Wikipedia talk:Related information

Introduction
Comments welcome! Franamax (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Various comments

 * 1) In the essay, the section objections and responses is confusing.  It looks like it belongs on the talk page rather than on the essay page.  (Doesn't read like an essay.)  Should make it clearer where/who objected, etc.  (Several seem like straw men.)
 * 2) Where is the history on this?  Seems like an idea that should be/have been tossed around in a discussion someplace before popping up here.  If it has a history or there are such discussions, then the talk page (or possibly the essay) should have links to them.  If not, then should bring this up in an appropriate forum (with connections to said forum).
 * 3) * [To answer my own question, here is some history:]
 * 4) * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive523
 * 5) * WP:Village pump (technical)
 * 6) * Wikipedia talk:Layout/Archive 5
 * 7) Claimed advantage of the idea are overstated.
 * 8) * Online: It takes one keystroke (End in FireFox) to get to the bottom of an article. If you are a mousing person, a quick drag down on the scroll bar slider gets you there.  Either of these is a lot faster than finding the table of contents, and getting to the end of it to see what sections are listed.
 * 9) * On paper: Many navigation templates don't print, so this leaves one with an empty section at the end of the article. Also, the table of contents doesn't necessarily print, so one still has to go to the end of the article to see if the section is there.
 * 10) The suggested name "related information" listed does not sufficiently differentiate it from "See also"  Zodon (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the essay can be improved, feel free. The points discussed are a reasonably accurate summary of the nature of the objections (leaving aside some of the ad hominems).
 * There is a little more history, which I'll try to dig up. The WT:LAYOUT archive is most relevant, the other two threads you link are aimed as much at an editor as at the idea.
 * The key point is that the casual reader might not even know that such information exists at the bottom of the article. Nothing about typical article structure suggests it is there. The worry is that people will stop reading at the footnotes. The section heading is just a visual indication in the TOC that there is, well, "related information" at the bottom of the article.
 * The print format is a valid point - except a quick look shows there is indeed at least a category list at the bottom of the print-out. That could just be my settings though, I'll have to try it as an anon.
 * Yes indeed, the "See also" section is a bit of a conflict. Another solution might be to move the See also's down to the bottom, since navboxes are also "see also"s. Franamax (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why the eagerness to assume the reader is a moron incapable of scrolling to the bottom? Has this ever been documented to happen? In any case, we're not a how-to on the scrolling function. - Biruitorul Talk 17:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as the casual reader. Nothing about the new section tells them that the navboxes exist at the end of the article either.  (You have to gain experience to know what the sections mean, but gaining that experience one can just as well learn that navboxes and categories are listed at the bottom by observing them there as by seeing a section).  Zodon (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, I don't understand "eagerness to assume the reader is a moron". The pejorative has been introduced by the opposers and carries a connotation that only a moron would "not" be capable of scrolling down to the bottom. And section headings are not how-to's, they are informative guides to the content locations which are conveniently hyper-linked to jump to the section in question.
 * Second, what the new section does is tell the casual and new user that wiki-linked information exists at the article bottom which is relevant to the topic. Of course, it's only once they actually look at it that they understand what it is. The same situation exists with Notes, Footnotes and References - only there you have to learn article-by-article what those sections actually are, since the names tend to be used somewhat interchangeably. Currently, for a new reader, there is absolutely no way to know those navboxes are at the bottom. Why would I scroll down to the bottom? The TOC already told me they are External links and I'm gonna run out of steam scrolling through the list of 120 references (or footnotes or notes or whatever they happen to be titled). Why would I hit the "End" key when I already know there's nothing there. I'm trying to address this from the standpoint of an unfamiliar user.
 * Lastly, I don't understand the logic of putting internal links into the External links section. I really don't understand that and I haven't seen it well-explained. And I don't see the actual harm of having a section title that solves that little conundrum. Franamax (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's not stop here. It's entirely possible that people who visit wikipedia may not be aware of the scrolling function - let's put it somewhere prominent that "if you drag your mouse over the vertical stripe to the right etc." Also, since it is possible that they don't speak English, and may not be aware of how to click the interwiki links to the left, let's write that message and the article itself in several languages, or at least Esperanto, but all in the same place, while doing our best to produce a text that needs no scrolling. If scrolling is still required, let's add large other large templates saying "there's more below", and place one at every location in the article where a screen length is likely to end, in any setting. Of course, that template should be accompanied by the text "this is a template". The reader may also not be aware of the purpose of bluelinks (very likely in fact, since they're rarely used on non-wiki pages). To counter that, I propose we add the text "click this link for more info" before and after every bluelink, accompanied by an illustration of what "clicking" means. After all, if there's a potential for promoting literacy and computer literacy on wikipedia, why stick with deprecated notions such as common sense?
 * Before enforcing these constructive measures, we should find a solution for the mass of users who may not know the meaning of the words "related" and "information". I'm not talking about those who have raised the objection that an ambiguous and arbitrary header, roughly synonymous with existing ones and placed outside the text and over the templates, creates a confusion (I say we can never have too much confusion!). I'm talking about those who may not know what the two words actually mean. After all, won't anybody think of the children?! Dahn (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Something along these lines, perhaps? - Biruitorul Talk 23:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but with more red. Dahn (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your sarcastic and unhelpful comments are noted. Many thanks for your good-faith attempts to address the various issues on their merits. Franamax (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What merits would those be? The mainstay idea, afaict, is "why would I scroll down do the bottom?" To this, I added more productive questions: why learn a language? why read? why use a computer? why try to make any sense of wiki script? They are all valid concerns. Dahn (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Outdent


