Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 15

Links to template space from navboxes (again)
User recently added links to similar templates from within navboxes (specifically the Netflix navboxes, etc.) but per WP:SELFREF and WP:SURPRISE, and per this guideline, specifically "Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia.", we should not be linking to template space from main article space. However, user is refusing to accept my reversions of his edits. Can we update the guideline so that this is clear? -- wooden superman  14:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Updating a guideline merely to support your argument is highly frowned upon. You need a WP:CONSENSUS to make banning such links from navboxes into the guideline (note: "guideline", not "policy", and thus it is already up to interpretation and will remain to be). Also, when referring to "user", always a good idea to ping them. -- / Alex /21  14:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This has come up countless times before, and your refusal to accept the guidelines WP:SELFREF and WP:SURPRISE because they are not policy is just typical of your perennial stubbornness. -- wooden  superman  14:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's come up countless times before, then why is it not explicitly part of any guideline or policy? Please try to remain civil. Thank you. -- / Alex /21  14:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Linking to topic-related well-designed templates should be done sparingly and consistenly styled, but when it seems appropriate then there is nothing forbidding it. Templates are maps of Wikipedia's collection on a particular topic, so when an enhancing and closely-related valuable map is a link away, adding it seems justified to assist the reader to freely navigate among related articles. The question that should be asked is how to present such links (in below seems reasonable, but they should be identified as templates) and to suggest limiting their number (one, or at most two, solidly appropriate template links also seems reasonable). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * (added to above) The two principal Star Wars templates make for a good example. Shouldn't each of those templates be linked to the other? Individually they give the reader the article-map of the production of Star Wars (Star Wars) and the article-map of the Star Wars universe Star Wars universe). Topics unarguably twined, but separated into logical and well thought-out stand-alone templates. The how to do it should be discussed, but linking the two closely related topic templates would benefit Wikipedia's readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No they shouldn't. You should not direct a reader out of mainspace from a navbox template.  They expect to be taken to articles.  -- wooden  superman  08:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Since when are template-navboxes not in main space? They, as site maps, have an equivalency to articles. But any confusion can be solved by labeling the link 'Template:' Randy Kryn (talk) 13:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Since forever. They are in template space.  They are only in mainspace when transcluded, and we should not be encouraging general readers to look behind the curtain at the nuts and bolts when they are browsing in the main article space.  -- wooden  superman  14:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They are only usable in mainspace unless linked to, and if they exist in "template space" it is only to hold them there until appearing or being linked to in mainspace. There is nothing mysterious about templates, so "behind the curtain" isn't really a thing here, nuts bolts or otherwise, it's just looking at another template. Nobody will get trapped and become lost behind the curtain if that's the concern. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Template space is there for coding stuff that appears in mainspace. We should not be sending our readers there.  -- wooden  superman  14:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , ✅. No policy bans the usage of such links in templates, and thus they are completely acceptable. -- / Alex /21  10:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is inappropriate for the reasons shown above. Please stop adding until this is resolved.  Have asked for further input from relevant project.  -- wooden  superman  10:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately, you may want to implement them yourself, as the editor who's editing is as wooden as his name cannot seem to understand that consensus it not unanimity. -- / Alex /21  10:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Navigation from one template to another is a great idea, but it should only be used in templatespace and not from mainspace to templatespace. --Gonnym (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any policy, or at least a guideline, to back this up, that discourages the use or supports the banning of such links? -- / Alex /21  10:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing not. -- / Alex /21  23:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:SELFREF and WP:SURPRISE. Also see this edit from  which pretty much sums it up. -- wooden  superman  08:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you quote the specific parts of those links that specifically ban template links from the mainspace? Also, please sign your post properly. -- / Alex /21  08:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Typically, self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project should be avoided" -- wooden  superman  09:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that the links are not within the articles, and the links are not self-references. Looking at templates such as BBC, links are placed at the bottom of the template to the category and portal namespaces. This is often encouraged if such links exist. Why are these practices acceptable, but links to templates are not? -- / Alex /21  09:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The links are within the articles, as navboxes are part of main article space when transcluded. I personally think linking to categories is redundant in a navbox, as most linked articles would be in the category trees anyway.  