Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Questioning WP:BIDIRECTIONAL[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I recently came across the advice here that Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox. The way I've thought about navboxes is that they're part of an article and therefore subject to the same DUE considerations as the rest of it, and that this can mean that sometimes it makes sense for niche topics to have navboxes that don't link back. For instance, for a professor or administrator who spent their entire career at a university, it might make sense to have the navbox for the university at their article, but it wouldn't make sense to add them to that navbox.

What do others think of this guidance? Should we loosen it? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the advice or guideline as you've quoted it is sort of backwards, or sideways maybe. It should say something like Only include the navbox on articles that are linked to by the navbox. In general I think it's good to follow this guideline. The purpose of a navbox is to provide a handy way to click through to articles on a related topic. If you include it in an article that it doesn't link to, then when you click away from that article, you can't click back using the navbox. That said, it might be best to allow exceptions in some circumstances. Mudwater (Talk) 00:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on that! --woodensuperman 11:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some exceptions should apply, especially for items on lists included in the navbox. For instance, I once spent days adding {{Zoos}} to all of the zoo articles because it seemed obvious (and still seems obvious) that anyone clicking on a zoo page may have an interest in, of all things, zoos. They were reverted because, lists. Although reasonable limits should apply, when I read U.S. National Zoo I'd appreciate the logical assortment of closely associated pages on the navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally the advice is simply bad.....academic type topics ignore this and consider it harmful. Last thing we want is vital type articles to look like pop culture articles Elizabeth Taylor#External links. United States is linked in 27 templates....that we simply dont spam on that page. Moxy- 12:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that these award navboxes are an issue, and they do fail on the fact that the articles do not generally meet point 3 of the guideline. Maybe awards navboxes are okay for the films, etc, but not for the individuals.
    Personally, I think a tightening up of the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL guideline is in order and links should be removed from the navbox if the navbox is not suitable for transclusion on the page. Take your United States example. Why should it be included in the {{Houston}} navbox? --woodensuperman 12:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'United States' should not be included in the 'Houston' navbox. Doesn't mean that a full purge of navboxes should occur on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This guideline should at least state that sidebars are excluded from WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. As commonly interpreted, it encourages sidebar bloat, with excessive articles added to sidebars to avoid their removal from those articles. The flaw in that logic is that while, say, Islamophobia might be a major element of an article (making the sidebar due), the article may be too minor to belong in the sidebar. Sidebars also have less space for links than navboxes at the bottom. And the need to be able to "click back" is minimal because all browsers have back buttons. DFlhb (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the discussion above, it seems that the present language (Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional.) is not supported by consensus. How does this sound for somewhat looser language?

    Most articles that transclude a given navbox should be included as a link in the navbox, enabling bidirectional navigation, but exceptions may be made when inclusion would be undue.

