interlanguage link}}s that render as red links to articles absent from English Wikipedia and which have blue links to articles in other language Wikipedias are permitted, even though the English article link will remain red until it is written.

As an example of this kind of usage, please see Template:Holocaust France.

Next to each red link in the template above are one (or more) blue links. Many bi- or multilingual speakers use English Wikipedia, and to deny them the added utility of links to articles in another language simply because the article in English doesn't exist (yet), seems unfair to me. I would wish the guideline to be clear on this point.

Finally, the {{Interlanguage link}} template is happily written in such a way that when someone creates the English article, the whole template renders as if it were a simple wikilink to the English article. (That is, the no-longer-needed parenthetical language links are suppressed, leaving only the English one.) Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would not support this, since this is not the purpose of navigation templates, confirmed by multiple RFCs. The use of {{ill}} or similar would IMO be best for a list on the template's documentation page (about potential additions) or in a WikiProject's space for group-working, or similar. I would personally remove each of the redlinks in that template, but that would be WP:POINT given the discussion. --Izno (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: Do you know which RFCs they are? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Izno in opposing this addition. Navboxes really shouldn't even contain interlanguage links in the first place, as they don't help navigate within the English Wikipedia, and are unhelpful to readers who don't read that one language. Even that, picking one language over others, is a problem. It may seem obvious that any interlanguage links that might be in a navbox related to France would be in French, but what if another language has a far superior article? So, no, this should not be added to the essay, and indeed, those interlanguage links should be removed. oknazevad (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree. The public needs to be reminded that A. these topics exist in another language, B. that they are potentially topics for ENwiki, and that C. "Hey guys, somebody should write this!" One goal for Wikipedians is to get more people to contribute. Our need to encourage more people to contribute IMO far outweighs the need of the "purpose" of a navigation template. It should not only give people links within EN.wiki about a topic but it should also tell people what's missing in the topic.
  • "Even that, picking one language over others, is a problem." - For some topics that are general, it is a problem. For others that have specific linguistic or national ties, it is not a problem and one can usually predict which article will be the "best" in the topic based on the national ties.
  • Sometimes topics are unavailable on EN due to notability/sourcing rules that make a topic untenable on EN but tenable on another Wiki (for example the Japanese Wikipedia has tons of articles on North Korean schools but, because sourcing doesn't exist, they can't have ENwiki articles (yet?))
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an anonymous user who keeps removing redlinks from Template:International schools in Pakistan, saying that I must create the articles first before putting them on the template.

Right now I don't have the sources I need to create the articles, but the public needs to be reminded that these articles should exist. If they are removed, the public will forget that these topics (in this case closed schools in Pakistan that were shut due to security concerns post-9/11) and it will all go down the memory hole. I don't want that to happen.

Wikipedia is supposed to have red links, is it not?

@96.48.244.69: WhisperToMe (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could of course put them on the talk page, but if you are positive they are notable, and the numbers don't overwhelm (I can see that they don't), then yes, they should be left in the template. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is supposed to have redlinks, but navboxes are not, on the whole, unless a case can be made for exception. Navboxes are for linking between existing articles. See WP:EXISTING, WP:WTAF and WP:NOTRED. In the case you mention above, as notability has not been established, they should be left out. And on a side note, the flags should probably go too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A question arose regarding the including of cast and crew links in shows, and by extension film series, at a few articles I watched.

It has been pointed out that a number of deletions of cast and crew navboxes in 2006 and 2009 seem to set a precedent for removal of cast and crew from a show or film series infobox (and subsequently removing that navbox from each page of cast and crew). [1]. There are two far arguments that come up in these TFDs to consider:

• Our articles on TV shows and films are generally already highly crosslinked, appearing to make the navbox with additional cast/crew lists seemingly unncessary.
• For a prolific actor or producer (eg like J.J. Abrams), were we to include every navbox from the TV and film series they were involved in , the navbox area would be packed to the gills. (JJ here, I'd count at least 7 additional navboxes relating to the works).

Both are fair points, but I think both can be countered today:

• While things can be highly crosslinked, this does not always make for good navigation between articles since one has to figure out where that information is crosslinked in the body, whereas with a navbox, you can find it much faster, serving the purpose of being a navigational aid.
• We have better template processing systems that allow for nested and collapsed navboxes so that while for someone like JJ all seven show/film navboxs would be included, they can be nested into a collapsed title "Shows and Films", and a reader that needs to then navigate by show can easily do so.