However, category space is not part of project space, but a separate navigational system.  Template space in this instance is used purely for coding stuff that appears in mainspace, to make editors' jobs easier, and is not somewhere we send our readers.    -- wooden  superman  09:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly, they're transcluded. Hence, the links are not within the articles themselves, but the templates used in the articles. There is a different. (Signed, a template editor.) And again with the "we"; who is "we"? There is still nothing to support that it is not somewhere "we" send our readers. -- / Alex /21  11:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They are visible in article space. Clicking on a link to a template from a navbox in article space will take you from article space to template space.  What exactly are you not getting here?  -- wooden  superman  11:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Point me to an article, and show me where in the article and its code the template link lies. You cannot, as it is not within the article, it is within the template. All of this, but every navigational template also, by default, has links to view the template, edit it, and visit the template's talk page. Why are these acceptable? -- / Alex /21  11:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * . The code is in the template space, but the link is visible in article space.  That's the whole point.  Life's too short to have to respond to your petty wikilawyering.  This isn't a game where you lay traps and try to catch the other editor out.  Trying to interact constructively with you really isn't worth the effort and any exchange is always unpleasant.  -- wooden  superman  11:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Hence, the link is not within the article space. I note that you've ignored the latter question - why is that? If you wish to no longer participate in this discussion, then that is your prerogative, but note that there is thus still nothing that discourages the use or supports the banning of such links. -- / Alex /21  11:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is displayed in the article, so it counts as being in article space. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Template links on mobile
As mobile use attracts a growing percentage of Wikipedia readers, a way to link templates on mobile maybe should become a conversation topic here. Mobile users also don't receive category links. Mobile give readers this cut-back version of Wikipedia without explaining that they are not viewing the entire article, so as an alternate maybe some form of announcement at the end of each mobile-viewed article could alert their viewers. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe a better question, can coders create a code which displays navboxes collapsed on mobile devices, especially as mobile devices become larger and are more on par with laptop screens? They would take up the same horizontal space and not add much vertical space. And categories? Have the coders explained why these types of navigational maps are excluded? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think navboxes are probably too big and clunky to work effectively on mobiles, especially if there are a number of them. However you can see categories if you change your preferences at Special:Preferences (under "Testing and development" at the bottom)  -- wooden  superman  13:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wondering if that coding can be fixed to present them in good shape. I don't view or edit Wikipedia on mobile, the site seems too truncated. Thanks for your fix but that should then be automatic. Do the larger tablets show navboxes and categories? Should be a way for coders to have a go at this problem (and it is a problem when much of Wikipedia is left behind). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As I think has been noted to you in specific, the reason navboxes are not provided on mobile is that it presents a significant increase in bandwidth without meeting the concept of operations for a mobile user, which is predominantly get-in-get-out. As a result, the developers made the reason not to provide it in the HTML. As for categories, so far as I understand those are provided on mobile (the apps at least if not the site-proper), though perhaps not in the exact place you're looking. --Izno (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I've asked the question. Is there a potential coding work-around for navboxes? If Wikipedia could put a man on the Moon, then... Randy Kryn (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, there is no workaround. --Izno (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Record labels and compilation albums in navboxes
Would anyone like to weigh in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music? -- wooden superman  13:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Should a navbox point to templates?
Input would be appreciated at Template_talk:COVID-19. Our coronavirus navbox points to a lot of raw templates. Is that appropriate? Bondegezou (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion related to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL
Pls see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section a discussion related to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL .-- Moxy 🍁 16:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Why don't navboxes add categories?
