Wikipedia talk:Navigation template/Archive 4

I have requested mediation at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, to diffuse this conflict. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@DarthBotto: Are you kidding me? The discussion had not concluded here yet. In fact, when I saw it earlier today, I wasn't even clear on where the problem was and was hoping for some clarification from either one of the two original commenters. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair complaint. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

So far, all the other editors have ceased editing, to discuss this conflict - one that you're the only party on one side of - while you're continuing to push your angle and take the opportunity to edit war. If you genuinely wish to settle it, then alright, we can settle it here. But, you could at least have the courtesy to step back like everyone else and at least discuss it, rather than continuing to revert and try to earn brownie points by complimenting editors who say they wish for us to keep it here. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@TurokSwe, now you're reverting Moxy's edits?? You are way out of line with your edit-warring and seriously need to step back. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring (not intentionally at least). I reverted Moxy's edits because they were unwarranted, were without explanation, and engaged in an edit war. I've been engaged in the discussion from the start, however the discussion isn't even going any further, and I don't see why I ought to cease improving the articles while waiting for responses to this particular discussion. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no vested interest in this discussion but my name came up so here I am. I have another concern spamming of a blog with no content added and no edit summaries pls see -Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#‎Blog spam.--Moxy (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

And as I keep saying, AVPGalaxy is still a recognized and trusted source of news in regards to the Alien/Predator franchise and has been for a long time and repeatedly referenced, and the information contained within its articles isn't even disputable (controversial perhaps, but not disputable). - TurokSwe (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Noting that I have added more articles covering the news. Just to put your mind at ease. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it may be best to slow down....you have added a Facebook page and a tweet as sources recently. Could you read over WP:Identifying reliable sources before proceeding.--Moxy (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed wise to take some time and reflect over things, and once I put my mind to something I tend to work rapidly. Might I ask which "Facebook page and tweet" it is that you're referring to? I am reading the linked article, yet I fail to understand what your problem is supposed to be (especially now that I've added further sources to the news, which I'd figure would be even harder to refute). - TurokSwe (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem with the content as evident in my action only removing the website.. it's the source is being used that is a problem ...Pls read over WP:RS/SPS... no fan sites no blogs no Facebook etc.... don't rely on fans for information.... because we need to get information from reliable trusted sources that are vetted.--Moxy (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I would generally agree with that concern, however I would also have to acknowledge that there are exceptions which might be difficult to reject. - TurokSwe (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon requested several times that we have discourse here, before the discussion at DNR resumes. Unfortunately, it does not seem like you are grasping what anyone has stated, as you're continuing to edit-war - the latest being JzG - and make unconstructive edits, with the argument being that others are "unwarranted", "vague" or undisputable. The DNR resort is for stepping back from issues, to have moderated discussions - which you are showing no regard for. If this does not change, this may warrant being taken to AN/I. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 15:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Where have I been supposedly "edit-warring" and where are these supposed "unconstructive edits"? The instances in which I've used words as the ones you describe is when people have removed material without adequate justification. Not to mention that I don't expect to cease editing the articles because of a discussion that's going nowhere and especially when others keep editing the articles and removing the contents in question. It's interesting though (almost suspicious even) how you so consistently seem to keep track on every person who's edits I've decided to revert... - TurokSwe (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

And for the record, diffs to this behaviour is what I've been waiting to see. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. - TurokSwe (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Even after altercations with other users 24/7, you aren't connecting the dots at this point? Okay, let me break this down for you. The Alien, Predator and AvP pages had navboxes that correlated to the separate franchises, with the few points of intersection including Alien (creature in Alien franchise). SNAAAAKE!! picked up on that you had been adding all three navboxes to all the pages when they came across Alien vs. Predator (arcade game) (diff), which is why they brought it here as you reverted. *Treker picked up on the issue, as well, and removed the uncorrelated navboxes from List of Alien vs. Predator (franchise) comics (diff), which you reverted, as well. After I was informed of this issue, I removed the navboxes from Alien vs. Predator (arcade game), which you reverted again - making for edit-warring, as you had already tumbled with SNAAAAKE!! prior to that. The same is true for Ellen Ripley (diff), Predator (franchise) (diff), Aliens vs. Predator (2010 video game) (diff), Aliens versus Predator (1999 video game) (diff), Aliens Versus Predator: Extinction (diff) and so on. And, you're still adding and re-adding navboxes - the last was Ellen Ripley, a few minutes ago. And, this does not even scratch the surface of the other conflicts you've gotten into with other editors - on these very same pages. Over the AvP Galaxy issue, you've been edit-warring with @Moxy: on Alien (franchise) (1, 2, 3), The Predator (film) (1, 2), Predator (franchise) (1, 2, 3), Alien vs. Predator (franchise) (1, 2). Then, when it was alerted on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the administrator JzG stepped in to clean up the pages, you tried editing warring with him on Alien (franchise) (diff), Predator (franchise) (diff), Alien vs. Predator (franchise) (1, 2) - and now avpgalaxy.net has been blacklisted for user-generated content and edit-warring. Does that clear things up a bit? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 00:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Noting that I only reverted said edits because they were still unjustified, regardless how many individuals disagree with the actions. - TurokSwe (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That's extremely clear now.

