Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

Editors watching this page are welcome to chime in on my talk page to discuss whether this version or this version of {{Jackson MS TV}} should be preferred, based on WP:NAVBOX and other guidelines. Please comment in that original thread instead of here, per WP:TALKFORK. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Input requested at this discussion regarding permitting tangential links into navboxes per this edit on the explanatory essay --woodensuperman 07:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Template:History of Algeria by period has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Is there a list/index of categories somewhere? I've looked around on numerous info pages on categories and can't find a list/index or any links to a list/index. BetsyRogers (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Percentage of navbox authorship has been a longtime feature of page histories, but disappeared about a week ago. Can we get this back please? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Somebody somewhere fixed it. Thanks! Randy Kryn (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Dan Brown#Inclusion of Dan Brown's brother in the navbox. --woodensuperman 11:56, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Nothing tangential about it, relatives are a major feature of a person's biography and have always been included and welcomed on biographical navboxes. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

If we are to interpret "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional." the following way:

"the navigation is intended to be WP:BIDRECTIONAL, not just a list of all the sections where a relationship is mentioned. the navbox is intended to highlight the standalone articles which are the prominent connections, the rest are all available in the connections article if not split out"

then we should add that navboxes ought to only contain pages on which the navbox appears. Selbstporträt (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I want to change the guideline whichso that it prohibits leaderboard navboxes. An example is Template:Most populous urban areas of Norway. No consensus can be established as to how many entries should be listed. Logoshimpo (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The line I want to include is "Navboxes should not be created to navigate an arbitary number of entries.". Logoshimpo (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

user:EurekaLott: You can't say there's on consensus to justify reversion. I've already started this discussion and if you have any specific reason you disagree, you should be explaining it here. Logoshimpo (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I removed your addition because it's vague and bad advice. While some navigation boxes include a known number of entries (like Template:Academy Award for Best Actor), others don't have a set number of entries and could be considered arbitrary (like Template:New York City). Your wording would call for the elimination of templates like the latter.

The real reason you added the line is obvious, though. The deletion discussion for Template:USPopulousCities didn't conclude the way you wanted it to, so you're trying to delete it through other means. Knock it off, please. - Eureka Lott 15:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Stop WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS as that wasn't the real reason I want it deleted. Here are the redirects to Template:Most populous urban areas of Norway:

• Template:25 biggest cities of Norway
• Template:42 most populous cities of Norway
• Template:30 most populous cities of Norway
• Template:40 most populous cities of Norway

There isn't an ideal number for the number of entries from the creator's perspective and from mine. For competitions, 2 would be the ideal number while others would say 3, 5, 10, 25, 50 and the list goes on.

{{New York City}} isn't a straight ranking and gathers multiple topics into the template. {{Most populous urban areas of Norway}} and {{USPopulousCities}} gathered/gathers only one type of entry. Logoshimpo (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Since WP:NAVBOX already includes the word "small", here are some proposals:

• "Sections in navboxes should be finite and not include an arbitrary number of ranked entries."
• "Sections in navboxes should be finite and comprehensive and not include an arbitrary number of ranked entries."
• "Sections in navboxes should be finite, thorough, and comprehensive and not include an arbitrary number of ranked entries."

Logoshimpo (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Or "Sections in navboxes should be finite, thorough, comprehensive, and exhaustive and not include an arbitrary number of ranked entries." Logoshimpo (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no dispute here, but two or more editors who have reverted the user-preferred wording for lack of consensus. The reason for adding this language, "I want to change the guideline so that it prohibits leaderboard navboxes", evolved and a seemingly work-around from a failed change earlier. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Give me diffs and I'll believe you. Logoshimpo (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Any input at Template talk:Woodstock#Performers would be appreciated. --woodensuperman 11:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Wikipedia policies and guidelines Wikipedia technical issues and templates When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There hasn't been any clear guidance on whether navboxes with an arbitrary number of ranked entries should be allowed. Templates such as this have been deleted in the past but others remain.