 * Where is the documentation that this is a problem for new users? (Where are the commentaries indicating that this is a problem and discussing various solutions?)  Is this solving a problem that exists?  Where are citations that demonstrate that.
 * As far as this material being "in" the external links - as noted most of it isn't properly in the article at all. (It is sort of ancillary extras, tacked on at the end.)  If further navigation help is needed, it should be provided as part of the interface (as I suggested in the village pump discussion), not grafted onto the content (i.e., new section).  Zodon (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see Related information/answers for a systematic response to objections raised here (and elsewhere) to this proposal. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong, you're all wrong!
A page that anticipates and tries to counter opposition makes it plain that there is opposition to it.--Father Goose (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment, what you say is certainly true. That said, I am not sure what the drawback is to acknowledging the concerns raised in the past by those opposed to the idea and responding to those concerns. Indeed, such an approach may be beneficial to the extent that the responses provide a resource for others who, upon first encountering this new proposal, may have the same concerns. And, who knows?, perhaps the responses to those concerns will bring the folks who originally raised them to see the benefits of the proposal. ("Not likely," I hear you say.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the "you're all wrong" heading I used is a tongue-in-cheek representation of what a page that spends so much time on counterarguments reads like -- "To anybody who came here to oppose this, you're all wrong!" It's appropriate to acknowledge opposition but it's self-defeating to have almost the entire proposal dedicated to trying to counter it.  If you can't declare "here's what people have more or less agreed upon", then you have neither a guideline nor a viable proposal.


 * If all you're aiming for is an essay, write it like one: emphasize why you think it's a good idea, and spend some time addressing points of opposition. But spending so much time on it gives the impression that the whole idea is mired in opposition.  Is it?  Then the initiative is hopeless anyway.  I suspect the opposition isn't that strong: a "related information" section is a sensible enough suggestion, and I'd be surprised if anybody cared that strongly about using or not using it one way or the other.--Father Goose (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As explained below, unless the resistance is judged by its ardor rather than its size, there hasn't been substantial opposition so far. But, to be fair, I don't want to ignore the concerns raised about the proposal (even the silly ones). On the other hand, I will take to heart your suggestion to find ways of accomplishing this goal without giving the small but vocal resistance so much credence. (Starting with changing some of the headings.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This essay comes across as defensive because when the concept was first mooted it came under virulent attack by a couple of editors (almost to the extent of "if this happens we'll have to shut the servers down") and some knee-jerk "too many lines in the TOC already" and "not part of the article" responses. It wasn't really possible at the time to have a rational discussion. Curiously, even though it was I who started doing it, it was Bwdik who was attacked as destroyer of the wiki. No-one though actually addressed the issue of why we have internal links listed under External links. Per the comments at WT:LAYOUT, the only way to get this accepted is by trying it out. This essay is just some prior reading for those who wonder about why this new heading has appeared in an article. The reasoning for it only takes a few sentences to spell out. Addressing the mooted objections takes a little longer. Franamax (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. Much better now. :-P

Let the opposers oppose to their heart's content on this talk page. But limit the essay page to making a simple and logical case for the section's use. If the community as a whole rejects its use, so be it. But don't shoot yourself in the foot by writing a page about "why this proposal is opposed and shouldn't be".--Father Goose (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Is "per" appropriate?
Actually, having read the prior discussions on their use, I now see that so far the use of such sections has been pretty strongly opposed. With that in mind, it seems very disingenuous to continue adding them with a WP:Per statement in the edit summary ("per WP:NAVHEAD"). A "per" statement in an edit summary generally suggests that the action being taken is generally supported for the reasons laid out in the cited page.--Father Goose (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is my opinion that the opposition to this proposal is deeper than it is wide. I can count on one hand the number of editors who have expressed visceral distaste for the idea. More recently, the Related information heading has been added to a number of articles, some rather high profile, with nary a comment suggesting any concern with adding a heading above navboxes.


