Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 8
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Boghog in topic "Small"
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
The inclusion of 'Commons', 'Wikiquote', and 'Wikisource' on appropriate templates
Proposal to include the words "with the exception of 'Below' links to Wikipedia sister projects such as Commons, Wikiquote, and Wikisource" within the sentence concerning no outside links. Robsinden is removing links to these appropriate additions (surely a good exception to the guideline if any exemptions exist) from our sister projects, projects which have been contributed to by probably thousands of Wikipedians. To add 'Category' 'Commons', 'Wikiquote' etc. to the Below sections of authors and other templates enhances the value of the templates, and these have existed on hundreds of templates for many years without a single complaint. I've asked Rob Sinden to stop removing the data until it's discussed, and have wrongly accused him of vandalism (he's following the letter of the law when the law is bendable regarding what I see as a common sense addition which should be encouraged, not discouraged). Thanks. Randy Kryn 12:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. The purpose of a navbox is to provide navigation within Wikipedia. Linking to external sites does not serve this purpose. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Support - one of the problems with Wikipedia is that it looms over the powerful other opportunities that the Wikimedia movement has to influence free, open, public knowledge. We need to create visibility for our sister projects, because they share the same focus, and many of them connect directly back to our ecosystem of materials. Robsinden's incredible isolating approach seems very innapropriate, when our goal is to introduce our readers to the "Sum of human knowledge"- when we know some of our other projects are better at accessing that human knowledge, Sadads (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- That's not what a navbox is for though. It's merely a tool to aid navigation between related, existing articles on this project. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Robsinden: That's the thing sister projects are part of this project: they developed organically from Wikipedia because we needed allied, but differently organized spaces, to do all the same things we wanted to do with Wikipedia: share free public knowledge. Sadads (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia". --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Robsinden: That's the thing sister projects are part of this project: they developed organically from Wikipedia because we needed allied, but differently organized spaces, to do all the same things we wanted to do with Wikipedia: share free public knowledge. Sadads (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's not what a navbox is for though. It's merely a tool to aid navigation between related, existing articles on this project. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose naveboxes are for navigating this wiki....we have special boxes for the other 12 projects....having them all in a navboxes would be overwhelming. -- Moxy (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Moxy. Well, can we limit which ones? For example, 'Commons', 'Wikiquote', an 'Wikisource' are invaluable on author's templates, major elected official templates, and many others. How about if the words "such as" in the proposal are removed? I'll do that in anticipation of a consensus forming. Sound okay? Randy Kryn 13:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- The problem we have is that external links (links that take you away for this wiki) should be clearly indicated to our readers. This is the reason we have special boxes for sister projects because they indicate to our readers that they are leaving this wiki....thus like the arrow on normal external links, it indicates the link may not be to a mobile version or may contain so many images that there may be loading problems for many. -- Moxy (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- This proposal tears at my soul of what WP:PAG are. On the one hand, these have snuck/creeped/been added willfully by certain editors (but not necessarily with a priori consensus of the project) into navboxes, and in my editing experience have not been removed. OTOH, they are plainly not what a navbox is for [on the English Wikipedia]. My general feeling is that this should not be an exception or provided for in policy or guideline and should in fact be removed from the many navboxes which have them now. I think an (full) RFC on that point would make sense. --Izno (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: You seem to be saying that it's been long accepted practice to include sister project links in templates, even if a guideline (apparently) hasn't expressly said that. The opposition so far has not commented on that, but is instead focusing on whether it's a desired practice. I'd like to see more discussion on that point, basically what is the status quo? What templates have used these links and for how long, what prior discussions there have been, etc. @Robsinden: Why is this coming up as an issue now? Are the links you're removing recent changes to those templates, and if not, why is that a change you've decided to make at this time? postdlf (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I usually remove external links when encountering them in navboxes per this guideline, like I would clean up anything else I encounter that is against a guideline. The ones I removed today were ones which Randy had recently added and he objected to their removal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Then you have not looked at any of the templates I've added the "Below" onto. I can't recall when I started, quite a long time ago, and nobody has objected to any of them. I've put at least a hundred if not more (I have no idea). Taking into account the visibility of the subjects I've put them on, the unlikelihood of you not looking at any of those templates, and the fact that nobody else has removed any of them, nobody has complained about any of it, brings it into the realm of "accepted practice". Robsinden took it off of Martin Luther King's template and others on which the data has been on there for a long long time. Using them seems a nice share between sister projects, projects which most readers probably don't even know exist so it has never hurt any of them - nobody has complained - so apparantly it doesn't hurt them to fall into one of those projects every now and then. Besides, the "takes a viewer off-site" reasoning is handled by the names themselves - Wikiquotes and Wikisource texts, both quite identifiable as an off-site link if read correctly. Keeping the templates as is would be harmless. Removing them, or the capability of adding that treasure trove of data provided by our sister projects (I see them as one and the same, so my personal view of Wikipedia includes those sites) would be, in my opinion, an error. Just go to one of the templates the links are on, all of them extant because I really don't remember anyone removing any until now (is there a Grandfather-in clause somewhere in the vast rulebook/guidebook for an accepted practice declared unaccepted?). The templates now contain the large, inclusive, and well-cared for information created on those subjects by editors at Wikiquote, Wikisource, and the rest, who I personally consider Wikipedians (and, since nobody has complained, so do a whole lot of other editors and readers. In fact every reader who has ever used one of those links, because not one of them has complained about their side trip to the sites forests.). Randy Kryn 18:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Have there been other editors also adding sister site links to navboxes, or just you? postdlf (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. I've seen others in my 'travels'. Don't know how many have done it, as I don't frequent recent changes. Haven't thought much about it, as I've been adding them to templates of elected officials, writers, and other major subjects for a long time now, has been one of my joys on Wikipedia and a gateway to checking each item on the templates I've put them on for errors and added edits, and until now the practice hasn't been questioned while existing on prominent templates and being passed through recent changes with the words 'add Below, add 'Commons', 'Wikiquotes', 'Wikisource texts'. Thinking about it further I must have put them on a couple hundred or more well-seen templates, both existing and newly created. Randy Kryn 2:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Have there been other editors also adding sister site links to navboxes, or just you? postdlf (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Then you have not looked at any of the templates I've added the "Below" onto. I can't recall when I started, quite a long time ago, and nobody has objected to any of them. I've put at least a hundred if not more (I have no idea). Taking into account the visibility of the subjects I've put them on, the unlikelihood of you not looking at any of those templates, and the fact that nobody else has removed any of them, nobody has complained about any of it, brings it into the realm of "accepted practice". Robsinden took it off of Martin Luther King's template and others on which the data has been on there for a long long time. Using them seems a nice share between sister projects, projects which most readers probably don't even know exist so it has never hurt any of them - nobody has complained - so apparantly it doesn't hurt them to fall into one of those projects every now and then. Besides, the "takes a viewer off-site" reasoning is handled by the names themselves - Wikiquotes and