If an article does not appear in a nav box, that nav box should not be on the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you yes. This editor keeps ignoring this no matter how many times I've told them. It's getting to the point where I feel like they are just stonewalling me.★Trekker (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I ask again, must they appear directly or indirectly? - TurokSwe (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

After all this, you're editing warring with *Treker, saying "Let's discuss this", as if nobody's said anything at all (1, 2). That does it. No more. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 16:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I never implied nothing had been said, but no adequate explanation had been given. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

For example, in this revision of the Michael Jackson article, the "Death" category links to Death of Michael Jackson. This seems weird to me, like putting links in headers, and it's inconsistent. Is there any consensus about this? Popcornduff (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That's normal. --Izno (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Common, normal and acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to both of youse. Popcornduff (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at Template:Roland_Corporation. As you can see, it has a whole bunch of redlinks. I fear editors are just using the template as a list of every product Roland has ever made, regardless of whether articles exist or should exist for these products. Am I right to be suspicious here, is it acceptable to include lots of redlinks? Should I remove redlinks to things that don't require articles? Popcornduff (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I would leave that template alone because the redlinks are not excessive. If you knew (from familiarity with the topic) that some of them really were unsuitable for an article (no hope of satisying WP:N), you might remove those but it's significant effort without much benefit. There was a large discussion somewhere (probably on this talk) about whether there should be a rule that red links should be removed from navboxes. I can't find it at the moment but I think it ended with the conclusion that I support, namely that plausible red links are useful pointers that encourage editors to write articles on the missing topics. That only works if the red links are for plausible articles. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The consensus is in WP:Red link: Red links may be used on navigation templates with links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or they may be removed from the template. --Izno (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Thank you Izno, that's pretty clear. Popcornduff (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the best place to ask, but I'd appreciate some third party input on the discussion at Template_talk:TRS-80_and_Tandy_computers regarding changes to that template and the interpretation of policy behind the changes. Thanks. Ubcule (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Navboxes. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hildeoc (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a chance that we could get some community perspective at the said template . Interested editors seem to be split into two parties who have very different perspectives, and the talk pages shows years of concerns.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

What should be done with {{Licht}} and {{Karlheinz Stockhausen}}? All the links in the former are in the latter, and every page with the former also has the latter, adjacent.

A recent TfD, with just three participants (one of whom was the proposer, me) resulted in keeping the former template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to make people aware of a module (Module:Article list) that I have written for use in navboxes which has several features that might be useful. The module uses Wikidata to generate stable links. In particular:

• Links to articles that are moved will automatically update in the template
• Articles which are deleted will automatically disappear from the template
• Common words can be automagically removed from the piped label by using a |remove= parameter
• Potential articles can be loaded, which will automatically appear if/when the article is created

I'm working on a few more improvements like automatically sorting the links into alphabetical order, and allowing an option for redlinks to be displayed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Quick update. The module is working well and I've been adding it to a few templates experimentally. The alphabetical sorting is now implemented too. I am ready for some feedback with a view to deploying it more widely. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I have just started an RfC relevant to this guideline, which may interest editors working with navigation templates or navbox style guidelines. Chubbles (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I have been wondering for years whether non-editors use navboxes at any significant rate, and I believe that I have identified a way to measure that, if anyone's interested in it.

The tool to use is wikitech:Provenance. The link in the navbox would need the full URL with the ?wprov= key, wrapped in Help:Plainlinks (so it looks right on the page). Then there's the matter of figuring out how to get the data back out of the other end of the system, so this isn't as quick and easy as clicking on a pageviews tool. But I believe that it's possible to do, and I believe that the regulars at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) could figure this out pretty easily. It might even be possible to change something in the main navbox template itself to do some of this work automatically (like marking all the links in navboxes as plainlinks, rather than needing to mark each one separately).