 * That said, I do not want to edit inappropriately. Would it be better for me to say "as explained at" or simpley "see" rather than "per"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd go with "rationale at WP:NAVHEAD", but it's up to you.--Father Goose (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments plz
Version one or version two? I happen to think the version I wrote (version one) makes a more convincing case for using "Related information" headings, but I wrote it, so I'm biased. Can we get the feedback of others watching this page?--Father Goose (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since I wrote version two (incorporating some of the text from version one) I think version two is better. But, I bet, the best version lies somewhere inbetween (or beyond). So I'll complicate matters by suggesting that anyone who responds to your request for comment not limit themselves to an "either/or" choice. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Granted. It wasn't my intention to imply that only one version or the other was possible.  And asking for outside opinions is probably silly on my part because Franamax seems to be the only other person paying attention to this page at this time.--Father Goose (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I thought I heard an echo as we were talking. (The good new is that I think that the silence means the overall community feels that the proposal is, at worst, harmless.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Still, I happen to think the phrasing you've been choosing is a little too rah-rah. You're taking time to "sell" the benefits of navboxes -- that's not a pitch you need to make here.  People are already convinced of their benefits, and are using them all over the place.  You're also emphasizing being able to jump to the navboxes via the ToC; I have to agree with those who have opposed "related information" headings that that's not much of a selling point at all.  Segmentation of the different types of appendices is an excellent reason for using a "related information" heading, and you should emphasize it above all others.  Being able to jump straight to the navbox section of an article strikes me as a "how important is that?" point.--Father Goose (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this: We'll go back to your version and I'll make some small changes over time (as I would do to my version as well). Then you can judge each one with regard to whether you think that change improves or dimishes the overall effect. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't possibly complain about that.--Father Goose (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

template:navbox
Since we're here, what's your opinion of the last sentence, about template:navbox? I notice you removed it from "your version". I wouldn't complain if you removed it from this one either, although I think it's worth mentioning in some capacity.--Father Goose (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am troubled by the "as an alternative" text because that alternative doesn't provide a table of contents entry (one of the two benefits of a heading). Since you made the offer I'll take out that clause. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. I did a bit of a rewrite of the text regarding categories that you inserted -- I hope it keeps alive the idea you were going for.--Father Goose (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, am I correct that the template default setting is "hide"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the docs, it defaults to "autocollapse": Template:Navbox.--Father Goose (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems odd to me that the default is to hide information. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"moronic, and not policy but an essay"
This is a new objection to the Related information hearing: Based on the other articles being edited by this person and the the tone of the explanations for the Related information reverts, I believe these anonymous edits are from one of the handful of editors who complained in the early days. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Enh, at least he/she isn't reverting you on a mass scale. Like you said above, the average response to it is probably somewhere between "harmless" and "sensible".  We'll just have to let acceptance of it build up over time.--Father Goose (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Pick your battles
I'd say "pick your battles" when it comes to this edit. You've got your hands full just convincing people that a heading for navboxes is a sensible idea -- how much do you want to drag the "internal before external" holy war into it? If "Related information" becomes standard, then it might be a good time to revisit the question.--Father Goose (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FG, since I thought your rewrite was pretty compelling, I'm not averse to whatever changes or deletions you might apply to my changes. Even if that means you just undo my changes. I added some verbiage to try to flesh out the rationale somewhat, but having been pretty close to this, I doubt my oversight will be as acute as your own. Change away man, change away! :) Franamax (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't want to be bossy. I came in, changed everything, and now I'm making sure that nobody changes my changes!  It feels weird that the two of you are letting me get away with it. :-)


