Template talk:January 6 United States Capitol attack navbox

Remove links that aren't directly related?
I'm still on the fence about this, but I wonder if maybe we should reduce the size of this navbox to cover only events directly related to the storming of the US Capitol? That would be the following articles:


 * 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
 * Jake Angeli
 * International reactions to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
 * Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
 * any additional articles that get spun out of the main article
 * the article on the commission that investigates the storming, once that gets created

Right now I worry that the navbox has too many links that are only loosely related to the topic. And I also worry that this navbox could get placed in articles of people that just attended the protests outside, and serve as a bit of a badge of shame and WP:UNDUE in their articles, even though they didn't go inside. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Having a section "Background" seems useful (although individual links within that section might be argued against). Having a "Related" section also seems useful, and its label clearly indicates that the links in it don't necessarily have a strong relationship to the topic --Distelfinck (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Participants
Are we limiting "Participants" to people who actually entered the Capitol building? I added Ali Alexander because he helped to plan one of the rallies that led to the event and has been implicated by RS in inciting the storming. Given that the entire day's events, including the rallies, are described at 2021 storming of the United States Capitol I figured that was appropriate. However if we are limiting this only to people who entered the building, I believe it's correct to exclude him. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

See also this related discussion. --Distelfinck (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've commented there, mostly to clarify someone else who was mistaken. But it'd still be nice to have some kind of guidance here, particularly if that category is deleted or renamed and this still just says "participants". GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Before reading this discussion, I changed "Notable participants" to simply "Participants" because I think "notable" is implied. I, too, came here to ask how "participants" was being defined. There were many other notable people involved, obviously all the politicians on site, but that's too general. Is "Insurgents" too biased? Something along that line.. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question. I would be in support of limiting it to people that just went inside the building. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Noting that Category:Participants_in_the_2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol has just been speedy-deleted after a brief discussion at CfD, so I'm not sure that BLPN discussion will give much guidance for this template given the primary subject of discussion is moot. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is there an "Alt-tech" section?
This seems kind of strange: the links are simply to social media providers' Wikipedia pages. They may be linked in the articles (due to relevance of organisation on them, etc), but their presence in the template is hard to justify, I'd have thought. Is there a particular reason they're there? Perhaps Parler under "see also" due to the public fallout, but the articles linked under this section don't have a direct relation to the focus of the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.157.56.226 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. I removed Telegram for now, "capitol" is not even found in that article. We may be able to remove more if we get consensus from other editors. – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Can be removed. What social media were used for planning the attacks is covered in the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol article, and that Parler got removed from app stores after the attack is covered in Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol --Distelfinck (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Timeline and aftermath links are hiding a bit
I don't like how the Aftermath of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol and Timeline of the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol links are hiding in the blue areas of the navbox. They are easy for readers to miss. Is there a way to fix this, or is this standard practice for Wikipedia navboxes and I just need to get used to it? Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Re Timeline link at the top: Agreed, I actually missed it myself the first time I looked at the box. You see links in this place quite often though (e.g. in Template:Martial arts, Template:Jimmy Carter and Template:Barack Obama). Maybe we can bring this up somewhere where more people will see it, WikiProject Navigation templates or WikiProject Accessibility seem to be a good places.
 * Re Aftermath link in left column: Pretty much standard, link color quite different from non-linked text in the left column, seems hard to overlook?
 * --Distelfinck (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Trim "related" section?
I think the rest of this navbox is looking pretty good. I'm a little worried about the "Related" section though. I am worried that the items in that section are not strongly enough connected to the storming. Any interest in deleting the section? – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed Latinos for Trump, which did not mention the storming. All the other articles had significant coverage of the storming, and should probably be left in. Elizium23 (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sedition Caucus
Regarding the addition of Sedition Caucus: I do feel the term is directly related to the subject, since without the storming, the term would not have come to relevance. The point that makes the group of legislators' actions constitute sedition (to some) is that the Capitol was stormed, which these same critics have described as insurrection, coup d'etat, terrorism, rebellion, overthrow, etc., and also implied that the Sedition Caucus had a hand in inciting the events. While the term was used by press to some small extent beforehand, it was with the knowledge that something would happen on Jan. 6, and the term was used to criticize these select Republicans in Congress for facilitating it. Thus, the term is directly tied to the event. To be clear, I am NOT asserting that these legislators were engaged in the storming, which is why I placed the item in "Related" rather than "Notable participants." I am open to other views, and I am initiating this discussion per WP:BRD. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Duplication
2021 storming of the United States Capitol now exists as a sidebar. Why do we need both a navbox and a sidebar with the same information? Certainly not both in the same article. Is there a distinction and a guideline for when to use which one? Elizium23 (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with this. These templates have exactly the same info. Choose one or another, like at Trump–Ukraine scandal. (Personally, I would prefer the sidebox, as I think that looks better.) AllegedlyHuman (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should pick one. I personally prefer navboxes, but I am happy to go with the consensus. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Platforms used in planning
I'm concerned about recent edits to the section "Platforms used in planning". WP:BIDIRECTIONAL says we should include this Navbox in the mentioned articles, and vice versa. But it is really a stretch to include it in an article like Facebook. That navbox would be huge undue weight in the Facebook Inc. article. As such, I would be in favor of only including alt tech companies (these are much more relevant/related to the storming of the US capitol), or removing "Platforms used in planning" entirely. Thoughts? Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. At this point, saying something was planned over Twitter or Facebook is like saying it was planned on Planet Earth. Undue weight. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Section removed. --Distelfinck (talk)
 * I've reverted this removal, as there was no consensus for it and a talk page discussion is ongoing. 's post only called for just including alt-tech rather than removing the entire section. Feel free to participate in the discussion here. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , just to clarify, my post also advocates possibly removing the problem section. I think that would be an acceptable solution. This idea of giving tech companies scarlet letters (giant navboxes of controversial issues) in their articles is not particularly appetizing to me. Any more than we should give television networks scarlet letters for covering wars or controversies. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I missed that section in your post (I was writing my reasons for reverting and added that comment at the last minute even though it wasn't necessary – never a good idea!). I'll reiterate my stance above that I don't feel the inclusion of these, especially major items, is necessary but is rather undue. However, this discussion should be completed and a consensus should be reached before any edits are made. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

My concern, and reason for adding the mainstream platforms, is that it seems to imply that only alt-tech platforms were used to plan the storming. It has been shown that mainstream platforms played a significant role also, for example:

Washington Post GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah also "Some pro-Trump extremists used Facebook to plan Capitol attack, report finds". The platforms are interchangable and if they were no Facebook, the extremists would have just used whatever was the major platform then or used telephones. The section needs to go, it's not interesting --Distelfinck (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be removed, as navboxes should follow a (rough) principle of WP:BIDIRECTIONALality. — Goszei (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Recent move
. Just an FYI, moving this may have been premature. The main article's recent move is currently at move review. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)