Wikisource texts, both quite identifiable as an off-site link if read correctly. Keeping the templates as is would be harmless. Removing them, or the capability of adding that treasure trove of data provided by our sister projects (I see them as one and the same, so my personal view of Wikipedia includes those sites) would be, in my opinion, an error. Just go to one of the templates the links are on, all of them extant because I really don't remember anyone removing any until now (is there a Grandfather-in clause somewhere in the vast rulebook/guidebook for an accepted practice declared unaccepted?). The templates now contain the large, inclusive, and well-cared for information created on those subjects by editors at Wikiquote, Wikisource, and the rest, who I personally consider Wikipedians (and, since nobody has complained, so do a whole lot of other editors and readers. In fact every reader who has ever used one of those links, because not one of them has complained about their side trip to the sites forests.). Randy Kryn 18:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- I usually remove external links when encountering them in navboxes per this guideline, like I would clean up anything else I encounter that is against a guideline. The ones I removed today were ones which Randy had recently added and he objected to their removal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Rob Sinden and Moxy's comments above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment and analysis. Maybe another and accurate way of looking at this is that it was an inadvertent long time study in the next slight expansion of allowing sharing between these sister projects ("We Are Family" playing in the background). Allowing the three links on appropriate templates has been the inadvertent result of nobody complaining, so they stayed (on very prominently seen templates) and....nobody complained! Not an editor, a reader, anyone who minded taking the link to a trove of further information as a result of the work of our brothers and sisters, gave a hoot. The inadvertent (I wasn't ignoring rules, I wasn't reading every guidebook in the library and never gave it a second thought until Moxy's comment above. I never thought of the projects as being separate, not for a moment. When I read Moxy's comment I added a reasoning above why this addition might not confuse people about off-site projects as we might think. So this proposal, in essence, becomes based on approving or disapproving a slight expansion of the links allowed to Commons, Wikiquote, and Wikisource. Because I don't think anyone objects to the amount of information being provided at the other end of those series of tubes (by the way, I usually make the last one visible as "Wikisource texts" in order to give more of an "ah ha!" moment when a very interested reader stumbles upon them and first understands what they lead to). There's nothing wrong with this proposal except it allows a slight expansion-creep, an expansion which has proven both harmless and beneficial, from allowing sister links to be contained only in stand-alone boxes. Those valuable boxes may or may not end up under the external links section, although the guidelines direct sister project links to be under the 'External links' section, which is where templates are placed. So the proposal does not allow an expansion very far from those off-site-boxes which are often placed only on main pages, thus allowing a slight inter-wiki link on the majority of pages linked on the templates, pages which aren't linked to the sister projects anywhere else on the page except for the template. Randy Kryn 14:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Additional thought, while we're at it. Linking to "Category:" namespace is pretty pointless too (which is something else I've seen but have often left alone), as you'd hope that the articles would be in the relevant categories anyway, rendering the additional link redundant. Personally, I'm of the mindset that we should only be linking to article space from the navboxes, but I see that there are sometimes links to "Book:" and "Portal:". Oh, and Wikiprojects, which I really don't think should be encouraged. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Books and portals are overviews of the topics like outlines and indexes (thus are great links).... as for projects...its the only area the projects can advertise for editors in main space....and also will let our readers see how topics are organized. -- Moxy (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, my post was more about categories, I just wandered off topic a bit after that! Just my personal taste - I dislike seeing the row of icons on navboxes such as this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- That does look bad...should remove the external links and the kid like icons. Icons is a problem...they mean nothing to readers...its not like there are some internationally recognized symbol. As for cats they are an antiquated system that most reades find very confusing.....but so many people work hard on them, thus many must find them useful. -- Moxy (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it says on the guideline that navboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative, or words to that effect. So the icons and the external links should go. What is your feeling about the category links in the navbox? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- The key word is guideline, not policy. This exception to the guideline has already proven successful, and non-controversial up until this point, and has proven itself to be useful, well regarded, and functional. Randy Kryn 3:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- "Proven"??? How? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Proven specifically because of the fact that they've been on the templates and nobody has complained. Your (Robsinden) argument seems to imply that nobody ever looks at the bottom of the templates, where those links are, or clicks on them. Because if they have, and nobody has complained, at least some of them must have liked it and it helped them, possibly, in the case of a subject student, researcher, or writer, helped them quite a bit. We don't know, but since nobody has complained it seems to be doing fine. And, take a look at all the oppose here and at the other question. Very few have even answered the question, which is should we add a little to an existing policy, and allow these valuable family connections, or not, and if not, why not. Most of what people are saying is "It's existing policy, so I oppose". Well, that wasn't the question. Moxy answered the question well, by saying, paraphrasing, that it would provide an outside link where such a link wasn't expected, and that the size of the file might overwhelm a mobile phone or tablet. From his comment I removed "Commons" from the overall question (and would change it above if that's allowed), because "Commons" doesn't provide near-essential information about a subject for a reader or researcher to add to their knowledge base. "Wikiquotes" and "Wikisource" do, which are the ones I'm aware of, and haven't personally looked very much at the others. Those two seemed appropriate for the templates, I added them to Below without a second thought, kept adding them, put more on, then lots more, kept adding them, without a second thought that there was anything wrong with it. Nobody complained, not a reader, not a researcher, not a Wikipedia admin, it seemed fine to everyone. Then you objected because it actually falls outside of policy. See? This question is not about if it falls outside policy, it does, granted, it is a question about changing that policy and providing perfectly fine reasons why this slight expansion shouldn't be allowed and encouraged. Read the answers, almost nobody has been able to think outside the box and notice that the box has already grown larger. What has been and is presently sitting on many of the most prominent templates here are links to a few sister-project links which have expanded awareness both of the subject and of the sister-project data treasure troves, pieces of eight sitting there to be useful and appreciated. Please answer the question about how this hurts Wikipedia enough to remove all of those long-term links which have not proven harmful to anything or anybody and, unless nobody has ever looked at any of them, as you hint, they have very likely proven useful to at least some students who have either wholeheartenly chosen or were grudgingly assigned a research a subject covered by the template. If it ain't broke, etc. Robsinden, I know you are dug in on your position on this, but maybe part of you feels that the Keep points have merit to change to at least a neutral on the question. That would be cool (its not you changing "sides" - consensus has no sides). Then how about we have a consensus to work on the guideline language to perfect it. That would be very cool. If not, why not, with good reasons and not just arm waving and pointing at a guideline which has essentially been violated for almost a year now with no negative results reported, nobody reverting, and nobody questioning what now could arguably be called an already accepted appropriate exception to the guideline. Randy Kryn 14:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- FFS, do you really expect me to bother to read this? I've had a quick scan, and I don't think you're making any new points that I haven't dealt with elsewhere. Surely this thread is dead now anyway, as we have the RFC below. And to repeat what another editor has pointed out to you, please have a read of WP:BLUDGEON and let the RFC run its course. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Proven specifically because of the fact that they've been on the templates and nobody has complained. Your (Robsinden) argument seems to imply that nobody ever looks at the bottom of the templates, where those links are, or clicks on them. Because if they have, and nobody has complained, at least some of them must have liked it and it helped them, possibly, in the case of a subject student, researcher, or writer, helped them quite a bit. We don't know, but since nobody has complained it seems to be doing fine. And, take a look at all the oppose here and at the other question. Very few have even answered the question, which is should we add a little to an existing policy, and allow these valuable family connections, or not, and if not, why not. Most of what people are saying is "It's existing policy, so I oppose". Well, that wasn't the question. Moxy answered the question well, by saying, paraphrasing, that it would provide an outside link where such a link wasn't expected, and that the size of the file might overwhelm a mobile phone or tablet. From his comment I removed "Commons" from the overall question (and would change it above if that's allowed), because "Commons" doesn't provide near-essential information about a subject for a reader or researcher to add to their knowledge base. "Wikiquotes" and "Wikisource" do, which are the ones I'm aware of, and haven't personally looked very much at the others. Those two seemed appropriate for the templates, I added them to Below without a second thought, kept adding them, put more on, then lots more, kept adding them, without a second thought that there was anything wrong with it. Nobody complained, not a reader, not a researcher, not a Wikipedia admin, it seemed fine to everyone. Then you objected because it actually falls outside of policy. See? This question is not about if it falls outside policy, it does, granted, it is a question about changing that policy and providing perfectly fine reasons why this slight expansion shouldn't be allowed and encouraged. Read the answers, almost nobody has been able to think outside the box and notice that the box has already grown larger. What has been and is presently sitting on many of the most prominent templates here are links to a few sister-project links which have expanded awareness both of the subject and of the sister-project data treasure troves, pieces of eight sitting there to be useful and appreciated. Please answer the question about how this hurts Wikipedia enough to remove all of those long-term links which have not proven harmful to anything or anybody and, unless nobody has ever looked at any of them, as you hint, they have very likely proven useful to at least some students who have either wholeheartenly chosen or were grudgingly assigned a research a subject covered by the template. If it ain't broke, etc. Robsinden, I know you are dug in on your position on this, but maybe part of you feels that the Keep points have merit to change to at least a neutral on the question. That would be cool (its not you changing "sides" - consensus has no sides). Then how about we have a consensus to work on the guideline language to perfect it. That would be very cool. If not, why not, with good reasons and not just arm waving and pointing at a guideline which has essentially been violated for almost a year now with no negative results reported, nobody reverting, and nobody questioning what now could arguably be called an already accepted appropriate exception to the guideline. Randy Kryn 14:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- "Proven"??? How? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- The key word is guideline, not policy. This exception to the guideline has already proven successful, and non-controversial up until this point, and has proven itself to be useful, well regarded, and functional. Randy Kryn 3:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it says on the guideline that navboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative, or words to that effect. So the icons and the external links should go. What is your feeling about the category links in the navbox? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- That does look bad...should remove the external links and the kid like icons. Icons is a problem...they mean nothing to readers...its not like there are some internationally recognized symbol. As for cats they are an antiquated system that most reades find very confusing.....but so many people work hard on them, thus many must find them useful. -- Moxy (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, my post was more about categories, I just wandered off topic a bit after that! Just my personal taste - I dislike seeing the row of icons on navboxes such as this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Books and portals are overviews of the topics like outlines and indexes (thus are great links).... as for projects...its the only area the projects can advertise for editors in main space....and also will let our readers see how topics are organized. -- Moxy (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: Nav templates are for WP-internal navigation. Sister-project links go in "See also", so adding them to nav templates would be redundant as well as inappropriate. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Incorrect, sister project links don't go into 'See also' but into external links, which would include templates. They would also not be redundant, as most pages, a vast majority of pages, on these templates will not have a sister-project link. As for inappropriate, they have proven to be very appropriate by the lack of reverts, comments, or complaints in the 10 or 11 months they have appeared on many of the most prominent subject templates on the site. Randy Kryn 2:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- When you say that "external links" includes templates, are you referring to navboxes? If so, that's a bizarre assumption. Sister links actually have their own template: {{Sister links}} - that's where they belong. You also seem to be forgetting that unlike some of us, the vast number of editors don't care much about navboxes, so they are painfully neglected and misused, which is probably why the addition of the external links has gone unnoticed/unchallenged. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- To clarify, the templates - navboxes - go underneath but are not a part of 'external links'. The sister links template is not seen on each appropriate page, and has nothing to do with this discussion. Acceptance of this positive change (don't you agree that the data in Wikiquote and Wikisource texts fits perfectly with the appropriate templates?) would enhance the navboxes usefulness. This proposal is for that guideline expansion, not if it violates the wordage of an existing guideline. If you do agree they would be useful, why not support it? You seem to love these critters as well, so please consider 'switching sides' on this one. Randy Kryn 10:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely not! I cannot see it as a "positive change" or "useful". I love navboxes for what they are - a means of navigation between existing articles on the English Wikipedia. Anything that does not facilitate this function does not belong in a navbox. It's that simple. Linking to sister projects (or any other external links) is not the function of a navbox, for that we have the {{Sister project links}} (or {{Sister project}}) template, and that is the function of that template. Using a navbox to link anywhere outside of Wikipedia (or away from article space for that matter) defeats its purpose, in the same way that using the {{Sister project links}} template to provide internal navigation defeats its purpose. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- To clarify, the templates - navboxes - go underneath but are not a part of 'external links'. The sister links template is not seen on each appropriate page, and has nothing to do with this discussion. Acceptance of this positive change (don't you agree that the data in Wikiquote and Wikisource texts fits perfectly with the appropriate templates?) would enhance the navboxes usefulness. This proposal is for that guideline expansion, not if it violates the wordage of an existing guideline. If you do agree they would be useful, why not support it? You seem to love these critters as well, so please consider 'switching sides' on this one. Randy Kryn 10:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- When you say that "external links" includes templates, are you referring to navboxes? If so, that's a bizarre assumption. Sister links actually have their own template: {{Sister links}} - that's where they belong. You also seem to be forgetting that unlike some of us, the vast number of editors don't care much about navboxes, so they are painfully neglected and misused, which is probably why the addition of the external links has gone unnoticed/unchallenged. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Incorrect, sister project links don't go into 'See also' but into external links, which would include templates. They would also not be redundant, as most pages, a vast majority of pages, on these templates will not have a sister-project link. As for inappropriate, they have proven to be very appropriate by the lack of reverts, comments, or complaints in the 10 or 11 months they have appeared on many of the most prominent subject templates on the site. Randy Kryn 2:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support I think the external links aid the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support. While true external links need not be included, sister projects 'Commons', 'Wikiquote', and 'Wikisource' should be welcome rather than portrayed as contributing to clutter. All projects work as part of the whole. There is no benefit to withholding from users easy access to these sources. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 18:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Turn into RFC?