 * I'll give the changes you made an overnight and see how I feel about them in the morning.--Father Goose (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd definitely defer that issue.--Father Goose (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Take to MoS?
Shouldn't this matter be raised at the Manual of Style pages etc. to find out what the community consensus is on it one way or another? It seems rather disruptive to write an essay knowing that current practice is against it, and then start putting the "advice" into practice.--Kotniski (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Against current practice?
If you will, let me begin here: I will agree with you that the concept is new and, therefore, is different from the current practice. But does that lead to the conclusion that it is "against" current practice? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think one can say current practice is against it, though as yet it can't be called a standard practice either. It is a practice that has its detractors, though that can even be said of the standard appendices.--Father Goose (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I am looking forward to a reply from Kotniski, who evidently disagrees. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Merits of the proposal
I personally am convinced that it is, at worst, harmless, and in many cases, an improvement in layout.--Father Goose (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm generally anti-clutter - this idea puts clutter in two places: an extra line in the table of contents, and an extra heading at the bottom of the article. Neither of these things seems to serve any purpose - Wikipedia users quickly learn that they can find this kind of information at the bottom of articles, so they don't need to be directed to it from the table of contents (in fact it might mislead them, since they might click "Related information" expecting to go to somewhere like the "See also" section, see that the section appears to be empty and give up). The heading at the bottom of the article doesn't tell the reader anything they can't see with their own eyes (and again, makes it look like there's an empty section there). Personally I would like to combine all the see also/notes/references/external links under one TOC heading ("Further information and notes" or something like that) to keep the size of the TOC down - I don't expect many people would agree with that, but I don't think there's much support for adding yet more headings.--Kotniski (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside: If I ruled the world the navboxes would be in the See also section and there wouldn't be an issue about a separate heading. But that's not going to happen. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Raise at Manual of Style?
Well actually I did raise this at MOS (or rather WT:LAYOUT) when I first had the idea. I started out at VP:Sandy, then went where she suggested and asked there. The response was that WP:LAYOUT could only reflect existing practice, so changes to WP:LAYOUT could only be considered if the practice was accepted. As Bwdik notes, there's an obvious paradox if we change everything so that it meets current guidelines but also say we can't change current guidelines because everything is already done that way. We end up with a dead encyclopedia that way. The recommendation at the time was (seemed to be) to try it out and see if it met with acceptance on an article-by-article basis, by the editors of those articles. I don't think the concept has met all that much opposition on that basis, rather the opposition has seemed to be external from editors actually familiar with each article. It seems to stem more from ideological opposition and/or "not in MOS" grounds, sometimes including blanket reverts. Franamax (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we just have an RfC, publicized at the MoS pages and generally, to decide whether people want this or not?--Kotniski (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you choose to interpret a "no consensus" result -- neither prohibited nor encouraged? I suspect an RfC will end that way, only with lots of people suddenly aware that it is the most important thing possible.  Can't say I'm looking forward to that possibility.--Father Goose (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the RfC wouldn't be so totally inconclusive as not to indicate any way forward at all - but generally speaking, if there's no consensus to change an established practice, then it stays unchanged.--Kotniski (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Using this header isn't an established practice, though that alone shouldn't be counted against it. If there's no consensus to use it (or not use it) at an RfC, where does that leave us?  A lot of people worked up about it, in both directions, and an increased chance of edit warring over something people normally would have just ignored.--Father Goose (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "if there's no consensus to change an established practice, then it stays unchanged." - Is this from some Wikipedia policy or guideline? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly it's written down somewhere. But it's... well, an established practice. (And it makes sense, otherwise we would have continuous back-and-forth change.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a grain of truth to what Kotniski's saying. However, if something is written up as an "established practice" within a policy or guideline, and consensus for it is later found to be absent (even just "no consensus"), it shifts from "established practice" to "contentious practice".  The mere presence of objection, however, does not mean consensus has disappeared; consensus, once tested, is assumed to continue to exist until retested.--Father Goose (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No change without a shift in consensus makes sense if the change has been proposed in the past and rejected. But what about a new proposal that the community has not previously considered (and there is no "back" to "forth")? Are you saying that there is an established practice requiring pre-approval before the first edit is made? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but on a WP:BRD basis, once opposition is encountered, I would have thought the wiki thing to do would be to find out explicitly what the community thinks, rather than carry on making the changes.--Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I have to concede this point. I just don't look forward to dragging more people into a disagreement over something ultimately so minor.--Father Goose (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Back to the merits
Five thoughts: First, correct me if I am wrong but it appears that you (Kotniski) now agree that the "against consensus" rationale does not apply to the proposed navbox heading. Second, I appreciate that you are complying with wp:BRD by promptly following your R with a good faith D. (Something that cannot be said of most of the other opponents of this proposal.) Third, I hope that you appreciate that I have - in the spirit of BRD - stopped propagating the heading pending a resolution of this D. Fourth, according to wp:BRD: "You can use the article's talk page (preferred) or the editor's user talk page, but one or the other is the proper forum for the discussion component of the BRD cycle." So it would seem that the place to have this discussion is right where we are having it. Finally, as Franamax indicates above, the recommendation from wp:Layout was do what I am doing: add the heading to pages and see whether substantial opposition arises. Accordingly, the heading has now been added to a number of high volume main space pages and many Wikipedia space pages (where, presumably, the editors who care the most about policy are likely to take notice). As Franamax also notes above, the editors of those articles have not reverted or raised any meaningful objection to the new heading. And, with the exception of yourself, the less than a handful of external reverting editors have shown no inclination to follow up with a good faith discussion. To me that is a good indication of what the general community thinks. All that said, you have come to this page and raised concerns in good faith. So I'd like to return the discussion to the substance of your concerns, to wit: ''I'm generally anti-clutter - this idea puts clutter in two places: an extra line in the table of contents, and an extra heading at the bottom of the article. Neither of these things seems to serve any purpose - Wikipedia users quickly learn that they can find this kind of information at the bottom of articles, so they don't need to be directed to it from the table of contents (in fact it might mislead them, since they might click "Related information" expecting to go to somewhere like the "See also" section, see that the section appears to be empty and give up). The heading at the bottom of the article doesn't tell the reader anything they can't see with their own eyes (and again, makes it look like there's an empty section there).'' Are there any other concerns that you have? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I can't think of any others, that pretty much sums up my objections (I don't know what objections others might have).--Kotniski (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Clutter without benefit
The cost of an additional line in the table of contents must be considered against the the benefit of providing helpful information to readers. As to cost, readers familiar with Wikipedia can quickly scroll past the appendix listings in the table of contents – it matters not whether there are five rather than four headings to skip. So the cost seems small. As to benefit, as explained at MOS: Headings provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily. Because some articles have navbox headings and some don't, having the heading appear only when there are navboxes provides both of these benefits (even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that there is little to be gained by the appearance of a separator between the External links and navboxes). In sum, the benefit seems large relative to the cost. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Confusion (empty section)
I wonder whether there is some misunderstanding regarding the proposal. I don't read it as suggesting that there be a Related information heading placed in articles that don't have navboxes. Should the essay be modfied to make that point clearer? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I think what Kotniski is saying about "see that the section is empty and give up" is that someone might expect to see regular text, not template(s) in the "related information" section, and not make the connection that the templates are the "related information".