Navboxes have no category parameter, but why? If it could be implemented, could navboxes use so editors can add pages to subcategories? JsfasdF252 (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:TEMPLATECAT. --Izno (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Mass adding of sidebars by TheEpicGhosty
I'm concerned about the mass adding of sidebars into various articles by, a significant number of which appear to be very inappropriate (e.g. the liberalism sidebar at Political views of American academics, Media bias, Category:Liberal parties etc., and the capitalism sidebar at Karl Marx, Marxian economics, Cronyism etc.). Only a small number of some of the worst offenders have been reverted. While some of these sidebars might be appropriate, I'm not familiar with their use and it looks like it would take a lot of effort to go through the ~250+ articles to which they've been added to ensure that they follow the guidelines here (WP:SIDEBAR), particularly as these guidelines appear rather loose. Given the speed at which this took place, TheEpicGhosty clearly didn't put much thought into whether each individual article was suitable. Should these changes be mass reverted to ensure that no inappropriate sidebars remain? Jr8825 •  Talk  21:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I went through places where the sidebar template linked to and from. If you want me to undo the inappropriate ones, I'll gladly do so. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's not how they're supposed to be used, have you actually read this editing guideline? This is beyond my area of expertise so I'll leave it to others to comment on the best action to take. Jr8825  •  Talk  21:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In any case, I've undone the ones you've mentioned and am looking through the list. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll say that generally we should not be using sidebars except in the most-relevant "major" articles to which the sidebar pertains. As with any nav template, the sidebar should not be on an article that isn't listed in the sidebar, and the sidebar should not list articles that don't have the sidebar or equivalent navigation.  Which brings us to the matter not discussed yet in relation to this mass-templating: If the article already has equivalent or better (e.g. more specific) navigation, usually at the bottom, then a sidebar may not be appropriate. For example, if Karl Marx already has a Marxism nav bar (it does), then it should not have a capitalism navbar, even if someone is convinced that Marxism is "technically" a subset of the broadest possible interpretation of "capitalism" as a subject. It's especially weird to see Karl Marx and related topics with a capitalism sidebar, since they're essentially opposites, at least in the way that most people are going to topically interpret "capitalism".  Aside from logical confusions like this, "branding" with a liberalism sidebar any topics that far-right conspiracy theorists claim are "controlled by the liberals" (academia, the media, etc.) is an obvious and rather severe WP:NPOV failure.  And nav sidebars and bottom-bars do not belong in categories.  And topical (e.g. "liberalism") sidebars do not belong on articles that are cross-political generalities ("Political views of occupation X"). Nor do they belong on articles on things like ethical failures (e.g. cronyism) that are found across all ideologies.  And ....  Given the high failure rate to apply the templates appropriately, combined with the appropriateness failures being of so many different kinds, I would support a mass-revert of this template-addition spree.  It is more important to remove confusing and even policy-violating applications of nav templates in any of these articles, than it is to retain a few of them that were maybe appropriate but at the cost of retaining most of the inappropriate ones as well.  That is, the cost to the project of a mass-revert and later more careful application of templates where they actually do belong is lower than than of just leaving it all in place and hoping people randomly notice and remove all the inappropriate instances "some day".