I don't have any plans to do this myself, but I wanted to leave this message in case anyone else was interested in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier @Ahmet Q. @Rsk6400

Template talk:Human genetics has raised a crucial debate: can navboxes link to sections (in other words, subpages)?

Consensus: navboxes should not include links to sections, because section titles change frequently and so result in the unusual premise of a navbox without ubiquitous linking. Section links are usually encouraged because they are at least able to default as article text if they are broken, whereas navboxes cannot do this because they usually only contain links.

Proposal for added text: WP:EXISTING should be modified to include a new bullet point. The bullet point should read, Section titles change frequently and so should not be placed in navigation templates. Doing so causes the issue of unlinked text in a navigation template, which should not be the case.

Additional comments: Redirects allow for section linking however this should not be abused, and would have to be seen as dishonestly bypassing the guideline. Altanner1991 (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a word about the last point: redirects to sections (especially of the {{R with possibilities}} kind) do not necessarily bypass the guideline if they are well-documented (e.g. with a comment line in the source such as "[[XXX]] redirects here"). There will always be reckless editors who don't care about technical comments and just mess things up, but the sensible average editor hopefully will care and reflect changes to the anchor also in the manually "backlinked" redirect. –Austronesier (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should add anything to WP:EXISTING. WP:UCS is enough. And since I had some experience with Altanner1991's way of discussing, I will also add that I'll stand by my view even if I won't take part in this discussion any more. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

IAR is hardly the rationale to give unless under dire circumstances. And Rsk, your contentious stubbornness is frankly worthy of a sitewide block. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not okay with allowing these loopholes to be used for topic-based or even politically-heated biases. The policy should be clear. There has been no other careful argument for why the policy should remain the way it is. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

If you are concerned about a section heading breaking because it was changed, then why not advise people to add an anchor per WP:RSECT? Then the link will not be broken. If you add the suggested hidden text about what links to that section, people would even update the navbox if they make major changes to the page (like splitting it into a different article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it could link to sections, but I think either way a decision needs to be made so that section links are not made or removed differently depending on the NPOV context for each page. The contradictory application of editing could anger inexperienced editors who feel they are being sidelined using made-up policies.

So I also advocate linking to sections. But this needs to find consensus so the policy can be applied uniformly across all articles. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier, @Ahmet Q., @Rsk6400, @Altanner1991, @WhatamIdoing

Hi all. I don't mean to pick at a scab but I'm honestly curious about this and would like to ask so I can understand the pros and cons of both and, hopefully, avoid making a headache for other editors. I figure this might be easiest if there's a concrete example so I'm thinking of the Template:Modern US Infantry Weapons navbox. Compared to the Human genetics navbox template, I guess this example has a bit of an advantage in that entries in the navbox are clearly defined--if it's a weapon used by current day US infantry, then it should be included, while the Human genetics template has a bit of a harder task when deciding what should be and shouldn't be included in the navbox.

As far as I can tell, the two options to linking to a section of an article that doesn't have a distinct article is to link to a redirect which anchors to that section or to specifically link to the section in question. The example I'm thinking of is the MK 20 SSR entry. The MK 20 SSR is a variant of the MK 17 rifle of the FN SCAR family of weapons. The entire family of weapons isn't in use by the US military so I wouldn't want links in the navbox to suggest that by just piping the MK 20 SSR link to the base FN SCAR article. Currently, the navbox links to [[MK 20 SSR]] which is a redirect to the section in the FN SCAR page that discusses the MK 20 SSR. The problem there is that, like WP:NAVNOREDIRECT states, using redirects won't bold the entry in the navbox if the reader is currently on that page. So if someone was reading the FN SCAR page and opened the Modern US Infantry Weapons navbox, they'd be confused because they wouldn't see any of the links blacked out and so they might not know which things on the FN SCAR page are part of the modern US infantry's arsenal (ie. MK 16, MK 17, MK 20 SSR, MK 13 EGLM).

The alternative of a targeted anchor link being placed in the navbox is what was discussed above. While renaming and deletion of sections will inevitably break these links, it seems like it's still a net positive. If the link is broken, it just defaults to the top of the article page. Not ideal but at least the navbox will still show which entries are bolded out and thus addressed by the page they are on. So, linking to sections seems to be the lesser of the two evils to me.

I guess there is the third alternative of simply removing the entry altogether by citing WP:Existing but it seems like a waste considering the MK 20 SSR is a discrete entity and there is a good amount of information on the topic at hand (MK 20 SSR) on the linked page (FN SCAR). The MK 20 SSR might not be noteworthy enough to warrant its own article but it's still a concrete object compared to the less well defined entries which WP:EXISTING seems to be aimed at preventing (like preventing the navbox for Template:Health in China becoming bogged down by entries for, say, "Lung cancer in China" (which just redirects to Lung cancer#Epidemiology) and "Prostate cancer in China", etc. etc.).