 * I doubt that's going to be a problem, personally. Seeing it in place on pages like Smartphone, it's clear to me that the "Related information" refers to what's in the templates immediately below the heading.--Father Goose (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * All right, I suppose once you get used to it, it becomes clearer. But on that page we now have a "See also" section and a "Related information" section. Isn't that just going to be confusing and misleading to newcomers? (And it's really only newcomers whom this idea can benefit - anyone who's been reading Wikipedia for more than a few minutes knows where to look for navbox and category info without having a special heading.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an issue Franamax and Butwhatdoiknow have been raising. But it's an issue that's already on Wikipedia.  The current convention is that "See also" is the first appendix, navboxes the last (and categories after that, as hard-coded into the software).


 * There's a chance that if "related information" becomes standard, the community might rethink "see also", and move it to the bottom along with the navboxes and categories. I do think there's a logical argument to be made for that approach, though it's not one of those things that makes a huge difference either way.--Father Goose (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd vote for that. Then there would be no need for a Related information heading. (As an aside, good catch on this one. The more time I spend with your "just the facts" approach to this essay the more I see the wisdom in it.). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * While you (Kotniski) may disagree, I maintain above that it is not only newcomers who benefit from a "Related information" heading in the table of contents. That aside, as Father Goose points out, the problem with confusion arises from the established practice of having the see also information in separated See also and navbox sections. Adding a heading for the navboxes doesn't make that confusion any worse and, by giving navboxes their own heading, may alleviate it somewhat. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So why not be explicit, and make the heading say "Navboxes and categories"?--Kotniski (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternate title
So why not be explicit, and make the heading say "Navboxes and categories"?--Kotniski (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, "navboxes" is wiki lingo, and "navigation boxes" isn't a whole lot better. I'd be open to a name other than "related information", though -- what other names have been considered so far?--Father Goose (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * None that I know of, but we are early in the process so a change would not be disruptive. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How about "Navigation aids"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nah, so far "related information" is still sounding better.--Father Goose (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That alternative did actually come up early on, can't remember where. One obvious problem was in any article to do with ships &c. Also the faint suggestion of some hideous disease. ;) Franamax (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