Should the following be added to the guideline:

Sections in navboxes should be finite and not include an arbitrary number of ranked entries. That is: navbox entries should not use an arbitrary number as its threshold or inclusion criterion. In other words: an arbitrary cutoff should not be used when deciding how many entries to include in the navbox itself or navbox section.

09:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: (Summoned by bot) – I'd be happy to opine, but I have no idea what you are asking about, in particular, "ranked entries". Also, whatever it is, does this represent a change from some existing policy or guideline, and if so, can you link it? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • He's whining about templates like Template:USPopulousCities but has failed to give any reason why these are a problem. Many navboxes have an arbitrary set of entries. I think that's a pretty good topic to want to navigate between. Reywas92^Talk 15:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

    Whining? Why don't you grow up? Template:Most populous urban areas of Norway [the template that I linked to] has had the following redirects:

    • Template:25 biggest cities of Norway
    • Template:42 most populous cities of Norway
    • Template:30 most populous cities of Norway
    • Template:40 most populous cities of Norway

    If we abide by WP:CONSENSUS then we need to make an effort to standardize templates. Consensus isn't voting and since we don't have any guidance on how many entries to list, we are simply making ad hoc solutions/decisions to how many entries we should include on templates. Logoshimpo (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

    Why should I care about template redirects? I am baffled what point you're trying to make. Why do we need standarized templates to the point that a certain type of information should be disallowed? Template:Norway topics is different from Template:Germany topics is different from Template:Greece topics is different from Template:Serbia topics. Literally every entry on these is ad hoc and that's okay. I don't know what that template looked like, but it seems redundant to Template:25 largest municipalities of Norway, which is appropriately on its linked pages. The fact that it has an arbitrary cut-off of 25 does not mean it must be standardized to Template:50 most populous Finnish municipalities or Template:Municipalities of Iceland or deleted outright. — Reywas92^Talk 15:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

    None of Template:Norway topics, Template:Germany topics, Template:Greece topics, nor Template:Serbia topics has any ranking. If a ranked list exists then that should not be allowed as there is no way to establish consensus as to the ideal threshold of entries. Logoshimpo (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The location of the insertion is here. Logoshimpo (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this represents a change to WP:NAVBOX but is an addition to it. The text in <blockquote></blockquote> is tentative and is not set in stone. Logoshimpo (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Pointless and unnecessary, unclear why you've made this your crusade. Reywas92^Talk 14:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm having to revert more of this user's stupid edits. Here he believes that Nashville, Memphis, and other major cities should not be linked in Template:Tennessee because the top ten is an arbitrary number of cities in that section. So what??? Why do you think this navbox is better without these relevant articles??? Reywas92^Talk 16:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe a little more 'assume good faith' and less name calling, thanks. The nominator is an experienced editor with a few thousand edits and a respectable 98.9 edit retention rate, so is not a newbie with a bright idea. Maybe the belief that everyone who doesn't mind "top 10" or "top 100" listings is wrong, even though such listings are popular and accepted as a long-term factor on Wikipedia, will be part of a dreaded-but-essential Wikipedia learning curve. But Logoshimpo seems to firmly hold their opinion, and nothing wrong in defending and trying to implement something that they are sure about. It will likely end as more of a realization that you win some and lose some on Wikipedia, and when lost you drop the stick (until the next time), but the journey to change is admirable although, of course and of necessity, comes up short sometime. In a large nod to Reywas92, thank you for doing the task of returning removed entries to many U.S. state navboxes. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, so what. Just because Nashville, Memphis, and other major cities are among the top 10 most populated cities isn't a valid reason for inclusion. You should be aware of WP:Systemic bias and you haven't presented a reason why norwegian cities shouldn't get a template but americans should. Logoshimpo (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me? Why would I believe Norwegian cities shouldn't get a template? I absolutely think there should be a navbox that includes the largest Norwegian cities. Template:25 largest municipalities of Norway appears to be at the bottom of each of its linked city articles, as it should be. Why would the largest cities in Tennessee not be relevant enough for a navbox about important topics related to the state? — Reywas92^Talk 15:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not what is WP:ITSIMPORTANT. It's what relevant. Logoshimpo (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