    {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A few exceptions does not necessarily mean that the existing "should normally" is incorrect. And anyways, WP:IAR, subject to consensus, is always an option for anything. —Bagumba (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be in favor of a merged version that puts back in "normally", and keeps the new UNDUE clarification. I think that'll solve the issue without breaking anything.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done here. Sdkbtalk 07:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undid the change for now. It seems there was still consensus that the includer should still be in the navbox. There was perhaps some leeway for an item in the inbox to not actually have to transclude it per UNDUE. I suggest proposing the modified wording here, and discussing further. Also notifying earlier participants Mudwater, Woodensuperman, Randy Kryn, Moxy, DFlhb and SMcCandlish. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 08:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've said before, I think the navbox rules should be tightened, not loosened. If it's causing an WP:UNDUE issue, then we have to question whether the presence of the link in the navbox is the problem. --woodensuperman 09:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be worded like MOS:INFOBOXUSE. Waste of time for editors to deal with having to explain why we dont need 12 nav templates in one articles. Just because someone add a link to a nav template .... should not imply it has to be used everywhere. Moxy- 13:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or we should remove the link from navbox. My take is, if it's not appropriate to put the navbox on the page, the link shouldn't be in the navbox. --woodensuperman 13:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is content editors dont want to waste time having to debate what links to include in templates that 65%+ (mobile viewers) dont even see, Or waste time debating the need for a template in the first place ..again for a nav aid that the majorty dont even see. Our example at Elizabeth Taylor#External links as seen blelow is overwhelming on any page.Moxy- 13:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those Elizabeth Taylor navboxes are addressed with just one navbox (have changed it to what is actually seen on the page). I agree that many items that a navbox couldn't be attached to should be presented on navboxes, but don't go as far as saying none should. Let's respect navboxes, even if only 35% of readers can see them (Wikipedia should not be designed for mobile vs. non-mobile). They are maps to Wikipedia articles closely related to the navbox subject, and fulfilling this purpose in an understandable, logical, and well-done sequence is, for some of us, one of Wikipedia's best features. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct when a page is spammed with them they are normally in a box....that causes an accessibility problem for thoses that dont use a mouse. Moxy- 14:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call a navbox that includes the page subject "spam", but can see you point. Not understanding the mouse thing (I've never read or edited Wikipedia on mobile, preferring to keep my addiction at home and not carry it around), how do people without a mouse click on links (a serious question, I don't know)? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I use the tab button to navigate to links then press enter to follow the link or to open a nav box. Would be best to have only have a few nav boxes that are not collapsed (hidden) in an extra box MOS:DONTHIDE. Moxy- 14:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but his is new to me. So mobile users, on phones etc., can't easily click links? I too prefer not using the navbox cages (which is what I call the extra box) and release the navboxes to visible space when there are only four or five or so. I didn't know about MOS:DONTHIDE, will take a look but like the name already. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On mobile versions just need to touch the link to use...howerver navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia, See Phabricator ticket T124168 . Moxy- 14:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see an end to awards navboxes. For this very reason. Who is actually bothering to navigate through all of these? Surely anyone browsing recipients of the {{Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award}} (for example) would look at the article. --woodensuperman 14:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of us are fine with awards navboxes. Awards are reputable and notable "things" which are honored within the chosen professions of the article subject. They note professional achievement by the subject. This is important to overall understanding of the page subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using the example of Elizabeth Taylor. Many of us think they should be on sub articles like List of awards and nominations received by Elizabeth Taylor that deal directly with the topic of awards with the main article reserved for a main nav box that link all the sub Elizabeth Taylor articles. Just today we have another one added to the Elizabeth Taylor ...do we move them? do we ask for deletion? just a time sink to deal with so they just addup and sit there.Moxy- 14:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no {{Elizabeth Taylor}} navbox, so that would remove all navboxes from the page (Edit:glad to see the new navbox, the topic is searchable and notable). Yes, if the subject has their own awards page, that would be a good location if the navbox link was changed, and not navbox caged on the awards page. But not all actors or other award winners are proficient enough to have their own awards pages, so consistency would be in question. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct no Elizabeth Taylor navbox...this would be an odd ball..not sure why. But having one would just be another navbox on the page. Not seeing how we need to link 100/200 pages sometimes the same page linked in many of the navboxes on every page. In my view many navboxes are a runaround of our MOS:SEEALSO guideline Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number...Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article.... Moxy- 15:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That one can be speedy deleted as was deleted with all the AFI templates per this discussion. --woodensuperman 16:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this stuff about various award templates some people don't like, and so on, has really shifted me from what I said earlier: I'd be in favor of a merged version that puts back in "normally", and keeps the new UNDUE clarification. I think that'll solve the issue without breaking anything.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  23:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion of relatives in navboxes[edit]