At the Village Pump
It appears that the approach recommended here is causing problems with print editions (which don't have navboxes, so ==Related information== is blank). Editors here may want to join the discussion at Village_pump_(policy). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now @ Village pump (policy)/Archive 75. See also:
 * - Village pump (policy)/Archive 63
 * - Wikipedia talk:Layout/Archive 5 - 92.1.90.14 (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * More about this when I get the time. Meanwhile, interested readers can check out the generic response at WP:Related information/answers. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to trump the MoS through an essay
Using this essay to support such a heading is taking an underhanded approached to circumvent the MoS and the usual discussion avenues for changing it. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you research the history please? This idea was first proposed at MoS and the advice was that MoS is guidance based on common practice and if this idea became common practice, only then would MoS consider changing their guidance. Hence it is necessary to try the idea "in the field" to see if it gains acceptance. Surely you don't propose a permanently static MoS and wiki which can never change, because MoS only describes current practice and current practice must only ever and always conform to MoS? Or did you have a different idea on what the "usual discussion avenues" are? Franamax (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To save you the bother of researching the history, here it is:
 * Well actually I did raise this at MOS (or rather WT:LAYOUT) when I first had the idea. I started out at VP:Sandy, then went where she suggested and asked there. The response was that WP:LAYOUT could only reflect existing practice, so changes to WP:LAYOUT could only be considered if the practice was accepted. As Bwdik notes, there's an obvious paradox if we change everything so that it meets current guidelines but also say we can't change current guidelines because everything is already done that way. We end up with a dead encyclopedia that way. The recommendation at the time was (seemed to be) to try it out and see if it met with acceptance on an article-by-article basis, by the editors of those articles. I don't think the concept has met all that much opposition on that basis, rather the opposition has seemed to be external from editors actually familiar with each article. It seems to stem more from ideological opposition and/or "not in MOS" grounds, sometimes including blanket reverts. Franamax (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Following that advice, those of us who believe that the Related information heading is a good idea began making edits. And, to save the trouble of explaining the edit repeatedly, wrote this essay to refer to. See generally WP:ESSAYS. That aside, do you have a substantive concern for which there is no response here? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

General layout concerns
My general concern is to establish what constitutes the article proper, what is ancillary matter or apparatus, and what is solely navigationa aid. Clearly hat-notes, "what links here" and navboxes fall into the third category - but See also does too. From a purely layout perspective headers for navboxes are not great. On the other hand my sympathies lie with navboxes being part of the article physically, coming before ciatation lists, but possibly after content footnotes. Rich Farmbrough, 17:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC).