@Moxy, Robsinden, Postdlf, Izno, and Randy Kryn: This seems like a really closed two way conversation, with only a few voices voicing ideas, and each position has radically different assumptions about what navboxes are for, and the value of sister projects on Wikipedia. Are there any strong objections to turning this into an RFC today? I am going to do a summary of the concern this evening, if I can, and turn it into an RFC, Sadads (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Approve. If you can include somewhere the fact that this was a fairly large inadvertent experiment, a very small inclusionary step allowing links to at least three sister projects within templates. It has resulted in much information being included on templates for a long time without anyone complaining, anyone reverting, or without anybody from the admin end objecting. So arguably these links are already an accepted practice. They've hurt no one, have done only good, and I question that anyone can argue that the practice does not link valuable information. After lasting so long without a murmur of dissent, maybe you can say in a summary that it's become a logical extension of the placement of sister project links placed within or below the 'External links' line (I believe that's the current guideline, which this one doesn't break). Thanks. Randy Kryn 22:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- This whole statement is wrong....the reason we have the guideline is because this has been talked about in the past many times. Again its why we have templates for sister projects that are big and more predominate then normal nav templates. If you think its best all the related pages should link to the same sister projects then add the sister box to the navbox template so it can be trascluded...this way your sister project links are in a big box that can been seen. I have noticed that when people see sister projects in navboxes they will remove the sister boxes claiming over links (as in dont need the same links 2 times at the bottom of a page). Want people to see the link use the right box...better then guessing at what 3 of 12 random sister projects to included.-- Moxy (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Looked up a date, I added one to Thomas Jefferson's template right near the start. That was July 28, 2014, and I've been doing this on a consistent basis from that time forward. As mentioned, must have done between a hundred and two hundred of them on very prominent templates. Not quite a year, but close. Thanks again. Randy Kryn 22:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Wow those presidential templates are really bloated and have mini text (both MOS points). Would be better to have an index or outlines to link to. Its not about adding all to templates... its about helping navigation to main articles.,,,not linking to all including off wiki sites.--Moxy (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- The presidential templates present a complete map to the subject on Wikipedia. In your opinion they seem bloated, in others opinion they're good templates with full information. Again, nobody has complained, which shows that they are doing the job of presenting a navigation of the subject. I've actually had an off site compliment about the completeness of one of the templates from a person who works with test scoring. Randy Kryn 11:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- They still have issues though. Encyclopedic information such as dates of birth doesn't belong in a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- (Edit: Done)The dates of birth and death are borderline, and you're probably right on this. I added them to the presidential templates I created because they were on the already existing presidential templates, but remember having second thoughts about them. I'll remove them and see if anyone reverts. Randy Kryn 12:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- They still have issues though. Encyclopedic information such as dates of birth doesn't belong in a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- The presidential templates present a complete map to the subject on Wikipedia. In your opinion they seem bloated, in others opinion they're good templates with full information. Again, nobody has complained, which shows that they are doing the job of presenting a navigation of the subject. I've actually had an off site compliment about the completeness of one of the templates from a person who works with test scoring. Randy Kryn 11:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Wow those presidential templates are really bloated and have mini text (both MOS points). Would be better to have an index or outlines to link to. Its not about adding all to templates... its about helping navigation to main articles.,,,not linking to all including off wiki sites.--Moxy (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem any point in RFCing this, just because a couple of editors don't understand what navboxes are for. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Pretty much two viewpoints, both of which should be presented to a wider audience of editors. Randy Kryn 11:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Rob: your unwillingness to treat the reasonableness of our argument, is pricesely why we need more opinions: I am pretty sure that the assumptions behind our arguments are accepted by a larger number of editors, in the same way a larger number of edits accept yours. I will do an equitable summary this evening, and get that together. ended up working a lot later yesterday than expected, Sadads (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Would everyone agree that maybe we can leave 'Commons' off the templates? Commons contains mostly pictures, not really that important for a data link and, as Moxy said above, some mobile devices may not be equipped to handle large amounts of images. But Wikiquote - a collection of quotes by the subject of the template - and Wikisource texts, which, for the older subjects, provides the option to read their works very easily, seem, to me, essential if we have sister projects which have provided them. Would that be a consensus, that we recommend that Wikiquote and Wikisource texts be allowed, thus extending the reach of sister project links that much? Another point made above, that of editors removing the boxes if they see a link on the template. On many main pages, such as US presidential, etc., the template will not be open, so the links will not be apparent and cause no problem with duplication of already existing boxes. The value picks up on the other pages that the templates are placed upon. Thoughts on the consensus option? Thanks. Randy Kryn 19:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, navboxes are supposed to be for navigating among existing English language Wikipedia articles, not outside content. That's what "external links" are for, not navboxes. Please feel free to initiate your proposed RfC. Please make sure that you apply for project-wide bot notices. I can assure you that I will personally notify the several WikiProjects of which I am a member. Y'all have gone outside the existing guidelines and are now trying to present it as a fait accompli. Well, that may or may not be accepted by a new wide-ranging consensus, but until then, you're out on the metaphorical limb. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Would everyone agree that maybe we can leave 'Commons' off the templates? Commons contains mostly pictures, not really that important for a data link and, as Moxy said above, some mobile devices may not be equipped to handle large amounts of images. But Wikiquote - a collection of quotes by the subject of the template - and Wikisource texts, which, for the older subjects, provides the option to read their works very easily, seem, to me, essential if we have sister projects which have provided them. Would that be a consensus, that we recommend that Wikiquote and Wikisource texts be allowed, thus extending the reach of sister project links that much? Another point made above, that of editors removing the boxes if they see a link on the template. On many main pages, such as US presidential, etc., the template will not be open, so the links will not be apparent and cause no problem with duplication of already existing boxes. The value picks up on the other pages that the templates are placed upon. Thoughts on the consensus option? Thanks. Randy Kryn 19:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Rob: your unwillingness to treat the reasonableness of our argument, is pricesely why we need more opinions: I am pretty sure that the assumptions behind our arguments are accepted by a larger number of editors, in the same way a larger number of edits accept yours. I will do an equitable summary this evening, and get that together. ended up working a lot later yesterday than expected, Sadads (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Pretty much two viewpoints, both of which should be presented to a wider audience of editors. Randy Kryn 11:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is clearly stated enough that we don't need to RFC it. If you want more eyes on it, just post to WP:VPPRO. I did already. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's a page I've never heard of, so in the case of more eyes, my eyes would have missed it. Editor Sadads has already mentioned his intention to post it on RFC. This will create an expansion of the policy, an expansion which has had an inadvertent 10 month experiment and come up with some very good results for including the data. More eyes on a page where it can be seen is the best way to go on this (and I notice you are opposed to the idea, so your suggestion and post should carry that data into the discussion). Randy Kryn 2:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm skeptical that anyone who doesn't even know about the existence of the WP Village Pump is in a good frame of reference yet to be launching proposals to change Wikipedia policies and guidelines; one must actually understand WP process before one's ideas for changing it are likely to be sensible. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just saw this in the wall of text. This idea which has already been successfully tested (you never seem to acknowledge that this is already an accepted exception to the guideline, it's been implemented for almost a year now on some of the most prominent templates on the site) and expands our valuable sister-project relationship just a little, to the 'Below' section of appropriate templates, seems very sensible. Randy Kryn 23:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm skeptical that anyone who doesn't even know about the existence of the WP Village Pump is in a good frame of reference yet to be launching proposals to change Wikipedia policies and guidelines; one must actually understand WP process before one's ideas for changing it are likely to be sensible. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have started the RFC per the conversation here. I have tried to do an equitable summary of the main positions about the topic. Feel free to tweak my summary of the positions below if you think I am missing something, or something hasn't been covered correctly. I don't have time for notifying other talk space right now, but will do so this evening or tomorrow morning, when I get time: feel free to do so ahead of that time, Sadads (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's a page I've never heard of, so in the case of more eyes, my eyes would have missed it. Editor Sadads has already mentioned his intention to post it on RFC. This will create an expansion of the policy, an expansion which has had an inadvertent 10 month experiment and come up with some very good results for including the data. More eyes on a page where it can be seen is the best way to go on this (and I notice you are opposed to the idea, so your suggestion and post should carry that data into the discussion). Randy Kryn 2:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Please consider commenting at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 June 7#Template:Infestation navs. --Izno (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Red link#Guideline revision urgently needed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been tidying up a number of templates per WP:EXISTING (removal of unlinked text and redlinks), only to have them reverted. See {{John Banville}}, {{Beryl Bainbridge}}, {{Anthony Trollope}}, {{James Fenimore Cooper}}, {{Richard Bean}}, {{Colin Bateman}}, among others. How do we feel about these? --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- These templates are different than a typical navbox, because they document all of the notable works of authors's works that should have articles. Thus, removal of the topics from these navboxes suggests to readers that the bluelinks are the only notable works by that authors, and that they didn't produce anything else (the {{Anthony Trollope}} and {{James Fenimore Cooper}} templates are perfect of examples of this: we know that all of those articles should be created, because there is plenty of scholarship on both). If we leave out the redlinks, it makes it look like Wikipedia's coverage of these authors is complete: which is blatently false. These links operate like other WP:Redlinks in that I have seen articles created on these redlinks for several of the author templates. Similar work has been done by authors like Gobonobo on templates like Template:Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame (which if we excluded redlinks, would look like it doesn't include a wide range of notable women each year). It seems to be common practice on navboxes which cover a concrete list of notable subjects, that we yet to have articles about, and using WP:EXISTING to justify removal of this information from navboxes does a disservice to our readers, and miscommunicates the gaps on Wikipedia's coverage of these concrete groupings of notable topics, thus discouraging participation from people who could fix the gaps, Sadads (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'd strongly disagree with the application of these arguments - take {{Anthony Trollope}} for example - there are entire sections (short stories, non-fiction, and plays) which consist purely of redlinks. Are these really likely to be created? And how can you apply the same argument of scholarship to {{Colin Bateman}}? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- When there aren't sufficient sources to justify a stand-alone article, I think it's reasonable to unlink the entries. @Robsinden: Since most of the navboxes you were working on are literary works, it should be noted that WP:NBOOK has a relatively low bar with its requirement of just two published reviews. I think {{Works by Flannery O'Connor}} is a good example with both redlinks for notable works that don't yet have articles and unlinked entries for non-fiction collections that are probably not independently notable. gobonobo + c 23:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- But unlinked text in navboxes is worse than redlinks. Navboxes are not supposed to contain encyclopedic information. They are here for one reason only - to aid navigation between existing articles.
Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles within English Wikipedia
. Redlinks and unlinked text bloat navboxes, and as such hinder navigation. These are not articles, something that a lot of editors seem to forget. This is why Flannery O'Connor bibliography exists. The simple question is this - "How do redlinks and unlinked text aid navigation?". And the simple answer: "They don't". --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC) - Incidentally, I was only going through them as a lot of author templates have erroneously been added to Category:Works by writer, and was tidying them up as I was removing the category. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Gosh, look at the state of {{L. Frank Baum}}!!! How does this provide useful navigation? Yet it seems pointless trying to tidy it up, as in the current climate, my changes will no doubt be reverted. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- The reasoning for including the non-linked is sound, although the red links are eye-candy in the worse way. How about just black non-links on the more prominent books missing from Wikipedia's article collection? This would allow data to be added while making the templates less unattractive with a profusion of red-links, and would give a place for new editors to see which books are in need of an article. Randy Kryn 11:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Unlinked text is worse than redlinks. Navboxes should not include encyclopedic content, that's what articles are for. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Re. {{L. Frank Baum}}: suppose this should be transformed into something like Isaac Asimov bibliography (chronological) (or something using tables like Theodor W. Adorno bibliography), then the template itself should be reduced to something of {{Stephen King}} length (or shorter, e.g. by grouping novels in a separate template). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- The reasoning for including the non-linked is sound, although the red links are eye-candy in the worse way. How about just black non-links on the more prominent books missing from Wikipedia's article collection? This would allow data to be added while making the templates less unattractive with a profusion of red-links, and would give a place for new editors to see which books are in need of an article. Randy Kryn 11:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- But unlinked text in navboxes is worse than redlinks. Navboxes are not supposed to contain encyclopedic information. They are here for one reason only - to aid navigation between existing articles.
- When there aren't sufficient sources to justify a stand-alone article, I think it's reasonable to unlink the entries. @Robsinden: Since most of the navboxes you were working on are literary works, it should be noted that WP:NBOOK has a relatively low bar with its requirement of just two published reviews. I think {{Works by Flannery O'Connor}} is a good example with both redlinks for notable works that don't yet have articles and unlinked entries for non-fiction collections that are probably not independently notable. gobonobo + c 23:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'd strongly disagree with the application of these arguments - take {{Anthony Trollope}} for example - there are entire sections (short stories, non-fiction, and plays) which consist purely of redlinks. Are these really likely to be created? And how can you apply the same argument of scholarship to {{Colin Bateman}}? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed with Rob Sinden (and the guidelines, and Francis Schonken's suggestions). Like categories and disambiguation pages (and unlike lists), Nav templates are only for navigation to existing material. They are not bibliographies or any other form of encyclopedic presentation of information, nor are they "article creation farms". Even lists should not be redlink farms, and MOS:SAL says this really clearly. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC) PS: Clarification: I agree that when a) it's a complete list of something finite and non-subjective (all Prime Ministers of Canada, all Ford sports cars) and all are unquestionably notable, or b) it's list (maybe incomplete because divided between multiple templates, or because WP's coverage will only go so far) of a sequential series (years, decades, centuries) and we will definitely have an article on all the ones included in the list, then redlinks are okay. All novels by someone, and similar categories should not, since there's no guarantee that novel or whatever is necessarily notable; AfD tells us that many assumptions that something will be notable are wrong. See RfC link below for proposal on this question; I have a more detailed version of this "these two cases" rubric. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's best to include a second bar at the top of such a navbox as {{L. Frank Baum}} containing scrutable linknames and associated targets such as All articles [eponymous category, if any], Bibliography [complete or complete for books, if any, perhaps an embedded list], and Portal [eponymous, if any]. Baum is so important to Oz that I would put Oz portal in that bar. The subsection label "Novels including Oz" should not link the Oz portal, as it does now, but might link a list of all Oz books or an Oz bibliography [works by Baum and by others] with a label such as "Novels including Oz books". The notice '(chronological)' is redundant given those encyclopedic dates; anyway it should be relegated to the end of the label.