I look forward to hearing others' thoughts on this. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that whichever you will choose will be fine.

I don't worry much about the lack of bold for redirect, because clicking it should take the person to the correct section of that page; some of them won't even notice that it's the same page. If there is a realistic chance of the redirect being turned into a real article, then I think the redirect has additional value (i.e., we don't have to change it later).

If you decide to link to the particular section, then just add one of the {{anchor}} templates. Editors are very cooperative about preserving such links, and even if the section heading gets change (which is unlikely for some subjects anyway), then the anchor works like a duplicate of the old section heading (or whatever anchor text you use, e.g., an abbreviation).

There isn't a single perfect solution for this. There's always going to be someone who will tell you that you did it wrong, no matter what you do, but I could see either being appropriate, and I could even imagine that using a mix both in the same navbox would be sensible. Maybe you use a redirect for one link, because you think it's likely to be expanded some day, but maybe you use an anchor for another link, because it's on a popular page (=the one you're most likely to look at the navbox on) and you guess that it's unlikely to be turned into separate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Holy hell, how have I been on these last few months and not come across or realized that the anchor template exists? Thanks! And thank you for the advice. I like the idea about using the redirects and anchor links judiciously depending on which have potential to become their own page. I get the feeling that there's a lot of imperfect solutions on wikipedia and in computing in general. Well, heck, in life in general lol. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 02:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a big wiki. Nobody can learn it all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Didn't see anything in the archives, but is there a preferred way to order multiple navboxes that are placed at the bottom of articles? I assume the obvious of most relevant (on top) to least relevant (on bottom) but thought I'd ask. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:EXISTING, while existing articles are strongly favored for navboxes, there can be times when we include non-existing article links or text. E.g.:

[R]ed links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result.

And

Note: In navigation boxes about musical ensembles, it may be appropriate to list all of the members of the ensemble, to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act, provided that at least one member of the ensemble is notable.

What about including former members of a group as well? As you likely know, the convention is to have current members listed with <b> tags and in the above section followed by a listing of former members that do not have the <b> tag. Should former members of a band be included in a navbox, even if not all of them have articles? @Woodensuperman: ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

As I read it, the only reason to include the non-notable members is to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act. There's no navigational benefit whatsoever to included non-notable former members, it's purely unnecessary clutter. Navboxes are for navigation, not for information. --woodensuperman 11:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"[R]ed links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the guideline regarding redlinks in filmographies, etc, as some works are simply not notable. Even filmographies in articles are sometimes only partial filmographies, so this seems strange in a navbox. WP:WTAF should always be the preferred option, so that notability can be established prior to inclusion. In any case, a well-defined set is North/South/East/West, not sometime members of a pop band. --woodensuperman 11:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:EXISTING suggests we list all members of bands when at least one is blue linked; it seems a reasonable extension to apply the spirit of that rule to episodes of TV shows. For reference, Template:Torchwood fits this: most episodes have articles, but the two from season one that don’t are still listed. Meanwhile, Template:House (TV series) appears to only list the episodes that have articles, but this could give the impression that the episodes listed are the all the episodes of the season.

Would anyone oppose extending the guidance here to include collections like TV shows? Or perhaps editors here have alternate ways to view this. — HTGS (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd oppose this, as a navbox is for navigation, not information. Any unlinked text does not provide a navigation function, and just clutters a navbox. --woodensuperman 11:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SdkbBot 4. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates § Questioning WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NAVIMAGES demands that navbox images "should have a justification to appear", but fails to explain what that justification should be. As it stands, it only gives licence for more fastidious editors to go around removing images that clearly illustrate the collective theme of the links grouped in the naxbox. What are the criteria for including (or removing) an image? Cnbrb (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a good question. I was wondering about this with regards to the template on Artificial intelligence, whose image is clearly at odds with WP:NAVIMAGES, but where I think it is generally thought appropriate to have a picture. Does WP:NAVIMAGES still reflect common editorial practice? Felix QW (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I would propose that we remove the reference to filmographies in the guidelines regarding redlinks, as this is not how we do things in practice. A complete set of data isn't the same as a list of works. We don't even have redlinks in article text when the work is unlikely to meet notability guidelines, and exclusion in this kind of navbox isn't misleading. Let us not forget that the sole purpose of a navbox is to navigate between existing articles. A complete set of data is maybe a list of years, etc., but even still, I think we could probably lose the whole part of the guideline on redlinks, these are routinely removed from navboxes, so the guideline needs updating. --woodensuperman 11:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