 * Agree with blanket revert. Sidebars should not be added mindlessly but only when they actually improve the article in question. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the list of sidebars I added, and most of them are appropriate. I have reverted all of the sidebars in the examples cited above, and more inappropriate additions. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You only seem to have removed one more sidebar since the six examples I brought up. Please don't think I scoured through the entire list of your additions methodically, I only I pulled out those six so I could illustrate the scale of the problem. I've taken another glance and can see many other serious mistakes, such as putting the capitalism sidebar on Simple commodity production and Primitive accumulation of capital (a particularly egregious case as the capitalism sidebar has been placed at the top, while there's a pre-existing, far more relevant, communism sidebar further down) – these are Marxist critiques of capitalism. A large number of the articles are specialised subfields or narrow terminology (that may not necessarily be widely accepted within broader political science) and, as pointed out, adding sidebars to these can appear as bias to readers (another example of this is Permissive society, a mostly critical term). Others are thinkers who are only tangential to the broader political theory/economic model. The guidelines are pretty clear that the bars should only be added to a "small, well-defined groups of articles", Raymond Aron's life is not key to understanding liberalism, neither are Ludwig von Mises's or Jean-Baptiste Say's contributions key components of capitalist theory, as far as I'm aware. Separation of church and state stems from John Locke's Enlightenment empiricism, rather than directly from 'liberalism'. Matthew Arnold appears to be primarily a literary figure, yet you've put a liberalism sidebar there too. I'm a political science student, and I'm not confident about making off-the-cuff assessments of these figures' significance to such broad fields without having a skim through their articles, and even now I can't say with certainty I've made the correct judgement. As an aside, I think the sidebars need to be looked at by a subject expert and the links narrowed down to only include the small group of key thinkers needed who shaped these fields broadly, as this is my understanding of how the sidebars should be used (I'd be able to have a go at this if I spent some time researching, although there may be others more qualified for this than me and I don't have the time at the moment).
 * Please follow the advice that SMcCandlish and have given, and fully revert all of the changes, as I'm afraid I don't trust your judgement here. As Buide pointed out, they should only be added when they clearly improve the article.  Jr8825  •  Talk  18:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to ping . Jr8825  •  Talk  18:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, my judgement here has led me to undo about two dozen sidebars, and I'm still going through that list.TheEpicGhosty (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think this is the wrong way to go about it. All of the sidebars should be removed to ensure that nothing gets missed, then re-added on a case-by-case basis. Jr8825  •  Talk  20:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

are you able to give some further guidance on sidebars? I can see that EpicGhosty has now made some major changes to the libertarianism sidebar, adding various figures and a list of organisations & political parties, which doesn't seem helpful to me. Also, the original sidebar additions still haven't been mass reverted and with a quick glance I can immediately see problematic ones remaining (take, for example, Muscular liberalism). @EpicGhosty – again, please could you go through your additions and completely undo them. I'm not deliberately targeting you or criticising you for making these changes in the first place, I'm just trying to point out in a friendly way that these edits aren't positive changes and in some cases damaging. Could you find another area to help in other than sidebars, or, if you still want to work on this, at the very least start from scratch and add them much more cautiously (if need be discussing first with editors on the talk page)? Jr8825 •  Talk  14:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, absent a noticeboard or administrative instruction that a mass--revert be done, it might be more expedient to just go do it with WP:AWB or something. Speaking just to the procedural matter – I have  examined any of the editor's changes to any individual navbox's content myself – if there's a concern that an editor apparently disruptive in navbox placement is now making inappropriate navbox content changes, the likely next step would be opening a calm and diff-backed WP:ANI request (which is not an assumption of guilt but a suggestion for review), to see if the community thinks an admonition, or even a topic-ban from navboxes, is warranted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Acceptable for navboxes to link to other-language Wikipedias?