I do think there is a need to make sure not every conceivable cast and crew, even if they are blue-linked, should be included, only those at the top of the importance to the work : this would be your things like executive producers, directors, lead writers, top-billed actors, and major recurring role, but avoiding all bit parts/one-time cameos even if the person is notable. (eg for Star Trek: The Next Generation, people like Patrick Steward, Jonathan Frakes, John De Lancie, and Whoopie Goldberg should be listed, but not people like Kelsey Gramer or Malcolm McDowell.) It also should be noted that not every show has such infoboxes, so we're not likely in any danger of being IMDB v2.0 (there will be connectivity, but not to the degree IMDB has).

However, I do seek input to see if this is within the intent of infoboxes or if this type of practice should be discourage, to an extent codifying the past TFDs. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As this is an essay talkpage, I don't think this is the correct venue for the discussion. But for the record, I strongly oppose allowing cast and crew in film and TV navboxes, for pretty much the same reasons we don't allow them in categories per WP:PERFCAT, as well as the clutter issue. You probably want to have it at WT:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers. Make sure you notify the Film and TV Wikiprojects too. Also note the subject has come up more recently than this. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Archive 11#Film crew navboxes. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robsinden (talk • contribs) 15:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did notify the TV and film projects, but just added one for the actors/filmmakers too. --MASEM (t) 17:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While we're discussing this, it's probably worth discussing appearances on reality shows, panel games, TV presenting roles and the like too. Creating navboxes for these, or including these people in the TV series navboxes causes the same problems as cast and crew, not only does it cause over-proliferation of navboxes, but also puts WP:UNDUE weight on that appearance. Someone who is notable for one thing then ends up with a slew of navboxes on their page for something which is a minor part of their career. Look at Ulrika Jonsson for example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd drop in to point out the most common reference I've seen used when discussing this is this discussion from 2009. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the discussion back when I was relatively new, and took a pro-inclusion stance before being shown the error of my ways?  ;) --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear here at one time you did think that helping our readers navigate articles was a good idea ...what changed your mind to the view that orphaning a certain type of article from nav-templates was goo idea? -- Moxy (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand why some editors think it is inappropriate to have hosts/judges/presenters in navboxes for television series. Such roles are prominent and essential, and having them included in the navbox seems to make perfect sense to me. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Among other things, it creates navbox clutter and puts undue weight on something that could only be a minor part of someone's career. The people in question are only tangentially connected to the the other people in the navbox - their only connection may be just a single appearance in the same show. Therefore it fails a number of the points on WP:NAVBOX. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "minor part of someone's career" is a poor argument at times, though: the one diff that brought this to my attention was effectively this [2] which removed the hosts of the various versions of The Amazing Race from the navbox. I can't speak to the others, but Phil Keoghan's career is significantly tied to the show, and cannot be considered "minor". --MASEM (t) 14:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is one minor example in the big scheme of things. Imagine the mess if we allowed a Star Trek cast and crew box per your example. You mention directors on this. There were probably 100 people who directed episodes of Star Trek. Some of these would have been first-time directors, or people early in there career. They get included in the navbox, the navbox gets slapped on their page. Now they have a Star Trek navbox on their page, but this director is subsequently known for so much more than directing a single episode of Star Trek. This Star Trek navbox now gives undue weight to Star Trek on the page of this hypothetical director, so other navboxes are created. However said director has had a long and prolific career in television and has directed episodes of thirty different television programmes. They now have thirty different navboxes on their page... THIS is why we don't include people in navboxes... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would the bottom of James Sheldon's article look like, for example... [3][4] --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you will find is that instead of aiding navigation, these navboxes will now have the opposite effect, and make navigation so difficult, you may as well do away with the navboxes altogether... --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There does need to be some discrimination in the navboxes; just because a person had a bit part of directed one episode doesn't mean they are significant enough to be included in the navbox list of persons or that the navbox for that series on their page. And with that type of discrimination in place, I would find it hard to identify any person in the tv or movie industry that would have been so significant in so many different series to need more than , say, ten infoboxes. Take someone like J.J. Abrams. He's done a lot, clearly. But when you consider what are actually navigatable topics, that's primarily 3 of his TV shows (Alias, Lost, and Fringe), and 4 movie series (Star Trek, Star Wars, Cloverfield, and Mission Impossible). The other things are all one-off productions or that lack a wide range of articles due to the limited impact of the work to necessitate an inbox. And when you wrap and collapse these, that's not too difficult to get around. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the big problem editors all over have with Rob Sinden rational...that is Rob Sinden odd implantation of looks over functionality. Because of your missuses of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL our parent articles that would benefit from the related links inquestion dont have them becasue a small group of editors dont like the navbox in some sub articles. Why not leave the links people would like to see and just remove the box from offending articles? Would be best to apply WP:BIDIRECTIONAL with some basic common sense. Editors that write the content your orphaning from navigation i think know best about the way to handle navigation between the articles they write. i am sure most dont think a fly by template editors that does not add edit summaries knows best. Dont you think its odd this keeps coming up...do you have any plans to solve the ongoing problem?-- Moxy (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. If you're not going to put the navboxes on the bottom of each page, they serve more as an infobox than a navbox, as they are not being used to navigate, which is the the sole purpose of a navbox. And we already have infoboxes with all of this information in, so there's no point. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must be aware that many templates are made to help facilitate navigation from a parent article to sub article that have different navigational aids to even more sub articles. Again a common sense approach is what we are looking for...not a dogmatic approach. -- Moxy (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)But by drawing that line, we then have to decide whose contributions are more significant than another, which is not our call to make. And as far as Abrams goes, navigation between his films and shows is more effectively covered by a single navbox, {{J. J. Abrams}}, rather than a slew of navboxes further cluttering up the bottom of his page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though by consensus it should be rather easy to define fundamental rules for inclusion and exclusion (eg: principle actors of a show should always be included; one time cameo appearance should not), leaving a range of grey-area cases but which should defer to avoid clutter through consensus discussion for that navbox. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a long established consensus not to include any of them, and a great number of cast and crew navboxes have been deleted in multiple deletion discussions. If you're seeking to change that consensus, I think you'd need to start a proper RFC at WT:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers as this will have a horrendous effect across Wikipedia. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change - 2009 was eons ago in WP time, and technically we've gotten better tools for navboxes. Right now, it's trying to judge if there's a potential if this 2009 decision stands as well as if it appropriate from the navigational aspects for WP in general. If there is reason to question or update that consensus then we can do a VPP RFC. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually our guideline about the projects positions is an example of what 'not to do see WP:ADVICEPAGE . I dont think the majority here would ever think a project can restrict a type of article from being in navboxes. Your project does not own the content inquestion let alone have the authority to tell other projects what they can and cant have in the articles and templates they work on. In my view this is really steeping over the bounds and leads to conflict for no reason. I dont understand why a compromising thoughtful approach as suggested by Masem is not your projects goal...over a stick no discussion approach....that is simply not they why we do things here -- Moxy (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly support revisiting this issue, and having a discussion again. A lot of things would have changed between 2009 and now. I completely understand not listing every cast/crew member, but roles like presenter/host, executive producer, director, etc where appropriate should definently be included. In Template:Survivor for example, links to the series developer, creator, production company and US host were removed. I don't see how they create clutter, and they are essential key personal. In that template, every winner is listed, and I would argue 20-odd winners (most of whom would have done nothing notable apart from win the program) are a far less important inclusion than the creator and host of the program. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Executive producers, production companies, etc should never be included as they are too tangential to the topic in question. I can see an argument for creator, but that's it. I agree with you about winners, and contestants, but if they are non-celebrities, then their notability only stems from the appearance on the show. I personally would like to see the end of reality show and panel show navboxes that only contain individuals as all these do is create clutter, and clutter hinders navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to as "my" project. I don't have a project. However, what there is is established consensus for not including these individuals in navboxes for the reasons I state. But if you want to try to change that consensus, please go ahead with a proper RFC in an appropriate venue (and not tucked away here on the talk page of an essay). --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think navboxes create clutter, they're at the very bottom of articles and if there are multiple navboxes they can be combined into a show/hide container, and excluding a particular genre seems discriminatory. -- Whats new?^(talk) 08:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there are so many of them that they have to be hidden, then this is a hindrance to navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say they are a "hindrance to naviagtion?" Surely navboxes make navigation to related topics easier, and on mobile devices they don't appear anyway so display shouldn't be an issue. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there are enough examples of including these names causing too many navboxes to suggest that it shouldn't be recommended. Only in special circumstances, such as Gene Roddenberry for Star Trek, would including cast seem necessary, and for cast members a TV navbox will usually have a link to a cast/character list. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very bad door to open, per all the arguments above. It's a nice fantasy that inclusion could be controlled to the degree that only "important" actors and crew would be placed in navboxes, but we already have issues keeping excess cast members out of infoboxes. Every entertainment industry bio article I've ever seen already includes at least an IMDb-style filmography list, and many obviously have healthy career overviews in prose. You're insulting readers to suggest that they can't, for example, easily find a link to Clue in Lesley Ann Warren, and vice versa. Nesting navboxes is fine, but for prolific actors, writers, or directors you would end up with dozens at the bottom of articles. That is the opposite of helpful. I believe the behavior of following links is also based on coming across them as you read a paragraph or list, not as much going to an article to simply find a jump to another article. I'm actually surprised by the Ulrika Jonsson example, I had no idea there were show navboxes listing contestants.— TAnthony^Talk 15:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "insulting to readers" argument would be reason to get rid of all navboxes, arguably. (Realistically, if you are on article that is included within a navbox, it should be possible to reach every other target in that navbox by at most two clicks through prose links, if the interwiki linking is done as per our writing and style guidelines, but no one is suggesting getting rid of navboxes for this reason). And I would argue that while there are prolific actors and directors and other crewpersons, not every work they touch is golden to require a navbox - again,I point out that with someone like JJ Abrams, while there's about 30 works he's involved in, only about 8 of those actually have navboxes, the others being one-off or critically-overlooked (read: not widely notable to have exhaust article coverage) works. (That said, I definitely would agree that reality show contestants in navboxes is pushing it)--MASEM (t) 15:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The whole project is working towards the wrong direction.....just look a at Clint Eastwood#External links ...simply not sure how hundreds of links to unrelated articles is better then displaying hes work. People talk about clutter...but yet all we see is spamming of unrelated templates all over instead of directly related links.....this is all ass backwards.-- Moxy (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally get what you're saying, and at face value, navboxes would of course be potentially helpful in all the ways you suggest. But I'm wondering what exactly the criteria for being navbox-worthy would be, because if we are allowing actors, writers, and directors, then every film or TV show with an article has a need for one. I presume that if only eight of Abram's projects have navboxes, it's because only those eight have related topics/articles, as in the franchises Alias, Lost, Star Wars, and Star Trek. Change the rules, and I don't see why Felicity and Armageddon should not have navboxes, as they are notable and their casts and crews contain many notable people. I can't imagine a realistic, enforceable guideline that could allow a navbox for one film or TV series and not another.— TAnthony^Talk 18:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And then, how could we disallow individual actor templates, when essentially this is what we would be creating in reverse with film and TV templates?— TAnthony^Talk 18:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that, taking Armageddon as an example, that we would not make an Armageddon navbox that serves only to list out the principle cast and crew and no to few other articles (eg like the soundtrack). But when the infobox already exists to navigate between a good number of articles that cover every other aspect of a show or movie franchise, that adding in the principle cast and crew that are tightly associated with it is acceptable. (Determining where to draw the line on "tightly associated" is a separate issue altogether.) The navbox should not go out of the way to support a large number cast members, again where that line is to be drawn being a consensus based discussion. --MASEM (t) 20:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think having navboxes for anything where the relationship does not define the links is a poor idea. Something like {{Star Trek: The Next Generation}} is fine because each entry is defined by the subject topic, but to create a navbox for the cast members and then slap that template on each actor's article seems like overkill to me. It is a reasonable assumption that somebody who looks up Jean-Luc Picard might also be interested in Worf, but I don't think that holds true for Patrick Stewart and Michael Dorn who have both had substantial and notable careers beyond Star Trek. For what it's worth I would cull those award templates for Clint Eastwood too. Navboxes have a place, but they work best for grouping together a set of links that form a complete set defined by their relationship to each other; once you allow tangential or incidental relationships then you end up with something like the Clink Eastwood link farm, and a selective approach to inclusion like the one proposed above. Betty Logan (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the awards templates should probably also all be deleted, as, per WP:NAVBOX, they do not "refer to each other, to a reasonable extent", and they also create unnecessary clutter as demonstrated. But that's a separate issue and maybe a topic for another day. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You think there are too many Award templates in Eastwood's article, check out Meryl Streep lol.— TAnthony^Talk 15:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. How anyone thinks these aid navigation is beyond me! Award navboxes with ensemble cast are something that have always bothered me too - see {{ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVDrama 2010–2019}} as an example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Request: Can someone summarize in one single boldfaced sentence what the question of this thread is? Softlavender (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply: Should key cast and crew associated with a television show or movie franchise be included into navboxes dedicated to that show/franchise, and thus also have those navboxes included on that cast/crew member's WP article? --MASEM (t) 16:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering about the appropriateness of the recent addition of family members (albeit, notable individuals with their own articles) to {{Carrie Fisher}}. Feels wrong to me.— TAnthony^Talk 17:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The advice to avoid redirects isn't here any more, seems it was removed [5] a while ago. User:Thumperward did it move to a meta-template doc? Regards