Should we really be including relatives of people in navboxes just because they are related? We don't categorise people by other people because this is not a defining characteristic, and notability is not inherited, so shouldn't the same principle apply here? As far as I can see this fails points 3 and 5 of navbox also. Take the case of Gregory W. Brown and his inclusion at {{Dan Brown}}. We don't need to link to him from every work by his brother on this navbox. It is enough that he is linked in the biographical article. --woodensuperman 15:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would strongly agree, except in the rare case that there is strong overlap (e.g. Frank Herbert and Brian Herbert working on the same fiction franchise; same with J. R. R. Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien; but not [that I know of] Stephen King and Joe Hill (writer)).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  16:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree. Let's look at every one of the U.S. presidential navboxes, which have included a 'Family' section, likely since the first one was published. It is a standard section. As far as I know it has not been questioned before. The linked articles undeniably provide biographical information about the president's themselves - the subject of the navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe there is some kind of middle ground, some rationale for doing it in certain sorts of cases. There seems to be more public reader interest in relatives of heads of state than relatives of writers or composers. But I'm not really sure how to extrapolate from that into a "razor" to use.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  01:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems if a writer was prominent enough go become a cultural icon, say Ernest Hemingway, then the long-term inclusion of his wives, children, parents, etc., flesh out Wikipedia's map of the subject. It's a question of "should a line be drawn" somewhere between Abraham Lincoln, Ernest Heminway, and Dan Brown, or just leave notable family members who have Wikipedia pages remain on a principal topic's navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that does seem basically to be the question.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A relative will generally not meet WP:NAVBOX #3: The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. The relative will generally only refer to the subject of the navbox, and not every other related link. The relation is presumably already mentioned in the respective article's body.—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I'm following you correctly, since it seems to imply that if musician's navbox lists all their notable albums that each album page needs to talk about all the other albums.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but talking about even some of the records is more likely than talking about a relative at all. —Bagumba (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but it doesn't entirely address that "articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent" has to be, well, reasonable. It's more reasonable to expect that an article about a Hemingway book will mention some other Hemingway book than mention a Hemingway descendant; but that doesn't necessarily make the Hemingway descendant unreasonable to have in the navbox, since they'll reasonably be mentioned in the main bio and perhaps several other pages, even if not most articles on specific works. Anyway, I don't feel overwhelmingly strongly about inclusion/exclusion, just want to address the reasoning as clearly as possible.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks and unlinked text in navboxes.[edit]

Comments appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Navigation template#Problem with redlinks per WP:EXISTING. --woodensuperman 14:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternities and sorority members[edit]

It seems sensible that fraternities and sororities warrant a category for their respective members, but I don't believe that I have seen any. Is there any formal guidance or rule on this? If not, I think their absence is a fairly glaring oversight. Keystone18 (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images in navboxes providing no navigational function[edit]

Does anyone else have an option at Template talk:The Lord_of the Rings#Repeated removal of icon contrary to WP:BRD? --woodensuperman 22:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a biased header here, the discussion isn't so specific. Well thought-out and well selected images on navboxes are in almost all cases fine, as long as the navbox isn't very large. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to WP:NAVDECOR they're not fine in any of those cases, but the navbox in question is large anyway. Pretty sure I've seen you advocate against them in presidential navboxes too... --woodensuperman 23:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, most of the presidential boxes are way too large for images but editors keep putting them on sometimes. Too large, no image (at least in the body of the navbox itself), it really squeezes the large navbox into an elongated shape. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have way too many navboxes with images that provide no navigational function. If I am reading WP:NAVDECOR and MOS:DECOR correctly, these are a definite no, right? I cannot see any argument for an image being in {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}}, it's clear what the article is about from the title. --woodensuperman 13:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: WP:BIDIRECTIONAL[edit]

What should WP:BIDIRECTIONAL say?

  • Option A (status quo): Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional.
  • Option B: Articles that transclude a given navbox should normally be included as a link in the navbox, enabling bidirectional navigation, but exceptions may be made when inclusion would be undue.
  • Option C: There is no requirement that articles that transclude a given navbox have to be included as a link in the navbox.