- Thus the navbox design would include links to both Baum bibliography and Oz bibliography that are prominent, as bluelinks in top and left-side framework, and scrutable. The body of the navbox would include only those redlinks that are pleas for articles, and no plain titles of works. --P64 (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
"Small"
Per this edit, I removed the word "small" from the sentence "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." I did this because the word "small" is open to drama; some navboxes, particularly dealing with a series, may have over 100 links. Others, such as {{Gravitational wave observatories}} may require a couple dozen links to be complete. One covering a topic, such as {{Special relativity}}, also could require dozens of links. (and note: Category:Physics_templates - dozens of navboxes!) Hence, "well-defined" is useful phrasing; "small" is drama fodder. I don't see a need for a hard and fast rule, as it is clear that size is really a case-by-case situation. (Example: {{The Beatles}} ) Montanabw(talk) 23:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles", in a comparison with categories, the latter work better for large well-defined groups. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Um, {{Johann Sebastian Bach}} ?? And frankly, the category people are often hell-bent on diffusing stuff into dozens of teeny-tiny categories too (I lost a battle once with someone who wanted to split a category with maybe a couple dozen articles into several with 2 or 3 articles each). It's a no-win. Seriously, define "small." Bach and the Beatles ain't small by anyone's standard! I really think that categories and navboxes have different navigational uses; the navbox shows interrelated articles, not all of which may be in the same category (i.e. {[tl|Equine}} shows topics in multiple subcategories within both Category:Horses and Category:Donkeys) . Categories show related articles that may not all be in the same navbox. (example, {{mammals}} is a dramatically different group of articles than the main page of Category:Mammals Montanabw(talk) 00:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Re. "Seriously, define "small"." – from {{Bach violin concertos}} to {{Johann Sebastian Bach}} for someone "who ain't small by anyone's standard"
- Define large: {{L. Frank Baum}} (see discussion above in #WP:EXISTING) --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, someone else mentioned {{Transformers}} as unquestionably large! That's the point, the guideline says large navboxes aren't forbidden, it just points out the problems with them. I'm Ok with that. And yes, the Baum one is kind of a nightmare, I'd agree. Montanabw(talk) 07:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- What part of "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles" is a "hard and fast rule"? I do not see a rule, only a suggestion. Boghog (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't either, but some other editors see things differently from you and I, and in an attempt to enforce a guideline as policy can take phrasing like that and make life miserable for those of us who are working on navigability issues. Montanabw(talk) 07:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- If you didn't interpret this way, why have you raised this as an issue? You are proposing solutions to problems that don't exist. Bloated templates are a real problem that degrades their usability. The suggestion of "small" templates is a concrete solution to this problem and hence clearly belongs in the guideline. Boghog (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- See my answer to the question just above. Montanabw(talk) 03:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- You have not answered the question. Please answer the question. Your non-responses are becoming trollish. Boghog (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- What question? If I think the current language is a "Hard and fast rule"? As I said, the problem is not what I think, it's how I've seen others deal with these guidelines. What you call a "suggestion" is ill-defined and taken too literally. Seems you need to either define "small" or just eliminate it and leave "well-defined," which allows for both adequate restriction and flexibility. My original suggestion here was simply to remove one word. If you think that is "trollish," then ANI is thataway. Let's not be ridiculous. I think I've made my position clear. Montanabw(talk) 04:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Removing the word "small" does not provide "adequate restriction" as to the size of the template. By not defining precise boundaries between "small" and "large" leaves "adequate flexibility". If you insist, we could suggest a soft limit of 200 links as was done below (btw, {{KentuckyDerby}} has exactly 154 links and would not be considered large by this definition). Templates that have grown too large is a real problem that deserves mention in the guideline. Ignoring the issue does not make it go away. The need to alert editors of this issue trumps any hypothetical problems you may run into with other editors. It will not be the end of the world if the consensus is that a particular navbox should be split up because it has grown too large and you disagree. Also, why do you assume that you are always right in these disagreements? Perhaps the editors that you are have disagreements with have a legitimate point. Boghog (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- It should also be kept in mind that weakening the guidelines can "make life miserable for those of us who are working" to increase the usability of navigation templates. Boghog (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- What question? If I think the current language is a "Hard and fast rule"? As I said, the problem is not what I think, it's how I've seen others deal with these guidelines. What you call a "suggestion" is ill-defined and taken too literally. Seems you need to either define "small" or just eliminate it and leave "well-defined," which allows for both adequate restriction and flexibility. My original suggestion here was simply to remove one word. If you think that is "trollish," then ANI is thataway. Let's not be ridiculous. I think I've made my position clear. Montanabw(talk) 04:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- You have not answered the question. Please answer the question. Your non-responses are becoming trollish. Boghog (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- See my answer to the question just above. Montanabw(talk) 03:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- If you didn't interpret this way, why have you raised this as an issue? You are proposing solutions to problems that don't exist. Bloated templates are a real problem that degrades their usability. The suggestion of "small" templates is a concrete solution to this problem and hence clearly belongs in the guideline. Boghog (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't either, but some other editors see things differently from you and I, and in an attempt to enforce a guideline as policy can take phrasing like that and make life miserable for those of us who are working on navigability issues. Montanabw(talk) 07:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Um, {{Johann Sebastian Bach}} ?? And frankly, the category people are often hell-bent on diffusing stuff into dozens of teeny-tiny categories too (I lost a battle once with someone who wanted to split a category with maybe a couple dozen articles into several with 2 or 3 articles each). It's a no-win. Seriously, define "small." Bach and the Beatles ain't small by anyone's standard! I really think that categories and navboxes have different navigational uses; the navbox shows interrelated articles, not all of which may be in the same category (i.e. {[tl|Equine}} shows topics in multiple subcategories within both Category:Horses and Category:Donkeys) . Categories show related articles that may not all be in the same navbox. (example, {{mammals}} is a dramatically different group of articles than the main page of Category:Mammals Montanabw(talk) 00:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm on the fence.
Part of the reason for "small" is that (a large number of) large navboxes can negatively impact pages that load them from a technical perspective. I like small included for this reason alone.
The other reason is that it's probably a good rule of thumb. In practice, some templates get really large (like Template:Transformers for example). As an example, I tend to agree that T:Transformers has the problem of being "overly busy and hard to read and use".
How about moving the use of the word small?
Navigation templates are particularly useful for a well-defined group of articles. Smaller sets of articles (and thus navboxes) help avoid issues associated with large templates, such as potential technical issues where many navboxes are transcluded, as well as larger templates being overly busy.
Wordsmith as desired. --Izno (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be OK with that, though I'm curious if there is a cutoff point in bytes or other size parameters that is useful as a guide. I 'd like to keep the "templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." bit. Montanabw(talk) 07:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Navigation templates are particularly useful for a well-defined group of articles. Templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Additionally, navbox templates with smaller sets of articles avoid technical issues associated with large templates, such as slowed loading time for pages where many navboxes or large navboxes are transcluded.
- Oppose rewrite proposals:
- Izno's: unclear (no idea how this could be salvaged with wordsmithing)
- Montana's: too wordy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I think we actually can nuke the phrase small if we add a verb to the next phrase (now sentence). Also a tweak to that next phrase; I don't think it's necessary to dive into the exact tech problems. I'm not sure we need the word can, so proposing without the word:
Navigation templates are particularly useful for a well-defined group of articles. Avoid templates with a large number of links, since they 1) appear cluttered 2) can be
arehard to read and use, and 3) present technical problems in rare cases.
--Izno (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Added one word, struck another, I think you intended it to be there? Either way, I'm good with that. But I think we should keep something akin to the old "Templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden but shoudl be avoided" language ,as this version will create similar drama amongst the literal-minded who have no common sense. Montanabw(talk) 19:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- There's no benefit in "nuking the phrase", at least none that has been demonstrated. "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles" expresses the helpful guidance just fine. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Francis, that is just your own WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion. I like Izno's version. Unless you think civilization as we know it will come to an end if one word of the existing guideline is changed, can you give the nod to this clarification? I am very serious that the previous version is open to misinterpretation by those who have no common sense. Montanabw(talk) 19:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, show me a benefit, otherwise the wining and complaining resumes to "I don't like it". The template format doesn't work very well for the current {{L. Frank Baum}} (as was more or less the consensus in the #WP:EXISTING section above, recommending to move to a list and/or split in smaller templates), thus it has a benefit to keep "small" in the guidance, so that people don't put a lot of energy in something that in the end doesn't work very well. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- I mean, I'm just trying to make Montana happy without moving from my own position, which might be described by the same Montana as one of "those who have no common sense". ;)
My opinion is that, after having thought about it, "small" in the context of the first phrase isn't necessary if you already have the second phrase in its entirety. But I don't care enough to push for changing the status quo. In general, that entire line in the guideline is really more of a topic-sentence for the following bullets, which are more useful for turning bad navboxes into good (as I did at the discussion on Template talk:Aviation lists). --Izno (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Izno, I think we are making progress, Francis' incivil comment below notwithstanding. I think an improvement is possible, though the simple solution would be to keep "well-defined" and toss "small." The rest was my attempt to find a middle ground with you folks! ;-) \ Montanabw(talk) 00:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Still not showing a single benefit of tossing "small", all we got thus far is "I don't like it". --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Izno, I think we are making progress, Francis' incivil comment below notwithstanding. I think an improvement is possible, though the simple solution would be to keep "well-defined" and toss "small." The rest was my attempt to find a middle ground with you folks! ;-) \ Montanabw(talk) 00:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Re. "trying to make Montana happy" – been there, done that. Doesn't really work. Sorry for the energy you put into it.