An example of where this guideline is causing a problem is here --woodensuperman 11:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the essay you link to in this section's title is not a guideline, and its language seems fine (so your wording "this guideline" etc. is inaccurate). Your example seems to have been fixed in subsequent edits. My opinion is that some red links in navboxes have their place but should seldom be used and not kept permanently (judgement calls and exceptions are the spitshine of Wikipedia, and red links fail or succeed on their potential to educate and guide future editing). Many navboxes have so many red links that they look like Christmas lights, and, just like the lights, should be removed when two weeks stale. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

In the case of the example provided Template:Danielle Dax -- the redlink to Timber Tongue was converted into a redirect to the artist's article. Aside from WP:EXISTING, this may run afoul of WP:NAVNOREDIRECT. older ≠ wiser 14:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Since that navbox is at the core of this discussion, koavf likely has an opinion on the questioned use. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

As long as we have this language around a specific set of items, such as a filmography or a discography, then this will be a persistent issue. I think it's good and well to include redirects for the small and well-defined list of works like "albums by artist [x]", because excluding some of them would be misleading. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we need to change the language. Linking to non-notable topics does not aid navigation. Not just filmography and discography navboxes, but most navboxes are routinely purged of non-articles, and the guideline needs to reflect current practice. --woodensuperman 14:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd be extremely wary of encouraging redirects in navboxes. There are many pop culture topics for which there are legions of fans and perhaps a few paid promoters who would be very delighted to be able to construct impressive looking navboxes filled with redirects for the sake of "completeness". older ≠ wiser 17:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, it does fall foul of WP:NAVNOREDIRECT. We also have a WP:SURPRISE issue here. You would expect to be taken to an actual WP:EXISTING article from a navbox. --woodensuperman 14:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not exactly "fixed"! Yes, redirects have been created for the non-articles, but we should only be linking once per article in navboxes so all the redirects back to the artist are completely useless as a navigational tool. And actually worse than redlinks as at least you're not expecting to go to an article with a redlink! --woodensuperman 14:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Improved the situation by changing both redirs to go to the right section instead of the top of the artist article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed these redirects as they do not link to a distinct sub-topic within a larger article as required by WP:NAVNOREDIRECT. --woodensuperman 10:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me there are four possibilities here, and this could be RfCed:

1. Do not permit redirects in naboxes (other than those that are alternative names of their subjects).
2. Permit a redirect in a navbox if it is to a section about the subject named by the redirect.
3. Permit a redirect in a navbox if it is to section that mentions the subject named by the redirect.
4. Permit all redirects in navboxes, regardless where they go.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm definitely firmly in camp "1" here, with allowances for option 2 in exceptional circumstances (but definitely not if the article is already linked), which I think reflects current practice. --woodensuperman 10:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

For my part, I think I'd end up as firmly at 2 and exceptionally 3, but neither 1 nor 4 being acceptable. 4 seems like simply chaos, while 1 is WP:BUREAUCRACY, and does not take into account that topics are merged and split all the time, and some sections on subtopics are far richer than the average stand-alone stub article. After some reflection (re-edited, actually), I think 3 might need a caveat like "and further expansion of material on the subject is likely." But a counter-caveat could be made for entries in navbox-embedded lists that are complete lists of something finite, in which we expect most or all entries to be notable even if they don't have articles or major sections yet (but maybe that is already covered sufficiently by another rule that effectively overrides this one anyway).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It seems per WP:NAVNOREDIRECT, option 2 is the current accepted practice. --woodensuperman 10:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Very recent large-scale edits made in this essay seem concerning. Moxy, SMcCandlish, Woodensuperman, maybe you three can go over the edits and see if this was an essay-dump or what. I'm precluded from doing so (i.e. Moxy concerns), yet from an quick initial scan the additions seem to fall on the restrictive end in an attempt to change the way navboxes have been created, arranged, and maintained on Wikipedia. On the bright side, this is just an essay that has the full power of an essay (none). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

If the current version is disputed (on actual merits, beyond an "I don't like change" or "I'm not sure I understand" feeling :-) then reverting to the essentially stable version before the major changes could be reasonable. Probably this version. The recent major changer appears to be CommonKnowledgeCreator; maybe they'd like to better explain what they're trying to accomplish. Here's a combined diff of the recent changes. Most of them seem sensible to me, but I have quibbles with a few parts.