I think this question is only answered implicitly by the page here and at Navigation template ("links between existing articles belonging to the same topic on English Wikipedia", "do not provide external links to other websites"): should a navigation template include links to other-language Wikipedia projects? Template:Nut confections has a sprinkling of French and German articles buried in its links, which surprised me, but I'm not sure how obvious it is that they shouldn't be there. (Checking the archives here I see a discussion about sister projects, but that seems to be more about Commons and Wikiquote than other-language Wikipedias.) --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to other Wikipedias (a template could get overrun with other-wiki links by someone determined to do so). The sister-project links could be revisited, the original suggestion to codify it (after the use had become common practice for many years) was to allow two or three (i.e. for a painter, Commons. an author, wikisource and wikiquote, etc.) but someone went ahead and put the RfC up as open-ended, the RfC was closed before new information was added and missed by the closer, and it still makes sense to put into the guideline but limited to two or at most three. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * An opinion likely not shared by the group at large, else the RFC would not have been closed as it was. :^) --Izno (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No as per many talks on the matter.-- Moxy 🍁 04:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Randy Kryn. Inter-wiki links should not be used in nav boxes unless the other project intends to use the same template and be WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. In other words, the linked subject is to have the template. It would be difficult if not impossible to include the English language template on another project's page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remove it. May be worth making this unambiguous in the guideline here, if it's come up before. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Navbox and sidebar at same articles
Can both navbox and sidebar be placed at the same article? Or, can the two navigation templates be created for the same topic? Because, both Template:Indian martial arts and Template:Indian martial arts sidebar are used in same articles.--157.44.144.187 (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They can. Should they be? Current thinking seems to be trending toward "no, we don't need two kinds of navboxes on a single article". --Izno (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also think they are redundant. What are you suggesting? One should be deleted? In that case which one should stay? 157.44.144.187 (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Linking to categories in navboxes
Some navbox templates rely heavily on linking to categories rather than articles. This seems problematic for two reasons: What are people's opinions on how to handle this?
 * 1) The links may confuse users expecting to go to an article.
 * 2) In many cases it's basically a reproduction of the category tree UI and is redundant.
 * A. Do nothing (leave as status quo).
 * B. Discourage linking to categories in navboxes.
 * C. Require that category links are displayed as category links ("Category:Cats" vs. "Cats") to avoid confusion.

Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Does WP:BIDIRECTIONAL apply to sidebars?
Does WP:BIDIRECTIONAL apply to sidebars? The paragraph specifically says "navboxes", but the whole section is called "navigation templates", and appears to encompass both navboxes and sidebars. Also, at the bottom, it says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the [sidebar] should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines." Just double checking before I go removing a bunch of sidebars. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like you're reading it correctly, yes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Junk rule that leads to lots of spam and big reason why they are omitted in apps and mobile view. They are considered as link spam by content writers.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 13:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § WikiProject links in navigational templates
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § WikiProject links in navigational templates. --Trialpears (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Sidebars in lead – "top-right corner" phrasing
This guideline refers to sidebars as being often found at the top-right corner of articles. That suggests the top-right of the lead section, a space usually reserved for infoboxes (which this guideline does not mention). For about a year, MOS:LEAD has discouraged the placement of sidebars in the lead section of articles (though they may be allowed on a case-by-case basis), based on a November 2020 RfC. Would it be alright to change the phrasing around "top-right corner" so that readers do not infer that this is their recommended placement, and prominently note that their use in article leads is discouraged? – Reidgreg (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Excessive award templates
In a recent edit summary, pointed to Meryl Streep as an example of an article with a grossly excessive number of navboxes. Their read was that this was a failure caused by WP:BIDI. But my takeaway is that most of these sorts of award navboxes simply shouldn't exist.

Two of the criteria at WP:NAVBOX for articles to be collected in a nav template:
 * The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
 * If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles.

These criteria are not remotely satisfied for most award navboxes (including all the ones at Meryl Streep). The Meryl Streep article does not refer to Alicia Silverstone, Tom Felton, Mila Kunis, etc. because they, like Meryl, won the MTV Movie & TV Award for Best Villain, and it is inconceivable that an editor would wish to link to those other actors in the "See also" section if not for the award navbox.

This seems very similar to WP:PERFNAV and WP:FILMNAV, where we've enumerated particular patterns of linking to avoid because they lead to over-proliferation of navboxes and undue weight. Should we include similar guidance about linking winners in navigation templates about awards? Colin M (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd support that. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for additional opinions
Additional opinions are requested at Talk:Stardust (2007 film), in which we're discussing a navbox that explicitly links to the article, but an editor is maintaining that the navbox shouldn't be included because there's little relation between DC and the film. I reviewed the guideline, and especially WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, but I didn't see any clear indication that navboxes should always be included in articles that they link to. Perhaps the guideline itself should be updated to more explicitly state that, but I'm not sure whether that's the intent. DonIago (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly surprised the question from DonIago didn't generate any discussion. It also seems strange that this months old discussion wasn't relegated to the archives already.