- Without the "small" the sentence doesn't really work as a recommendation for how to improve {{L. Frank Baum}}, notwithstanding the next sentence. So, no I'd need more to get convinced "small" would be redundant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- *smirk*
The problem with the example template has 0 to do with "large" and a lot more to do with "you put stuff in the navbox template that shouldn't be there". The dates are unnecessary except where needed for disambiguation (though for some reason the books and films projects disagree; something about making the sorting choice obvious to a reader), and you have a whole bunch of crap which isn't blue linked (see of course the RFC at WT:Red link). One of the ways you might also improve the template is to breakdown each bucket into a "by decades" subbox or a "by phase of writer's life". None of the problems with the template are "fixed" by the word small being either in or not in the template, so I'm not sure why you're defending the word in that case, and in fact the phrase which does make the example template an issue is the one I'm noting duplicates the intent of "small" i.e. it's "busy". To my eye, everything in the template looks normal, aside from the already-stated problems. --Izno (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- You forgot to indicate why the removal of "small" would be beneficial in the {{L. Frank Baum}} case. All you illustrate is that according to you it doesn't stand in the way of anything – I maintain that it's a good first approach to recommend the editor who wants to build a navbox on the complete works of an author with say 100+ works is probably going to end up with something not half as useful as a list article on the same (if the intention is to list all these works separately). That's the kind of ideas this guideline comparing cats, lists and navboxes is built upon. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- My original position is that the removal of "small" duplicates the intent of the following statement regards lots of links, which is to avoid cluttered-looking navboxes (which harm the eye scanning, I suppose). Saying something twice when we could say it once is just good writing because it avoids (among other things) making conflicting points.
That said,
with say 100+ works is probably going to end up with something not half as useful as a list article on the same
is interesting to me; if that's how you're reading its meaning and use, I certainly wasn't. Could/Should we give this idea more prominence then? --Izno (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)- Re. ...duplicates...: well it doesn't: "Avoid templates with a large number of links, ..." gives no useful recommendation regarding {{L. Frank Baum}} which has most of its content unlinked, so does not contain a "large number of links". The more general "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles" is better in showing the direction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- My original position is that the removal of "small" duplicates the intent of the following statement regards lots of links, which is to avoid cluttered-looking navboxes (which harm the eye scanning, I suppose). Saying something twice when we could say it once is just good writing because it avoids (among other things) making conflicting points.
- You forgot to indicate why the removal of "small" would be beneficial in the {{L. Frank Baum}} case. All you illustrate is that according to you it doesn't stand in the way of anything – I maintain that it's a good first approach to recommend the editor who wants to build a navbox on the complete works of an author with say 100+ works is probably going to end up with something not half as useful as a list article on the same (if the intention is to list all these works separately). That's the kind of ideas this guideline comparing cats, lists and navboxes is built upon. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Francis, avoid personal attacks. Just because we have tangled before (where, in fact, the end result was a community consensus mostly in favor of my position, by the way, so don't be a sore loser) doesn't mean I don't compromise. I just think you are wrong. Montanabw(talk) 00:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- *smirk*
- Francis, that is just your own WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion. I like Izno's version. Unless you think civilization as we know it will come to an end if one word of the existing guideline is changed, can you give the nod to this clarification? I am very serious that the previous version is open to misinterpretation by those who have no common sense. Montanabw(talk) 19:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Also oppose the rewrite proposals. There is simply no need for it. The current version in the guideline is fine. Boghog (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- All I asked was to remove the word "small" here. Nothing more. It was, I had hoped, an opportunity to reduce drama elsewhere. Montanabw(talk) 00:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- See WP:FORUMSHOP advising against moving drama from one place to another. However well-intentioned it usually doesn't work very well. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Francis, please read WP:AGF - where the heck else would I take an issue about navboxes but to the navbox page? The "elsewhere" is about 10 assorted navbox templates (that I know of) where a certain editor who takes everything literally shows up to screw up multiple navboxes. It's hardly "forum-shopping" when I know I'm going to run into hostility. Sheesh. Montanabw(talk) 03:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Montanabw, Francis is spot on. Forum-shopping is exactly what you are doing. What we have here is a disagreement between two editors. The "other editor" has no doubt has cited WP:Bidirectional. The Aviation list RfC demonstrates that bidirectionality has strong support. Instead of weakening the guideline to the point where it becomes meaningless, we need to strengthen the guideline by making clear why bidirectionality is important. Boghog (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Boghog, assume good faith! What other "forum" is there to address the bidirectionality guideline but here? Seriously. And I have no intention of "weakening the guideline until it becomes meaningless," I am trying to make a couple logical and practical suggestions that reflect how the real world works. Montanabw(talk) 07:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately you are still WP:NOTGETTINGIT. The first proposed change to the guideline is
[bidirectionality] is not required, and particularly where inclusion of every article transcluding the navbox could result in hundreds of links
. This was precisely what the Aviation lists RfC was about and the consensus reached at that RfC is that placing a navbox in large numbers of articles that were not included as links in the navbox is inappropriate. Hence consensus is strongly against the first part of your proposal. A second proposed change isA navbox in an article that cannot be accessed from the navbox within two clicks is inadvisable.