This bit seems a little bit muddled: An arbitrary selection of related articles included in a navigation template can unintentionally present a point of view or give the subjects of the articles selected undue weight. It's not clear what "an arbitrary selection" really means here, nor what problem this is trying to solve. If it's not an actual problem, rather than an imagined hypothetically possible issue, then it should not be in a guideline or essay that operates like a guideline. Further, editors (being human) sometimes introducing PoV/weight bias unintentionally is really the subject of WP:BIAS and need not be addressed here probably, at least not at this length. (I would think we'd be more concerned with selective cherrypicking and intentional bias than with arbitrariness and accidental skew, honestly.) This follow-on bit is probably too obtuse: If the subject of the template is a single, coherent subject, the article inclusion criteria should basically be an objective, falsifiable test. This doesn't say anything that an editor without an MS degree is likely to be able to apply on Wikipedia. Next, this is not worded very well to me: Red links ... should not be included where Wikipedia would become something other than an encyclopedia if articles were created from the red links. I would replace that with: Red links ... should not be included when Wikipedia would be serving other than an encyclopedic purpose if articles were created from the red links. But I'm not sure this point is really necessary (per my first objection above – i.e., what actual problem would this solve?) The rest of it all seems fine to me.

All that said, we need to get away from this "essays aren't actionable" idea. They often are; some of our best-accepted principles are found in essays, incuding WP:BRD and WP:AADD (plus WP:ROPE and WP:DUCK and WP:NONAZIS when it come to adminstrative matters). Slapping a guideline or policy tag on a page without community buy-in doesn't magically make it something the community will accept and enforce, either (more likely revert the applied template and category). Any page here has as much "authority" or whatever one wants to call it as it has accrued over time from the community taking it seriously and acting on it. What kind of template is at the top is often not terribly relevant, unless matters have turned in an ANI or ArbCom direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your long comment. Per concern of Moxy about previous discussions, I'll stick to just two points, and am not sure how much of those were added to this essay or exist in others (yes, some parts of some essays are viewed of value in some instances, but determinative value does not apply to every word of every essay).

Navbox size. This hasn't been of major concern until lately while discussing navboxes of US. presidents. There should be no upper size limit of well-designed and well written navboxes. For those who disagree and want to split perfectly fine well-designed navboxes (CommonKnowledgeCreator) please start with this one, and do so in a bold move without discussion: {{COVID-19 pandemic}}. Then, when they revert your "I like it" bold edit do not waver, but toss them a dozen or two unlinked mix of essays and guidelines, and then revert them again. What response do you thnk you'd get (and Moxy, with all respect but a bit irritated at recent accusations, hopefully you will take note of the response of Covid-19 navbox editors who deem to revert the good faith undiscussed bold but misguided moves, and they have to revert again, and then report everybody post haste).

Navbox entries' relationship. I've had this pop in every once in awhile, and it should not exist as a guideline or essay topic in any way: an editor questions navbox entries as being unrelated to each other. "Why would anyone want to navigate between Pad Thai and Bette Davis?" someone will ask. That question is always irrelevant if the entries relate to one thing and one thing only: the subject of the navbox. Connections between entries are of no importance, their logical connection to the titled topic is all that matters.

Those are my two common cents. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic and Meryl Streep#External links we're some of the examples used as in why we don't have navigation templates viewed in mobile view in mainspace (now it's 70% of views). Basically these types of navigations are going to be relegated to administrative namespaces only..... because of mobile view accessibility concerns. If these type of templates were built reasonably and used reasonably it would have changed people's minds. Moxy🍁 00:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello Moxy. Well, even if navboxes fall to being used on 10& of devices they still exist as one of the most valuable elements of "original" Wikipedia (i.e., Wikipedia's original designs and features built around and for laptop and desktop display). These maps, when done well, are works of literary art, and provide a valuable service to researchers, other readers, and to those wishing to searching Wikipedia's full range of topic coverage. As you may see, the editor that you assured that I can't revert or even challenge is editing this essay again right now, edit after edit, with really no discussion (or its evil twin, way too much discussion to wade through). Just as they have done on dozens of presidential navboxes, which in my opinion made them less navigationable as maps. My concern is that nobody is really checking these edits. Please consider doing so, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish, Randy Kryn, and Moxy: All I am trying to accomplish with the edits that I made to the WP:NAV explanatory essay is to keep its language and guidance consistent with the current WP:NAVBOX, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:N, and WP:NOT content policies and guidelines per WP:POLCON, and provide guidance that explains to editors how to keep navigation templates consistent with all of these policies and guidelines per the Content section of WP:P&G and WP:SUPPLEMENTAL. The content I added was an attempt to make suggestions intended to provide guidance in navbox editing to keep them consistent with all of these policies and guidelines. Perhaps the wording and guidance was not as well-written as it needed to be, but I think that greater guidance is needed for this specifically.