{{anchor}}

Avoid redirects

• The link to the page on which a particular instance of a navbox appears should be displayed in black, bold type, not as a link. This will happen automatically, provided all links go directly to their target pages, avoiding redirects. (Piped links are perfectly all right.)
• In the rare event that a navbox contains a link to a disambiguation page that doesn't have "(disambiguation)" in its title, use the {{D'}} template to resolve the conflict between this requirement and the requirements concerning intentional links to disambiguation pages.

Widefox; talk 10:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there's no hope of me recalling the specifics here, given that we're talking about edits from nigh-on four and a half years ago. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: Perhaps WP:BRINT? --Izno (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's it. I added a link at Wikipedia:Navigation template#See also and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates. Widefox; talk 21:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created {{Mr. Tambourine Man (album)}} as a navigation aid for use at the bottom of the album's song article pages. On its own, the template appears OK, but when used on the song pages (usually preceding the artist navbox {{The Byrds}}), an extra blank line appears between the two (click on any of the song links and you'll see). How do I fix this? Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ojorojo, by removing the blank lines at the bottom of the template. Frietjes (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that earlier, but it didn't work.[6] Did Izno's removal of the nonlinks fix the problem? (several other album navboxes have a blank line and unlinked songs, but don't create the extra blank line problem when used in articles.) —Ojorojo (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ojorojo: The non-links should not have created an issue. If the whitespace was unaffected on the articles-proper, that's probably because the job queue was processing the updates made to the template. You can jump the job queue by purging the article-in-question to make sure you've fixed the issue, but you should usually otherwise let the job queue do its thing. --Izno (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. BTW, there's a discussion about track listings and album navboxes if you're interested. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Template:Hydropower currently includes a link named Banki turbine which is actually piped to Cross-flow turbine, where we learn that this device is also known as Bánki-Michell turbine or Ossberger turbine. Should only one of the names be listed in the navbox? If all are to be listed should they go in parentheses, or have their own piped wikilink? --Theodore Kloba (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just about always use the name of the actual article to which we are pointing. One of the exceptions that I can think of is where the name is obvious from context e.g. in a group called "Turbines", taking a link to cross-flow turbine and piping it to cross-flow. --Izno (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just started a discussion at Template talk:Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio. Template:Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio is the most atypical navbox I've seen in a while, but my previous attempt to try to bring it in line with other templates was reverted. Any additional points of view on it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ‑‑Yodin^T 10:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now tagged as a Template:Guidance essay. There is a low standard of consensus for that tag, and such essays might just be the opinion of one or two eds. This is a high impact essay with lots of attention. I'd like to change the tag to the one requiring a strong consensus, i.e., Template:Supplement. I propose using the parameters of that tag to explain that this essay is elaborating on the "official" guideline found at Wikipedia:CLN#Navigation templates. The reason I care is because I'm working on a bit of housekeeping related to the distinction between these tags. As part of that process, I'm looking at this linked as "guidance essays" that seem more like "supplement" essays. Comments anybody? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly tried it out today NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the above-named article, there is a navigation template which lists all the city attorneys, chronologically, and their family names only. I want this to be changed to a list of the city attorneys by full name, alphabetically. There was a heated discussion about this proposal here, and then it was abandoned. How can I bring this up again, or has there already been a decision somewhere on how to deal with templates like this one? Thank you, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Largest cities of India has recently been added at the foot of many cities, eg Ludhiana, by way of use as a navbox. Is this template creep?

Discussion at Template talk:Largest cities of India#Should Template:Largest cities of India be used as a navigation box?. Thanks, Batternut (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello project.

There is an ongoing discussion over at Talk:ISU Speed Skating World Cup involving the design of navboxes for articles that are one level above ordinary "games articles". Please take part.