 * The problem is that Wikipedia is not the result of Intelligent Design. If it were, and if I had been the designer, I'd have put navboxes in the See also section and there would be no need to propose that they have an additional heading. But, since they appear all by themselves at the end of articles, I favor a separate hearing (for the reasons set forth in the essay). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Raised at WP:VPP
I have raised this essay at the Village Pump, currently here. You are invited to comment. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverted footnote
My issue, which I've clearly explained, is not that the specific text isn't supportive. It's that it's a very selective quote out of context from a post that was otherwise almost entirely critical of this idea. In short, I find its use disingenuous in its selectiveness; tbhe person quoted was not supportive in his assessment of the idea, and to select one sentence that makes it sound like he was is very objectionable. That the rest of the linked thread was rather down on it is also hidden by the selective use. It's one thing for an essay to express the authors' opinions, but it shouldn't quote another user that hasn't directly contributed, especially in a questionable fashion. oknazevad (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Before we get to the footnote, let me ask whether you find fault with the text it is linked to: Do you agree that Layout "does not require or prohibit navbox headings"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Layout makes it pretty clear that the order of footer sections logically follows an internal-to-external structure, with other Wikipedia article listed first under "see also", citations, which bridge article content with its external sources, next, then pure external links, which contain no Wikipedia content last. So Adding a header that contains entirely on-Wikipedia material does not, in my opinion, follow the logic behind Layout.
 * Conceivably, navboxes should go under "see also", but as they're designed as pure footers from a page layout perspective, they belong on the bottom. The thing this proposal/essay fails to understand is that navboxes are not article content. They are metacontent, just like infoboxes and the common page borders, tabs, etc. So I do not believe any header for them is needed. oknazevad (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * O.k., so you think that Layout should prohibit navbox headings. But, does it? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that Layout, as written, makes clear which headers are intended, and a navbox header is not one of them. oknazevad (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I still don't know whether you believe that Layout, as written, prohibits navbox headings. Is there some reason you can't answer that question "yes" or "no"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Re-read my last response. Layout is written in the affirmative imperative, that is, it states what to do. It does not call for a navbox header, so, I do believe using one goes against layout. Which I already said. "A navbox header is not one of them" is about as clear as can be. Are you being willfully obtuse? oknazevad (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am being careful, not obtuse. My goal is to respond to your concerns regarding the footnote you believe should be deleted, so I want to be sure that I clearly understand what those concerns are. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I correctly summarize your comments as "I believe that Layout, on its face, prohibits navbox headings"? Or, as it appears to me, are you saying something less definitive (such as "I construe Layout to imply that navbox headings are prohibited" or "I construe Layout to imply that navbox headings are discouraged")? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. I believe Layout states exactly which headings to include to have a consistent format across articles based on a logical order of internal-to-external content. These are called the "standard appendicies". A heading for navboxes is not included, and therefore this essay conflicts with Layout. oknazevad (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, well now that you mention it, I can see an expressio unius basis to construe the first paragraph of wp:Layout as excluding a navbox heading. The primary problem with that construction is that no one else seems to agree. Indeed, even folks who side with you regarding the merits of the navbox heading proposal say that Layout should exclude navbox headings - not that it already does. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Footnote Itself
But to reiterate, that's my issue with the heading. My issue with the footnote is that it's quoting out of context in a way that makes it appear the person was supportive of the proposal, when the full passage makes it clear that the person was skeptical at best. I find that objectionable. oknazevad (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My overall reading of the discussion to which the footnote links is that, without getting into an assessment of the extent to which folks favored or opposed the idea, a navbox heading is permissible. Do you agree with that reading? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that it was permissible—or at least that it was permissible two and a half years ago; the community tries to leave room for experiments like this, but that doesn't mean that we let them run forever. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I do think it's a little silly to quote one editor's opinion as if that editor were the final arbiter on the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that is the next question (how to present the link in the footnote). The first question is whether the link supports the text. I'd like to try to come to some understanding with Oknazevad regarding that before I try to reach an agreement with him (and you) regarding the specific language to put in the footnote. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think WhatamIdoing makes a very good point about the use of one editor's off-hand comment as so definitive. I believe it reinforces my point: this is not in anyway an acceptable use of a footnote. It's an out-of-context quote of an off-hand comment in an otherwise skeptical (at best) posting being held up as the be-all-end-all of pronouncements on this proposal. I'm sorry, but there's no way I can ever endorse any version of this footnote for reasons of personal intellectual honesty. oknazevad (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We're getting sidetracked here. My current question is whether the footnote LINK supports the ARTICLE ESSAY text. WhatamIdoing seems to say that it does (or did). Oknazevad, do you agree with him or disagree? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not believe the linked conversation supports the essay (not article), no. It is ambivalent at best. oknazevad (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. The question I meant to ask was whether the footnote supports the particular sentence in the essay that it is attached to. Can you give me your opinion on that? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Portals
So should portal links be in external links or related information?--~TPW 16:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * wp:SEEALSO says they go in the See also section. If I ruled the world that is where the navboxes would go as well. Do you want to join me in lobbying for that change? If adopted it would eliminate the need for a navbox heading. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See also is presently just a mishmash of whatever people are in the mood to toss in there, so it would be nice to give it a really cohesive purpose. Where does a lobbying effort like that take place?--~TPW 13:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My guess is wp:Layout. There are likely to be two objections to a proposal to allow navboxes in See also. First, "it is too late because so many articles already have them at the end." This is contrary to the organic nature of Wikipedia but consistent with human nature (which is adverse to change). I don't know how you respond to that. Second, "it puts a big box in the middle of articles." My thought for a response to that is we propose that only collapsed navboxes be allowed in See also. Oh, there is a third argument: "Layout only says what we do, not what we should do." But that seems contrary to wp:GUIDES. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Navboxes are digressions, as are portals. We should finish dealing with the matter at hand, before we start to digress.
 * So navboxes should be at the end, and See also and Portals should also be shifted to the end where See also can serve as the introductory heading for the navboxes.
 * Then we would have the on-target References and External links with the main body, before we start wandering down the primrose path.
 * Varlaam (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. Unfortunately, the first editors chose to put Wikipedia content - including See also links - ahead of non-Wikipedia content (such as External links. Probably too late to change that now. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The author's choice
Is Related information now at a point where it is sufficiently mature as a concept that if the author opts for it we can just respect that and move on? So it is then akin to a spelling decision, or someone choosing the (cringe) BCE calendar? Varlaam (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As this point it is an "author's choice" option. That said, a number of users want to ban the heading. And wp:LAYOUT is currently taking a neutral stance. So it may be premature to say that the concept has matured to the point of consensus. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Why should Navboxes be buried below the fold?
The reasons for the Navbox style guidelines I'm seeing are: Reason 1. "The publishing industry places them at the end of the page."