I think the revision proposed by SMcCandlish to the language I added related to WP:N and WP:NOT is fine. The language for WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE is taken from WP:NAVBOX Disadvantage Number 5 and the WP:ATC section "Do we really need this template at all?". Perhaps a link to that WP:ATC section could provide greater clarity as what is meant by "arbitrary selection", and if the intentions of the editor is not what the relevant issue is, then we can simply just remove "unintentional" from the language. We can come up with different language or guidance if "falsifiable" is too "esoteric" per the WP:P&G Content section, but it occurs to me that it is no more esoteric than Necessity and sufficiency as used understood in formal logic and mathematics and used in the first bullet point of the WP:NAV-RELATED section.

I was aware that navigation templates are not included in the mobile app, but I did not know that their size and the number of templates in certain articles impairing accessibility was the reason why rather than some technical reason, and it occurs to me that this is a strong justification for more restrictive guidance in the WP:NAVBOX guideline and the WP:NAV essay. It occurs to me that any navbox that contributes to template clutter, broadly overlaps with other templates, or can be split into smaller templates that otherwise satisfy the criteria for good navigation templates is not well-designed. I certainly agree that the language in Criterion 3 of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines for good navigation templates should be eliminated—and I did propose doing so. It is too subjective to satisfy the requirement of the WP:P&G Content section that policy and guideline language be "unambiguous", and per WP:NOTCREEP, is fairly redundant to the requirement that articles be related in the WP:NAVBOX guideline language before the list of criteria. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish, Randy Kryn, and Moxy: Also, as I've note elsewhere, the WP:NAVBOX policy has had language recommending against including articles in navigation templates that are loosely-related and that navigation templates should have more restrictive article inclusion criteria than categories and lists since September 2010. That relatedness is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for article inclusion in a navigation template is not a novel proposition on my part, but a longstanding and implicit recommendation has been implicit in the language of the WP:NAVBOX guideline for 14 years now. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Overall, I support the stated goal of normalizing this essay to the requirements of the relevant WP:P&G pages. Our advice to editors should be consistent, whether it's in an essay or not. PS: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: That some other page happens to have something esoteric in it is no excuse for this one to use obfuscatory language (it's an indication, rather, that two pages rather than one need plain-English cleanup edits). Our goal is to communicate clearly, and if we lose most of the people reading it, then that goal has been failed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your reasoning. What alternative guidance and language would you propose that explains to editors how to avoid giving selected articles undue weight by inclusion in a navigation template? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe start with not adding tangential items to presidential navboxes, such as every bill that crosses their desk if they had anything to do with it or not (and no, arguably signing a bill does not make it the president's "own legacy" unless they had an initial hand in planning and passing it). Starting there would go a long way in fixing what has been broken. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is the appropriate talk page for that discussion, and the tone of your comment is decidedly incivil. WP:NAVBOX Disadvantage Number 5 states: "Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a point of view. It may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others". The WP:CLNT project page has included language with respect to navigation templates and violations of the WP:NPOV policy since April 2005. The kind of mapping that you describe is not required by the WP:NAVBOX guideline, and as far as I can tell, it never has been per my previous comment about the loosely-related recommendation language being included since September 2010. Which is to say, navigation templates serving as comprehensive maps is your personal view of how navigation templates should be constructed rather than the consensus view of the community. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Lord have mercy. Now you disagree that navboxes are maps to Wikipedia coverage of a topic? Also, your belief that U.S. president's don't reside in the White House, something I still can't understand per common sense and just basic knowledge of where people live. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, your tone is incivil and your proposal about including the navigation templates of every President and First Lady of the United States in either the White House article or the Executive Residence article is irrelevant to this talk page per WP:TALK#TOPIC. I do not dispute that navigation templates are maps, just maps that are supposed to span more well-defined and narrower ranges of topics than you do. Also, per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:TECHNICAL, Wikipedia is not an academic or scientific journal or a textbook and should not be written like any of those publications. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia written for the general public, not researchers. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yesterday, {{Sappho sidebar}} was created, which has significant overlap with the pre-existing {{Sappho}}. I questioned this on the talkpage and Piccco pointed out that there are already other cases of navboxes and sidebars for the same topic – e.g. {{Socrates}} and {{Socrates navbox}} or {{MrBeast series}} and {{MrBeast}}. Looking further I found this page, which tells us that [navboxes and sidebars] are complementary and either or both may be appropriate in different situations.