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Template talk:Alt-right footer‎ there's been a lot of discussion about how connected a person needs to be to the alt-right to be included in the navbox, whether that has BLP implications, etc. But it seems like Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates takes a much more casual approach, comparing navboxes to "See also" sections that don't require citations. Thoughts? Smooth alligator (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As templates are mostly unsourced, they should try to follow article contents as far as possible. So if people are associated with the alt-right, and that is reliably sourced in the associated article, only then should they be included in the template. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently been active in converting templates to use {{Navbox}}, {{Sidebar}} and {{Infobox}} when appropriate. I have gotten a couple of editors who have pushed back for two reasons. The first is that they don't think that these templates can accurately represent the template. This case is usually a result of an inexperienced editor not understanding how versatile these templates actually are. The second reason is people continually saying "Well wait where is the consensus that all Sidebars should use {{Sidebar}} instead of just being their own hardcoded table..." I was curious if it would be appropriate to add a line in the properties section that says something along the lines of Whenever possible sidebars/navboxes should be created using {{Sidebar}} or {{Navbox}} as a base. This would be build off the line that is already on this page that says The usual way to create navigation templates is to use the {{navbox}} or {{sidebar}} master templates. This simplifies the process of creating a functional and consistent template.. How do people feel about adding onto that? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing the situation with Template:Christian denominations in the English-speaking world, which appears to be the issue that's motivating you to look for a change here. I think the reason editors are pushing back against this change is that they're being protective of over-engineered efforts. Some editors love to get fancy or "cute" with the tools. Sidebars within sidebars? I'm sure someone is very proud of that particular bit of construction, but it doesn't pass muster with WP:SIDEBAR's guidelines, particularly #2 ("The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article."), #3 ("The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent."), and #5 ("If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections."). Furthermore, that template isn't even included on many of the pages that it links to, which nullifies its usefulness as a navigational element.

So, in that specific case, I'd argue that the whole template should be deleted and replaced with a WP:OUTLINE article.

More generally, my view is this: Complex, specialized, tightly-packed sidebars with small font sizes and dozens of links are user-hostile and should be avoided. They aren't easy for editors to maintain, and they aren't easy for people to read. Lists, categories, and outlines are the preferred tools for presenting related content, and unlike these complex sidebars, are easily accessible to readers on mobile devices, which is fully half our audience. Warren -talk- 06:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Warren: that situation was one of the major ones where I got push back. Nice to know you are on the same page as me. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Removal_of_historical_characters_from_navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As some of you have been already aware, the mobile view and the official mobile app do not display {{navbox}} and {{sidebar}}. I see the advantages of converting from a list of wikilinks under the See also section to navboxes. But the problem is that more than half of the entire Wikipedia page access is via mobile, and thereby the conversion is not so recommended nowadays.