(Prior discussion above.) Sdkbtalk 04:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification note: If it aids understanding, Transcludes can be read as uses. Sdkbtalk 17:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Option B. Navboxes are part of articles, and therefore the reasons that we have WP:DUE apply to them just as well as anywhere else. This means that sometimes it makes sense for niche topics to have navboxes that don't link back. For instance, for a professor or administrator who spent their entire career at a university, it might make sense to have the navbox for the university at their article, but it wouldn't make sense to add them to that navbox. Sdkbtalk 04:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B, tetatively. This seems reasonable to me, though I do wonder about potential fallout. Someone might try to apply a navbox to every article in a broad category (e.g. {{Cue sports}} being jammed onto every pool/billiards/snooker player bio, event page, etc.). What prevents that from happening?  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I share your concerns, it's not inclusion of the link in the navbox that would be undue, it's the transclusion of the navbox on the article that causes the undue issue. --woodensuperman 07:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A, but we need to tighten the rules. Every article that is in the navbox should have the navbox transcluded, but if this causes an WP:UNDUE issue at the article, the link should be removed from the navbox. The navbox should not be added to articles where it is not linked. This is what bidirectional actually means. --woodensuperman 07:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A with rewording. A navbox is for navigating between articles on a particular subject. Taking the example in the previous section of a professor who spent their career at one university, the text of the article about the professor would of course include a link to the article about the university. That's sufficient, and no navbox is needed. But Option A should be reworded, because currently it seems to suggest adding links to a navbox rather than removing the navbox from the article. It should say something like Only include the navbox on articles that are linked to by the navbox. Mudwater (Talk) 10:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Navboxes aren't only for navigation, though — per the fifth bullet point of WP:NAVBOX here (which has guideline status), they also function as substitutes for see also sections. Sdkbtalk 17:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No they're not substitutes for see also sections. You're reading that wrong. Navboxes are purely for navigation, nothing more. --woodensuperman 17:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting from the guideline: Good navboxes generally follow most or all of these guidelines: ... 5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. Sdkbtalk 17:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but that doesn't mean that it should be considered a substitute, it's just a consideration as to what can be included in a navbox. We should still follow the general principle of the very first sentence in the section, namely Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. --woodensuperman 17:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. If the article isn't worthwhile to link back to, then the article does not belong on the navbox. --Gonnym (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B. Middle ground or...C..lets give content editors a choice/chance as to what is relevant for an article, especially during GA and FA reviews. Lets slowdown the workaround of our MOS:SEEALSO guideline and our November 2020 RfC for article stewards.Moxy- 13:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C because A and B are irrational (see my comment below). I don't like option C but I prefer it to abstaining. Thincat (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A Retain status quo, as B and C are not improvements, opening editors to slapping on navboxes for every employer or performance, and tangetial subjects like alma maters and hometowns.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba:..You seem to be advocating for C....dont added them allover?Moxy- 09:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, C seems to allow the bio for Person X, who works for ACME, to include ACME's navbox, even if they are not linked there. I prefer A.—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh I see.... Add them even when they're not linked in the template. So for instance every movie that Elizabeth Taylor is in thoses templates would be on her autobiography.Moxy- 17:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the potential problem. —Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A is how I have always understood the issue and seems best for the science and philosophy navboxes that I usually deal with. The WP:Ignore all rules policy (and the hedging phrase "should normally" that is already in Option A) allows reasonable exceptions, and the exceptions can also be noted on the talk page of especially problematic navboxes or articles. Biogeographist (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B, though we might want to provide a little guidance for when a navbox is appropriate in an article despite the article being undue for the navbox. The most obvious example, to me, are articles that were split into sub-article for length - the navbox is often still appropriate for the sub-articles, but listing them all there could be redundant and undue. --Aquillion (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A – The status-quo language already allows for exceptions. We don't need more cases of templates like {{National Register of Historic Places}}, which is currently plastered on nearly 29,000 articles about places