 * The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. I understand that existing statement in the guidelines to mean that there is no requirement to include any Navbox in any article. See also sections are not necessarily required either, so it only seems logical that Navboxes are not necessarily required either. (I brought this up in the previously mentioned discussion, no one argued in favor of keeping the low relevance Navbox in that instance.) Even if some editors continue to take any excuse to include every possible available Navbox, I see no reason to believe that they are exempt from the usual requirements of relevance. -- 109.79.69.204 (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Template spam because of WP:BIDI
We have thousands and thousands of articles with navigation templates spam because of WP:BIDI as seen at Meryl Streep. Never be able to keep up with the thousands of links spam templates made every day. A more recent problem that has arisen from this is sidebar template spam. What is needed is a rule about spamming these all over.... the current rule tells editors to spam all over if you add a link to a template. Template addition should be bases on a cases by cases bases...not de facto added because a page was added to a template. The problem is so bad the mobile versions of Wikipedia omits them. Why should it be on the shoulders of content editors to have to go thru a deletion process to have these removed from affected articles? The process outlined here is the opposite of most rules.... that generally require validation for addition rather then random linkage by association. Inclusion should be the debate not a deletion process that takes lots of time and effort. Moxy - 23:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not go after it on both fronts? WP:AWARDNAV (which is likely to get some pushback) as well as a guideline to aid local case-by-case approaches?  Data in infoboxes and use of categories is limited to key information and defining characteristics, but the practice with navboxes and sidebars has been much looser.  Meryl Streep is already a large article and the extensive collection of navboxes inflate it further and make it unnecessarily cumbersome.  For sidebars, an example of misuse (in my opinion) is Template:Hinduism, which is used in place of an infobox but has over 450 links.  I'd move to ban sidebars from the mainspace altogether. – Reidgreg (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that some editors have interpreted WP:BIDI to mean that nearly all navboxes should be included everywhere possible. Also why aren't those Meryl Streep Awards Navboxes in the article Awards list article instead? (Zero navboxes in the list article at present.) It would be so much better if editors could show some restraint and include only a few of the most relevant Navboxes but that seems unlikely to happen. How about taking a different tack and enforcing MOS:DONTHIDE? If all Navboxes were shown by default instead of collapsed then the reality of gross over-proliferation would be immediately obvious, and editors might be forced do something about it instead of hiding the problem. -- 109.79.69.204 (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category links in navboxes
Is there a markup for including category links in a navbox list? Or is WP:NAVBOX's phrasing in terms of "articles" implying that navboxes should only contain links to articles, and not to categories or templates or other Wikipedia pages?

The template that made me question this is Template:Fishing industry topics, which sprinkles category links throughout its navbox, indistinguishable from article links. Belbury (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Problem with one guideline here, under "Navigation templates"
In my opinion, this sentence this makes no sense; "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent"; i.e., referring to articles listed in a navbox. does anyone mind if I remove this? this is in the section "Navigation Templates.". Sm8900 (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * we have numerous navboxes, listing many varied articles, for which there is no reason whatsoever why the articles should each refer to each other!! why would that be needed??! take a look simply at navboxes for topics relating a single country, and then feel free to tell me why that rule would make any sense! here's some examples!
 * Japan topics,
 * China topics,
 * France topics.