Should we change the current section name from "Advantages" to "Pros and Cons", for example? FYI: {{Template display}} is available to inform template users of the display compatibilities. However, this display notice template is still a beta version and no significant progress made since a request for improvement on the talk page. Appretiate your thoughts on how to get more awareness of this device compatibility matter. --Mis0s0up (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for an opinion in Talk:Cenk Uygur#Template "Denial of Mass Killings". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue raised a decade ago at Wikipedia_talk:Navigation_template/Archive_1#Impact_on_'What_links_here'_pages persists today. Yet this page, which purportedly details the properties -good or bad- of navbox templates makes no mention of it. According to Help:What_links_here#Overview: The list of links to an article is useful in a number of ways: The number of incoming links gives a rough indication of how important or popular a page is. The considerable impact navbox templates can have on this function is, I believe, worthy of a mention here.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion here abouth the inclusion of casual games into the navbox {{Agatha Christie video games}}. They don't have separate articles, nevertheless they exist as subsections of the pages about the novels they were inspired by: for example 4:50 from Paddington and Peril at End House. I think they should be included, for the sake of completeness. What do you think about? You may discuss here.--Carnby (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carnby: - Generally I agree. The "[...] redirects should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles" was added[7] in September 2017 without discussion. I think its a bad "rule" because navbox becomes meaningsless after article are merged, and a lot of navboxes doesn't follow this "new" rule. I suggest its removed again Christian75 (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested regarding a content dispute concerning an image in the Nav Template:Hungary topics. Please see Template talk:Hungary topics#Coat of arms. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: your two reverts on this template (and bizarre instructions to WP:BRD without a discussion after you reverted) are not what I read in the discussions above. Please discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page language allows for red links on templates: "Red links and redirects should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles." I've done three reverts of good faith edits, so can't do a fourth, so can someone else change the template back to its long-term language. At present the language is inaccurate. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your reverts are an improvement. The text I changed the note to matches the text in the headings of the page. The section with the section heading about existing pages already includes the caveats regarding non-existing pages. (The missing heading about decoration could probably be added with some phrase like "plain".) The note is a summary of general cases, which is what the page is framed as generally. --Izno (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment and good faith edit. Yet the language of WP:EXISTING correctly states that red links are fine if an article is likely to be written. There are many templates with a ridiculous amount of red links, yet a few are certainly fine. There's a brief ongoing (I think) discussion of this at the visual arts wikiproject, which point out some of the excessive uses. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The summary seems to match the text agreed upon above. Personally, I disagree with the idea of having redlinks in nav templates, simply because they are not body text and people expect to be able to navigate to items in nav boxes. Is there a preferred wording for the summary (I'm at 3RR as well, so I couldn't add it if I wanted to). Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You and I agree that WP:EXISTING already states the current guideline about it (WP:REDNOT). However, that is a caveat to the main point both of this page and to the point of navboxes. The eggshell summary of a page a) should list the summary of the page, in as-full of a summary as we can without b) diving into all of the caveats. That summary is "Links, to similar topics with existing pages, on English Wikipedia". You are still free to point to EXISTING (or again, REDNOT) if someone comes along and says otherwise. WG: I too disapprove of red links, but there was an RFC on this specific point and text inserted at REDNOT. --Izno (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the RfC, but that was specifically for body copy, not nav templates. There is a local consensus that they should contain fewer that the prose of articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are thinking of the wrong RFC then. I'm referring to this one. --Izno (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TurokSwe Use a tool or something. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do explain how exactly they're unrelated, because as far as I can see, they are absolutely related. - TurokSwe (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TurokSwe, it would really help if you used edit summaries, I can't tell which are the template additions being discussed and which are edits. Thanks, and Happy New Year! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I shall take your concerns into account and make that clear in future edits. Happy New Year to you as well! - TurokSwe (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I already told you - a related navbox includes a link the article (making the article appear as bolded in the navbox there if posted under the article, if I really need to explain the obvious to you). These that don't include the link to the article are unrelated. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall you telling me anything (if I'm the "you" being referred to). Can you give a couple examples of which templates are tangential? Thanks. And HNYear to you. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I told you in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_vs._Predator_(arcade_game)&diff=prev&oldid=876147873 - the unrelated ones are these that I remove in this edit, as you can't use them for navigation to this article. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me mixed up with someone else. Anyway, okay. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the link you provide seems to show that not only are the templates related, but they are both in the title of the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. - TurokSwe (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TurokSwe, you're doing all these pages a disservice by conglomerating them into one disorganized mess. Alien, Predator and AvP are separate franchises, with the only points of intersection being the Alien creature and the list of Alien, Predator and AvP video games - which needs to be separated into different articles, by the way. We'll need to go through each and every article and once again remove extraneous information. One of the first offenders is the Alien page, which is now mostly a copy-paste of the AvP page. You know better. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are separate but connected franchises, much in the same manner that Iron Man, Captain America, and The Avengers are separate franchises yet connected. I don't see the problem. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup this needs to be fixed. As far as feel I think there is room for four game lists. List of Alien (franchise) games, List of Predator (franchise) games and List of Alien vs. Predator (franchise) games could all exist in a different form of list than the current one which covers all of the related games★Trekker (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't believe TurokSwe did anything in bad faith - I think quite the opposite. I do believe, however, they got a little carried away after reading up on the new Predator movie that was intended to have an Ellen Ripley cameo and jumped the gun by jumbling everything together - even if it was a gross disregard of consensus. We need to be able to work these things out and until further notice, keep these pages separated - this isn't the MCU, after all. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I weren't carried away. Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator have always been connected. The connection was initiated in 1990 and officially cemented together back in 2004 and 2007. The Predator certainly doesn't disregard the fact that these franchises are officially connected to each other. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1990 is not "always".★Trekker (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might as well, seeing as this is still about a decade from when this "Xenoverse" started and the shared universe remains to this very day as an integral part of these franchises, and the first two decades really established where this whole franchise was going. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that it only your personal opinion. There is not "Xenoverse" franchise, that's a name of a Dragon Ball game (which is where the "Xenoverse" link redirects to) and just something a fringe group of AvP fans like to spam about on AvP discussions. So far no one agrees with you and you don't even seem to know why people have a problem with you adding unneeded navboxes to articles/lists. Navboxes must be bidirectional.★Trekker (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"What" is supposedly my personal opinion? I didn't mean to say that the "Xenoverse" title was anything official. Why the hostile attitude towards AVP-fans? Here it seems like the true motivation behind this whole issue is revealed, namely a dislike towards the AVP-brand. This surely does not qualify as a reason worthy of discussion, as this merely concerns personal opinions. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I just noticed that Ellen Ripley's been added to the Predator navbox. I get that they explored having her cameo in the film, but that never happened. So, why include that? This seems to have gone off the rails. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it actually happened (and not just Ripley but Newt and Weyland-Yutani as well), the scenes were prepared, produced, and filmed, and Ripley is now officially and permanently part of The Predator. Had that never happened it would have been a different story of course, but Fox clearly did not mind, and they supported it so far that they ended up as actual produced and filmed scenes in The Predator (even if not being present in the final product, at least not on-screen). If you don't like it, blame 20th Century Fox, but it still happened. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