that happen to be on the National Register of Historic Places. Graham (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B, at least for sidebars. Quoting my reasoning from above: As commonly interpreted, it encourages sidebar bloat, with excessive articles added to sidebars to avoid their removal from those articles. The flaw in that logic is that while, say, Islamophobia might be a major element of an article (making the sidebar due), the article may be too minor to belong in the sidebar. Sidebars also have less space for links than navboxes at the bottom. The chief consequence of the status quo guideline isn't more parsimonious inclusion of sidebars ("this article wouldn't be due in the sidebar so I won't transclude it"), it's extreme overlinking of barely-relevant articles within sidebars ("the sidebar is relevant here", then someone else inevitably comes along and adds a link, bloating it), and I don't think that's a good outcome. DFlhb (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will comment so please leave this RfC open and not closed prematurely, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Pinging participants from the prior discussion: @Mudwater, Woodensuperman, Randy Kryn, Moxy, DFlhb, Bagumba, and SMcCandlish: Cheers, Sdkbtalk 04:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with B is that it opens the door to pages including very tangentially related navboxes. Putting every employer of a person, all their performances, etc. For example, this would defeat the purpose of WP:PERFNAV. I still think an includer should be listed in the navbox, but am open to discussion about whether say Elizabeth Taylor's bio needs to include every navbox she is listed in.—Bagumba (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the ongoing issue with awards navboxes and similar causing clutter. When you have this many navboxes on a page, it defeats the point. People treat navboxes as a substitute for articles sometimes, this is not what they are for. They need to be restricted to clearly defined smaller sets, and be subject to more stringent scrutiny in the way that say WP:DEFINING is used in categories. --woodensuperman 07:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed awards navboxes above. They are fine, long term, and show the achievements of an actor or a sportsperson who, having chosen their profession, achieve its top and either win an event on their own or are awarded by selection by their peers or the profession's main observers. If a person is named on an awards navbox its inclusion on the page is approved by all three of the options above. I would lean towards B, such as of course keeping the links on {{Richard Henry Lee}} to his career in "above" and participation in some of the Founding events which don't have everyone's navbox on the page, such as the signing of the Declaration of Independence) but am concerned that you, in particular, will look for and find loopholes in the language of any one of these to continue to remove individual items and entire areas of linked items (i.e. option A would remove portals and categories, etc. as well as historical listings of an individuals life in the "above" sections). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: What, exactly, does "transcludes" mean in the context of this wording? Even reading the dictionary definition I'm not totally clear what it would mean per this discussion. Can someone give examples, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    transcluding = placing the navbox in the article. --woodensuperman 11:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Then on my question above about, for example, {{Richard Henry Lee}}, what would be removed, if anything, per Option A, Option B, and Option C. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything in the "above" section for a start for all options. It's a navbox, not an infobox. Without going too in depth (as it's not a topic I have any knowledge of), there seems like quite a few inappropriate inclusions in the body, Memorial to the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence for one. And that's before we even go into options a, b or c. --woodensuperman 12:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you'd gut the navbox in any case. Would like SMcClandish's opinion on this. The Memorial honors all the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and is their main honoring, as a group, in the United States. The "above" is fine for informational purposes (and for navigation for those who wish to familiarize themselves with the positions), and define the individual's life without having to place the navbox on all relevant pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per your The "above" is fine for informational purposes. I repeat. This is a navbox, not an infobox. --woodensuperman 12:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Using above for such purposes has been in effect for well over a decade. Letting readers have insight on a topic does not have to be reserved for "infoboxes" but can be presented in the official Wikipedia map to the topic (navboxes). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The very first line of WP:NAVBOX states: Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia (emphasis mine). All the time we are linking away to an article that does not have the navbox transcluded upon it does not perform that function as it navigates away from those articles, not between them. --woodensuperman 13:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen some really ridiculous use of the language disparaging two items on navboxes, such as "what does topic Afoo have to do with topic Bfoo", when both topics are directly related to the subject of the navbox. You take wording too literally. In the example above, {{Richard Henry Lee}}, if you object to the inclusion of the major memorial to the signers of the Declaration of Independence then we should add a navbox cage which includes the navboxes of the signers who have navboxes, which would add many navboxes to the page which seems to be your concern. It's easier just listing the national memorial (as is done with the Jefferson Memorial being included on Jefferson's navbox) rather than adding all the navboxes to the memorial page - and recall, this is the national memorial to all of the signers of the Declaration and should be a major inclusion in their navboxes. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. What should happen is that that article should be removed from this and any similar navbox as it would not be appropriate to have 56 navboxes in a "cage" on the article. What however is appropriate is to include the people and the memorial on the navbox {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} so you can navigate between those articles through this method. --woodensuperman 13:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (although there is a massive overlap with a section of {{Historical American Documents}} which quite frankly is a mess. I think I'd prefer to see a discrete {{Declaration of Independence}} navbox which combines elements of both.) --woodensuperman 13:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you serious??, you're going to go about purging American independence navboxes because I mentioned one here? You've removed the long-time image from {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} and now want to disfigure {{Historical American Documents}} which is one of the best navboxes pertaining to American independence on the site? Will stop here before getting way too personal about your way of editing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Historical American Documents}} is a f*cking travesty of a navbox. I don't know where to begin with that one. If you're calling it "one of the best navboxes [...] on the site", you might need to have a rethink about what makes a good navbox. A navbox that size with multiple sections that repeat the same links over and over again is way too complicated to provide any useful navigation. If it was split to its components it may prove a more concise useful navigational tool, but as it stands, ugh! --woodensuperman 13:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And with regard to the image at {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}}, see WP:NAVDECOR: Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative; Per MOS:DECOR, images are rarely appropriate in navboxes. --woodensuperman 13:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we go, the deletionist treatment, please just leave American independence navboxes alone. "A f*cking travesty of a navbox"? One of the best navboxes on the site? And maybe the best for its topic? What, in Wales' name, is wrong with you (a good faith rhetorical question). The image at the Declaration signers is appropriate per both the WP's you mention. And it is not an icon (I'm with you on not liking icons on navboxes). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --woodensuperman 13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue for WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE
  • Thanks, appreciate the welcome and the acknowledgement that editors can edit. If I were the ANI kind of editor I'd put you up, for discussion at least, for going on an American independence navbox run just because I happened to mention one in this discussion (hounding?). Given your bias towards teeny-tiny navboxes, let's use {{Historical American Documents}} as an example, which option best keeps it as is? Option B with improved option language per Moxy's wording? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, stop telling me which topics I can and can't edit. Do NOT ever tell me to to "leave American independence navboxes alone". --woodensuperman 13:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Historical American Documents}} should be "split to its components [so] it may prove a more concise useful navigational tool". Nothing to do with any of the options mentioned above, you went off topic. --woodensuperman 13:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just pointing out how you came upon those navboxes in order to edit them, through this discussion because I mentioned them. Would like to point out for readers here that Wooden and I have a combative history, and if I like something he has had in the past a tendency to dig in and change it. Not cool, and probably WP:Hounding or at least on the edges. I don't do that to him. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FFS, WP:AGF Randy, I'm not hounding you. I'm just trying to clean up the navboxes in line with the guidelines. And this is wildly off topic. --woodensuperman 14:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume good faith, and also take past history into account. I use an example and suddenly you are going to edit American independence navboxes. This is not off-topic, the example given, {{Richard Henry Lee}}, pertains to what would be removed and what remains as descriptive of a navbox topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't sound like good faith to me. I was just doing a bit of wikignoming when I came across something that needed tidying up, the same way I usually edit. --woodensuperman 14:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh huh. Anyway, does option B allow for the document navbox to exist as is (as it has for well over a decade)? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer your question at the top of the thread, Randy, "transcludes" = "uses". I think changing that to the plain language, regardless of the outcome of this RfC, would be a good step. Sdkbtalk 17:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Transcludes is already linked to Help:Transclusion upon first usage at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. —Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even so, it's clearly causing some degree of confusion, so we should avoid jargon whenever possible (and we could still keep the link, even if we changed to plain English). Sdkbtalk 17:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we must, then includes is more succinct than uses. —Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Transclusion is specific to the placing navboxes on articles, it is not the same as "using". If you are editing around navboxes, you should be familiar with the principle. --woodensuperman 17:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Gonnym, given that the comment in your !vote seems to speak to something different than what is being proposed. Sdkbtalk 17:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I understand fine. If it's linked in the navbox, the navbox must be used in the article. Gonnym (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This wearisome issue has been discussed for at least the last ten years (starting here?} and every year or so since then. The first part of option A Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox does not ensure bidirectionality . For that Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox and every article linked to from the navbox should normally transclude the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional. I find it very hard to wrap my mind round that (increasingly so as I get older!) but the deep underlying problem has led to many of the difficulties of varied understandings. Thincat (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is how EXACTLY how it should work. And this would help to stop the overproliferation of navboxes we see now, and the psuedo infoboxes we see way too much now. --woodensuperman 21:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But with commonsense exceptions, which I'll describe further in the survey. Exceptions are allowed and encouraged in all guidelines. For example, Woodensuperman would like to delete Memorial to the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence from individual navboxes even though, like Richard Henry Lee, it's his only memorial in Washington D.C. If this and similar exception aren't made then the other solution would be to include the navboxes of individual honored at the Memorial in a single navbox cage with a descriptive label. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that article does not need to be included in all of those individuals' navboxes. They are linked in the navboxes {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} and also in {{Historical American Documents}}. This is already sufficent to provide navigation between these articles. Also I am seeing some redundancy between the two. --woodensuperman 09:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, looking at {{Richard Henry Lee}}, most of the "above" section should go too. This is a navbox, not an infobox. For example, we don't need to include a link to List of United States senators from Virginia in this navbox, when Lee is included in {{United States senators from Virginia}}. This is how WP:BIDIRECTIONAL should work. --woodensuperman 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those would be exceptions (do you understand that all guidelines use common sense and exceptions?). A navbox is a map to articles on Wikipedia which pertain to the subject. As for the Memorial to the 56 page, if you are going to delete that from navboxes (really going overboard don't you think?) then will have to put up a collapsed hidden navbox (the navbox cage) to include the six or so navboxes which include the page. As I said earlier, this is the only public honor for Richard Henry Lee in Washington D.C., the capitol city of the country that he had such an impact in forming. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How many exceptions do you need in a single navbox? The odd one, maybe, but that entire "above" section is all exceptions. Use {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} or {{Historical American Documents}} as your map, not the individuals' navboxes, that way you don't need to transclude them in a "cage". If the information is pertinent, the reader will be able to find the link in the article, you shouldn't be trying to use navboxes as substitutes for articles. --woodensuperman 12:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Best film" poll navboxes.[edit]

Does anyone have anything to add at these deletion discussions? Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 1#AFI templates and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 February 29#Template:Cahiers du Cinéma's Top Ten Films. We've already deleted other AFI ones and a Sight and Sound one recently. --woodensuperman 17:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as they are all good functional and popular navboxes. In fact the Sight and Sound navbox will be up for deletion review soon as it was "decided" by three 'voters', two of who wanted to delete it and the third, in a fuller and more reasoned response, wanted it kept. I was personally unaware of that discussion or would have been in its midst as a Keep editor - the Sight and Sound poll is the definitive listing of best films ever made upon its renewal every 10 years, and the 2008 Cahiers du Cinema poll, its navbox up for deletion now, isn't far behind as an honored and reputable poll of film. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I point you to this discussion where it seems consensus was not to WP:DRV this. --woodensuperman 08:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a deletion review but a limited discussion at a WikiProject talk page. If someone wants to challenge a deletion then a WikiProject discussion isn't the place to decide the issue. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]