Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

message: I recently came across the advice here that . 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?  talk 18:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view the advice or guideline as you've quoted it is sort of backwards, or sideways maybe.  It should say something like   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)
replies: text: I'm with you on that! --woodensuperman 11:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: '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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  (for example) would look at the article. --woodensuperman 14:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There is no  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)
replies: text: 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 . Moxy- 15:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

text: That one can be speedy deleted as was deleted with all the AFI templates per this discussion. --woodensuperman 16:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Questioning WP:BIDIRECTIONAL 

message: What should WP:BIDIRECTIONAL say?
*Option A (status quo): 
*Option B: 
*Option C: 
(Prior discussion above.) Sdkb talk 04:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification note: If it aids understanding,  can be read as . Sdkb talk 17:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ..You seem to be advocating for C....dont added them allover?Moxy- 09:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, that's the potential problem. —Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title:  RfC: WP:BIDIRECTIONAL 

message: *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. Sdkb talk 04:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ..You seem to be advocating for C....dont added them allover?Moxy- 09:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, that's the potential problem. —Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Pinging participants from the prior discussion:  Cheers, Sdkb talk 04:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I point you to this discussion where it seems consensus was not to WP:DRV this. --woodensuperman 08:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Best film" poll navboxes. 

message: This navbox included pages about genetic histories of many ethnic groups, but most of them were removed because they redirected to sections of articles. According to this guideline, should links to sections be excluded from navboxes? Jarble (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think they can be included if full and complete and can arguably be forked into their own article (some artworks have this situation), but I've seen links to sections which are too small and incomplete sections which are rightfully removed.  would likely know more about the history of discussion and/or guideline on this aspect of navboxes. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there's a recent discussion on this but I can't find it.  I think if there's a defined section, it's sometimes allowable, although I can see some issues with some of the links in .  For example Early Anatolian Farmers is linked, but this redirects to Neolithic Europe#Genetics, with no section on Anatolia and no reference to Anatolia in this section.  Also at this section it suggests that Genetic history of Europe is the more in depth article which has a section Genetic history of Europe#Neolithic which at leasts mentions Anatolia.  However as Genetic history of Europe is already linked, we don't need to link it again anyway. --woodensuperman 13:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly Genetic history of the Caucasus is linked, which is a redirect to Prehistoric Caucasus#Genetic history, a section which suggests that Caucasus hunter-gatherer is the main article for this section, which is already linked in the navbox, so we probably don't need this redirect either. --woodensuperman 14:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

text: (earlier discussion here) --woodensuperman 14:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

text: WP:NAVNOREDIRECT:  --woodensuperman 14:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I think we should be avoiding linking to different sections of the same article multiple times. --woodensuperman 14:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I don't recall ever linking a section to a navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for a rule....we should simply do what is best for readers to navigate topics....that may involve a section link (especially after mergers). Moxy🍁 16:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are done well then yes, I can see your point. Yet some editors will overload section links onto a single navbox, which should be at least discouraged. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should navboxes not include links to sections? 

message: Would anyone like to weigh in at Template talk:Doctor Who episodes#Episode count? --woodensuperman 08:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of episode count on {{tl|Doctor Who episodes}} navbox?