I have requested mediation at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, to diffuse this conflict. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthBotto: Are you kidding me? The discussion had not concluded here yet. In fact, when I saw it earlier today, I wasn't even clear on where the problem was and was hoping for some clarification from either one of the two original commenters. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair complaint. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far, all the other editors have ceased editing, to discuss this conflict - one that you're the only party on one side of - while you're continuing to push your angle and take the opportunity to edit war. If you genuinely wish to settle it, then alright, we can settle it here. But, you could at least have the courtesy to step back like everyone else and at least discuss it, rather than continuing to revert and try to earn brownie points by complimenting editors who say they wish for us to keep it here. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TurokSwe, now you're reverting Moxy's edits?? You are way out of line with your edit-warring and seriously need to step back. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warring (not intentionally at least). I reverted Moxy's edits because they were unwarranted, were without explanation, and engaged in an edit war. I've been engaged in the discussion from the start, however the discussion isn't even going any further, and I don't see why I ought to cease improving the articles while waiting for responses to this particular discussion. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no vested interest in this discussion but my name came up so here I am. I have another concern spamming of a blog with no content added and no edit summaries pls see -Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#‎Blog spam.--Moxy (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And as I keep saying, AVPGalaxy is still a recognized and trusted source of news in regards to the Alien/Predator franchise and has been for a long time and repeatedly referenced, and the information contained within its articles isn't even disputable (controversial perhaps, but not disputable). - TurokSwe (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I have added more articles covering the news. Just to put your mind at ease. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be best to slow down....you have added a Facebook page and a tweet as sources recently. Could you read over WP:Identifying reliable sources before proceeding.--Moxy (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed wise to take some time and reflect over things, and once I put my mind to something I tend to work rapidly. Might I ask which "Facebook page and tweet" it is that you're referring to? I am reading the linked article, yet I fail to understand what your problem is supposed to be (especially now that I've added further sources to the news, which I'd figure would be even harder to refute). - TurokSwe (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the content as evident in my action only removing the website.. it's the source is being used that is a problem ...Pls read over WP:RS/SPS... no fan sites no blogs no Facebook etc.... don't rely on fans for information.... because we need to get information from reliable trusted sources that are vetted.--Moxy (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally agree with that concern, however I would also have to acknowledge that there are exceptions which might be difficult to reject. - TurokSwe (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon requested several times that we have discourse here, before the discussion at DNR resumes. Unfortunately, it does not seem like you are grasping what anyone has stated, as you're continuing to edit-war - the latest being JzG - and make unconstructive edits, with the argument being that others are "unwarranted", "vague" or undisputable. The DNR resort is for stepping back from issues, to have moderated discussions - which you are showing no regard for. If this does not change, this may warrant being taken to AN/I. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 15:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I been supposedly "edit-warring" and where are these supposed "unconstructive edits"? The instances in which I've used words as the ones you describe is when people have removed material without adequate justification. Not to mention that I don't expect to cease editing the articles because of a discussion that's going nowhere and especially when others keep editing the articles and removing the contents in question. It's interesting though (almost suspicious even) how you so consistently seem to keep track on every person who's edits I've decided to revert... - TurokSwe (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, diffs to this behaviour is what I've been waiting to see. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]