So you're telling me Nashville and Memphis are irrelevant to Tennessee? Holy crap, why are wasting our time with this nonsense? Go do something useful. — Reywas92^Talk 13:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

What I am telling you is Template:Named sapphires has a finite list of entries and WP:NAVBOX says "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles" [own emphasis]. All of the entries are relevant because they are part of a group. You are telling me entries should be included because they are important and I am telling you that isn't how navboxes should be designed. Logoshimpo (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree that Sections in navboxes should be finite but the rest leaves me floundering for anything to say in support. Thincat (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
• Opposed. Now that I understand the domain of the question, I am opposed for a couple of reasons. The main reason is that the wording at the top suggested as an addition to the guideline is unclear and liable to multiple readings and would likely lead to more strife and therefore would make the guideline worse, not better, even if I supported your overarching goal. If I had to guess what your goal is, you want to exclude a specific number from the group label (left-hand column) of Navboxes, so that labels like "Top 10 cities" or "Top 25 cities by income" are forbidden, but "Top cities by area" or "Most populous cities" or "Major cities" or "Top cities by HDI" are allowed; is that it? If so, I sympathize, but am still opposed as it seems like instruction creep. Is there a reason why this must be enshrined in a guideline as opposed to just leaving it up to consensus in each template? I can't see one. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes: labels/sections like "Top 10 cities" or "Top 25 cities by income" should be forbidden. "Top cities by area" or "Most populous cities" or "Major cities" or "Top cities by HDI" should also be forbidden because the decision to decide the most populous cities will be an arbitrary decision made by local consensus. "leaving it up to consensus in each template" is local consensus. Logoshimpo (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the follow-up. So apparently I still got it wrong what your goal is. This strengthens my opposition to the proposed addition as problematic and likely deleterious. Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe I haven't made myself clear: an arbitrary cutoff could be the smallest 10, 20, etc. and, let's say, "the smallest cities by area" or "least populous cities" or "bottom cities by HDI" all be included in the template by an arbitrary cutoff. However, including "Major cities" would be ok if it were defined by definition. Let me know if that still doesn't make sense. Logoshimpo (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  I am having trouble following, but I'll take that on board as my problem. It's probably not worth your time trying to clarify just for me, but thanks for trying. Mathglot (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, the proposed language, both unclear and too restrictive, isn't an improvement to this guideline. An extended good faith preference but edging into the beating-the-poor-horse zone. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

  You may want to read WP:ESSAY and WP:NOTAVOTE. Logoshimpo (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose setting aside the very concerning conduct of the user who has refused to drop the stick on this issue, I will comment purely on the issue at hand. This proposal lacks any clear definition. It has identified a supposed issue that one single user doesn't like, but doesn't identify any real solution. There is no problem here that needs fixing and therefore no change that is needed. -Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 14:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose adding the rule "Sections in navboxes should be finite and not include an arbitrary number of ranked entries" to this page (or any other words having substantially the same effect). Having some kind of cutoff is sometimes necessary, and the place to draw the line will vary from subject to subject. For example, using a list of cities as an example, there are two cities in Wyoming with a population of more than 50,000 people. A list of two items is silly, so make it a top 10, or at least a top 5. But there are almost 100 cities in California with more than 50,000 residents. A list of 100 is too big, so make it a top 10 or a top 25. Editors should be looking at the overall subject and making sensible choices. If there's a natural division, with a few large cities and a lot of mid-sized ones, then draw the line at the natural point, even if that means having 17 cities in the list. It might look arbitrary, but it won't necessarily be arbitrary in that case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2026 (UTC)