This language is a non-starter because it completely breaks bidirectionality. For navboxes to be fully functional, it is important that one is able to navigate between related articles using only the navbox and not have to go through a "list article". Of course, if the "list article" and all the articles contained in the list are included as links in the navbox and conversely if the navbox is transcluded in "list article" and all the articles on that list, then the navbox is fully bidirectional and the problem is solved without having to invoke the "two click" exemption. In other words, the "two click" exemption is completely unnecessary. Neither of the suggestions proposed at the top of the tweak bidirectionality thread are logical (because they are in fact not needed) nor are they practical (because they seriously degrade the usability of the navbox). Finally the proposed changes are in conflict with "real world" Wikipedia consensus. Boghog (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately you are still WP:NOTGETTINGIT. The first proposed change to the guideline is
- Boghog, assume good faith! What other "forum" is there to address the bidirectionality guideline but here? Seriously. And I have no intention of "weakening the guideline until it becomes meaningless," I am trying to make a couple logical and practical suggestions that reflect how the real world works. Montanabw(talk) 07:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Montanabw, Francis is spot on. Forum-shopping is exactly what you are doing. What we have here is a disagreement between two editors. The "other editor" has no doubt has cited WP:Bidirectional. The Aviation list RfC demonstrates that bidirectionality has strong support. Instead of weakening the guideline to the point where it becomes meaningless, we need to strengthen the guideline by making clear why bidirectionality is important. Boghog (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Francis, please read WP:AGF - where the heck else would I take an issue about navboxes but to the navbox page? The "elsewhere" is about 10 assorted navbox templates (that I know of) where a certain editor who takes everything literally shows up to screw up multiple navboxes. It's hardly "forum-shopping" when I know I'm going to run into hostility. Sheesh. Montanabw(talk) 03:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- See WP:FORUMSHOP advising against moving drama from one place to another. However well-intentioned it usually doesn't work very well. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- All I asked was to remove the word "small" here. Nothing more. It was, I had hoped, an opportunity to reduce drama elsewhere. Montanabw(talk) 00:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, y'all. What the heck is the argument about here? While I tend to agree with Montanabw that the word "small" is ill-defined, I also tend to agree that there are plenty of existing "large" navboxes that are well organized. I know of well-organized navboxes that include more than 200 links. The emphasis here should be on describing what is appropriate, and providing particularly good examples of "well organized." So let's dial this discussion down a notch or two, and see where we agree. I think there are some useful changes we could make here on which we may all agree after some back and forth. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you Direlawyer1, you are correct. My goal was to remove the word "small" from this section, as I clearly do think there are navboxes that need to have well over 100 links. ({[tl|Kentucky Derby}} as an example) The section isn't terribly clear or well-written, particularly in light of the discussion immediately below. Montanabw(talk) 03:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Small is a measure of the infobox's size, and not its number of links; some, like {{Bach cantatas}}, have got hundreds of links but remain easily navigable. Alakzi (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- OK, now that doesn't make sense - if you mean in terms of bytes or bandwidth, then this is why you need to say so clearly, I'm not a programmer, my background in this respect is in graphic design (as a side to many jobs I've had, not my main profession), my focus is on the reader or observer, thus I presume "small" means "little in size/doesn't take up much room at the bottom." When you say you transclude one navbox inside another, I have no idea what that even looks like and wouldn't have the slightest interest in doing this, as far as I know... collapsable sections, sure, but just links to articles or categories, maybe portals and a wikiproject, perhaps... Montanabw(talk) 03:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- The guidance is about a "small ... group of articles" (quoted from guideline, bolding added), not about limited surface. E.g. {{Bach cantatas}}: limited surface, some 250 linked articles, falls out of the "particularly useful" according to the guidance (although "well-defined" is not a problem here). I agree. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is my opinion and not an interpretation of the guideline. Alakzi (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, so can we just chop the word "small" as I originally proposed? "Well-defined" seems to be something we all can agree on. Montanabw(talk) 07:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- No consensus for that, I'm sorry. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, so can we just chop the word "small" as I originally proposed? "Well-defined" seems to be something we all can agree on. Montanabw(talk) 07:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is my opinion and not an interpretation of the guideline. Alakzi (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, the main objective of this guideline is to compare grouping techniques:
| (showing most useful grouping technique) | Small collection | Large collection |
|---|---|---|
| well-defined group of articles | navbox | category |
| somehow related topics, not all of them articles | (none of the discussed grouping techniques particularily useful) | list page |
Leaving out "small" ignores the navbox/category distinction.
(note: none of this implies there shouldn't be cooperation among the grouping techniques, and multiple coverage by different grouping techniques, that's why I put the symphonies list/category/navbox example in the last paragraph of the lede of this guideline many, many years ago – the table above only gives some indication which one would best be done first: for instance, when wanting to group L. Frank Baum's oeuvre, large collection / not all of them articles yet, build the bibliography list first instead of a huge navbox full of red and black, and expand, and later maybe split, the navbox as more articles become available) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Francis, that compares apples to oranges. Here's how I see it: Montanabw(talk) 07:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
| Navbox | List | Category |
|---|---|---|
| template | article | classification scheme |
| well-defined group of articles, may fall into multiple categories, basically an organized collection of related links | well-defined group of articles, not merely a laundry "list" but a list with annotations, often images and citations, often uses chart or table structure. Has WP:FLC criteria for finest work | broadly-defined group of articles, link collection, occasional guidelines for inclusion. |
| About 80% width of screen x a few cm high. Generally starts to look a bit unwieldy after about 50-60 links, but can hold over 100 if well-designed | No significant length restriction, but gets unwieldy beyond a few hundred items | Navigation aid limited to single-purpose, hierarchical "tree" structure with as few as 2 (not-advised, but they exist) to thousands (also not advised but they exist) of article links. |
- Calling the question: Rather than go into full-fledgd drama and call an RfC over one word, let me outline and recap my proposal:
1) I think the word "small" should be removed from the phrase "small, well-defined set of articles." My reasoning is that some well-defined sets of articles, as noted above, could still number in the hundreds; even those who oppose my proposal seem to agree that templates such as {{Beatles}} are acceptable even though quite large. Montanabw(talk) 04:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC) 2) In the alternative, I would support someone else's proposal for a rewording of the paragraph in question to achieve the same goal, so long as the same intent is kept.
Nothing more complicated than that. Montanabw(talk) 04:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose 1) and 2) for reasons given in detail above. Re. Montana's table above: I prefer the one above that, which imho is closer to what this guideline wants to convey (although of course not giving the full detail of what is in the guideline). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose both (1) and (2). Size does matter. Navboxes that have grown too large are a real problem that degrades their usability. This issue needs to be explicitly dealt with in the guideline. Boghog (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Anything that changes the template {{Thomas Jefferson}} one iota, a template which was mainly created and placed on the site July 3rd and July 4th of last year, I'd Oppose. Anything that gives a template more freedom to educate the public, and shares the accumulated information with the widest possible audience, I'd Support. I started to read this question and it starts off well and then a very few editors go back and forth, and I can't really tell what's what and what this will do. Count me either for or nay, depending. Randy Kryn 14:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please note that the guideline currently states
Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles
. Hence this is a suggestion, not a requirement. With 169 links, I think {{Thomas Jefferson}} is a border-line large template, but still less than the 200 links that have been suggested elsewhere as a cutoff. This template might benefit converting it to a {{Navbox with collapsible groups}}. This would preserve all of the links, but only the most closely related links would be uncollapsed by default. To give you an idea of how this would work, see {{Transcription factors and intracellular receptors}}, a template with 737 links, but IMHO still quite manageable because it uses collapsible subgroups. Boghog (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC) - Please also note that the in the very same sentence, it states
templates with a large numbers of links are not forbidden
. This language was add on 27 February 2008. So I really do not understand why such a big deal is being made about one word that is a suggestion and not a requirement and is immediately qualified in the same sentence. This is completely bizarre. Boghog (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia, by its very nature, is bizarre, if bizarre contains the attribute of attempting something that's never been done before and apparently pulling it off. Thanks on the Jefferson. On many articles it appears quite nicely opened up, on longer ones its collapsed or should be. Depends on the page, and the context of how much the page could lead a reader into the "Wonderful World of Thomas Jefferson" as presented on the template. Readers and other students might really get to know this important fellow if they took the time to explore what Wikipedia has to offer on the subject. Happy 4th (just got back from a parade)! Randy Kryn
- Please note that the guideline currently states