 * Italy topics


 * et cetera!! Sm8900 (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are many kinds of navboxes, not just those. There's no reason to go through and list every example or exception. The key word is "reasonable". - jc37 00:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a perfectly good guideline. If the articles didn't refer to one another to a reasonable extent then you'd have a lot of articles you wouldn't need to navigate between. -- wooden  superman  12:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Superman!! thank goodness! I certainly have neither the temerity nor the panache to bicker with a superhero!!   lol!  ok, anyway, all kidding aside, I do appreciate your willingness to reply. perhaps I should reconsider my views on this. ok, and perhaps I could increase my understanding a bit., how do you feel this should be applied? what is the scope of this guideline,, and the basis? thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Woodensuperman, would welcome any thoughts or comments you might wish to share, on this. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Redlinks and unlinked text in navboxes.
Comments appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Navigation template. -- wooden superman  14:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Inclusion of relatives in navboxes
Should we really be including relatives of people in navboxes just because they are related? We don't categorise people by other people because this is not a defining characteristic, and notability is not inherited, so shouldn't the same principle apply here? As far as I can see this fails points 3 and 5 of navbox also. Take the case of Gregory W. Brown and his inclusion at Dan Brown. We don't need to link to him from every work by his brother on this navbox. It is enough that he is linked in the biographical article. -- wooden superman  15:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would strongly agree, except in the rare case that there is strong overlap (e.g. Frank Herbert and Brian Herbert working on the same fiction franchise; same with J. R. R. Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien; but not [that I know of] Stephen King and Joe Hill (writer)).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. Let's look at every one of the U.S. presidential navboxes, which have included a 'Family' section, likely since the first one was published. It is a standard section. As far as I know it has not been questioned before. The linked articles undeniably provide biographical information about the president's themselves - the subject of the navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe there is some kind of middle ground, some rationale for doing it in certain sorts of cases. There seems to be more public reader interest in relatives of heads of state than relatives of writers or composers. But I'm not really sure how to extrapolate from that into a "razor" to use.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems if a writer was prominent enough go become a cultural icon, say Ernest Hemingway, then the long-term inclusion of his wives, children, parents, etc., flesh out Wikipedia's map of the subject. It's a question of "should a line be drawn" somewhere between Abraham Lincoln, Ernest Heminway, and Dan Brown, or just leave notable family members who have Wikipedia pages remain on a principal topic's navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that does seem basically to be the question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A relative will generally not meet WP:NAVBOX #3: The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. The relative will generally only refer to the subject of the navbox, and not every other related link.  The relation is presumably already mentioned in the respective article's body.—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure I'm following you correctly, since it seems to imply that if musician's navbox lists all their notable albums that each album page needs to talk about the other albums.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but talking about even some of the records is more likely than talking about a relative at all. —Bagumba (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it doesn't entirely address that "articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent" has to be, well, reasonable. It's more reasonable to expect that an article about a Hemingway book will mention some other Hemingway book than mention a Hemingway descendant; but that doesn't necessarily make the Hemingway descendant unreasonable to have in the navbox, since they'll reasonably be mentioned in the main bio and perhaps several other pages, even if not most articles on specific works. Anyway, I don't feel overwhelmingly strongly about inclusion/exclusion, just want to address the reasoning as clearly as possible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Images in navboxes providing no navigational function
Does anyone else have an option at Template talk:The Lord_of the Rings? -- wooden superman  22:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Kind of a biased header here, the discussion isn't so specific. Well thought-out and well selected images on navboxes are in almost all cases fine, as long as the navbox isn't very large. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, according to WP:NAVDECOR they're not fine in any of those cases, but the navbox in question is large anyway. Pretty sure I've seen you advocate against them in presidential navboxes too... -- wooden superman  23:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of the presidential boxes are way too large for images but editors keep putting them on sometimes. Too large, no image (at least in the body of the navbox itself), it really squeezes the large navbox into an elongated shape. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We have way too many navboxes with images that provide no navigational function. If I am reading WP:NAVDECOR and MOS:DECOR correctly, these are a definite no, right?  I cannot see any argument for an image being in Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, it's clear what the article is about from the title. -- wooden  superman  13:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)