''The publishing industry has a finite page-length to work with and 100% of the page in a book or journal is presented to the reader in its entirety. Generally, a magazine will place a Navbox/footnote/lists on the same page/section that the information relates to -- not stacked up at the end of the a multiple page article -- and surely not the end of the bibliography in a book.''

Reason 2. " Horizontal navboxes make good borders at the end of an article."

''I contend that the Navbox makes a good border at the end of a section and my experiments have found that they can keep images from spilling into the following section. (I don't know if this is a Java no-no or not, but I assume the same could be done with a 100% width table.)''

Reason 3. "Everybody else puts their Horizontal navboxes at the bottom."

One problem I might envision is when a new editor, edits a section in a long article, she might not even be aware of a collapsed Navbox's existence and create a duplicate list in the body that already exists in the Navbox.

The "Related information" section heading would be an improvement, but I contend that navboxes are much more informative in the section that the information relates to. I read somewhere that the rule is that Navboxes should only contain internal-links, so I'm failing to see why Navboxes should go below the External links section.

Even on this short article Filmography, it seems to make more sense to have the option to keep the Navbox with the relevant content. 009o9 (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All very good points. Unfortunately, that boat has sailed. So the Related information heading is a workaround. Another workaround, just now emerging, is putting a link in the See also section. See, e.g., Epigenetics. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response, I'm using the "Related information" heading, and where I'd like to have the Navbox, I;ve put a Template:Details with the "Related information" heading as the internal-link. The template seems to be programmed correctly for this and exposes the pound-sign so that more sophisticated users will know that they are not leaving the page.


 * The result is, For more details on "Section Topic" see (pnd-sgn)Related information


 * I wonder if I'm breaking any style rules with this method?


 * Thanks again for your response 009o9 (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You aren't breaking any rules that I know of. My one concern about your new approach is this: Some editors revert a "Related information" heading on sight (mostly, as near as I can tell, because they just don't like it). If that happens then you have templates that link to nothing. I suppose you could add hidden text to the heading saying that it shouldn't be deleted because the article contains links to the heading. More work for you. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Just as a point of order on this discussion, it seems to me, based on looking at the article that the user that started this section has been working on, they don't really know what the purpose and nature of a navbox of actually is. They created spurious navboxes directly on an article, when they are meant to be stand-alone templates that appear on multiple pages. 009o9 was using the navboxes in lieu of tables for discographies, filmographies and stage appearances. While a proper chart would go in the proper section, navboxes are not the proper format for what they were trying to accomplish. That's probably why they were so confused as to their placement; what they were doing wasn't actually a proper navbox. oknazevad (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've spent all morning trying to determine what a "Proper" horizontal/footer Navbox is. It's fairly obvious what Infoboxes are, but I'm not seeing an MOS for Navboxes. Here's a quote from WP:NAV, "A navigation template, navbox or topicbox is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles. Editing of a navigation template is done in a central place, the template page." From there question is, what is a template page?


 * A search for WP:Template page yields nothing. WP:NAV also states that is not a policy or a guideline so the whole topic is about as clear as mud.   Further, WP:NAV also states, "Some WikiProjects maintain a list of their navigation templates." Huh?


 * WP:LAYOUT has two sentences on Navboxes and doesn't list a shortcut to WP:NAV, I'd missed the section until after I had spent a lot of time designing a few of them.


 * Template:Navbox does not specifically state that Navboxes do not belong in the article namespace, it doesn't state that they belong in template namespace, it doesn't state that Navboxes belong in the footer. And there are no links to an MOS for Navboxes.


 * Where's the MOS for footer Navboxes?


 * I'll be addressing and hope to have a conversation about the edits to Sara Niemietz on the Talk:Sara Niemietz page.


 * Regards, 009o9 (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just above the two sentences in wp:Layout you refer to there is a link to wp:NAVBOX. Does that help answer your questions at all? 75.249.74.168 (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I hadn't noticed the "main" template. I was looking for a user box with the shortcut in it like most of the other sections in WP:LAYOUT. WP:NAVBOX is the main discovery point for new editors (me)to discover Navbox and WP:NAVBOX needs to be edited so people don't spend an inordinate amount of time on a feature they can't use in articlespace. 009o9 (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the guidelines for navboxes are too fractured to provide clear guidance; the question of when, where and how use a navbox should be on the page about navboxes, even if it is duplicative of the material on the page that also describes lists and categories. And I very much think tht the WP:NAVBOX shortcut is mid-aimed; it should point to the navbox specific page, as one might expect. oknazevad (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)