Do we have any guidance as to when it is appropriate to have both a navbox and a sidebar? My instinct says that it should be virtually never: it just increases the maintenance burden when something changes for no increased navigational benefit (e.g. if I were to now write a new article on a Sappho poem, I have to remember to update two templates and add both to the article when previously it would only have been one). Clearly these duplications do exist, but I cannot find any previous discussions of when they are appropriate (or indeed an easy way to find examples). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems that WP remains vague here, leaving it up to editors' consensus to determine when this is appropriate and when not. For example, the Socrates sidebar does not seem to directly copy the navbox and, given that there are many stand-alone articles reated to Socrates, the existence of both could be warranted. Regarding Sappho's sidebar, my initial thought was to make Sappho's poetry (an area where Caeciliusinhorto has had significant contributions) easily accessible. If editors find it redundant, it could be deleted, or alternatively, as I suggested, it could be simplified to include only the poems. Piccco (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The side-navbox usually contains much less of a selection and is kind of a summary of the full navbox placed at the bottom of the page. The side-box highlights, the footer presents the entire subject-map to Wikipedia's collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Right, that makes sense. Piccco (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Wanted to remind editors that this is an essay, and carries no weight in policy or guideline discussions aside from personal opinions. Since I have no idea what has been subtracted or added with the multitude of recent edits (tried to backtrack and gave up somewhere in the middle), instead of editing the page I'll just point out that, happily, this is an essay, more or less an editorial. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Here's the kind of edit I mean, an entirely new section. I'd objected and removed it, and my removal was reverted. Not going to fight about it, just pointing out the revert in case the new language is ever used as canon in a Wikipedia discussion or in a mainspace edit. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, the wording of WP:NAVIMAGES ("Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative" section) currently reads: Per MOS:DECOR, images are rarely appropriate in navboxes. Is the choice of the word "navboxes" here meant to exclude sidebars for some reason? Or does this apply to navigation templates in general? To me, the reasoning (MOS:DECOR) would seem to be as relevant, if not more so, to sidebars, but I've seen an editor claim otherwise. Some clarification here (and perhaps in the guideline itself) would be appreciated. R Prazeres (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't apply at all, this is an essay (as is WP:NAVIMAGES, while DECOR refers to icons and not navbox images) which some editors freely edit at will without much effort to debate the new additions. It is more or less an editorial. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I get that. Still, if it's possible to get some feedback from various editors on the general question of images in nav templates, it would provide a useful benchmark for discussion, in the absence of any official guideline.

After your clarification, it also seems clear that the reference to MOS:DECOR must have been intended to be a reference to MOS:PERTINENCE. Indeed, the images in nearly every navbox seem to be purely decorative in that sense and take up unnecessary additional space. R Prazeres (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with images in navboxes if done well. This has been discussed and decided at attempts to remove images. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@R Prazeres: I personally think they have no place in navboxes. You can easily end up with images multiple times in the same article if they are included, and they can cause WP:UNDUE issues as well as the MOS:PERTINENCE issues you mention. --woodensuperman 14:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Should a navigation template for a topic that collects all it's different segments in one template only include links to existing articles or should the non-existing articles be included as well? (eg. a singer nav list that includes all albums. Should only the articles for existing albums be included or every album by the singer regardless of the article exists or not. If so: Should the non existing article be included as (red) link or left unlinked? --D-Kuru (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

We should only be including notable albums in these cases. --woodensuperman 14:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, should include only albums which have articles unless the likelihood of someone creating an article is enhanced by a red link (and then only if the red link was added recently, older red links indicate that an article will probably not be quickly written although a red link for newer albums should be in place for enough time to assure that an article will or will not be provided by an interested editor). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I was considering taking Nav template {{Rural localities in Yakutsk City}} to Rfd, but I thought I'd stop by here first, and gauge opinion about templates like this one, which have only a handful of links. This one has six, and is also duplicated by Category:Rural localities in Yakutsk. If there are that few entries, especially if a category exists with the same list, do we need the Nav template? Or maybe just list them all in the article? Or a sidebar instead? What do others think? Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:NENAN suggests a rule of thumb of five articles being sufficient to warrant a navbox. --woodensuperman 11:01, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

A recent edit (diff) introduces (I think) the idea that a navigation template should not duplicate links in another template placed in the same section. That's more detail than procedural advice normally addresses, and I don't see how it would work. The whole point of a template is that it is (almost always) used in multiple articles. It's standard procedure that links in navigation templates are independent of links in the article. Is there an article where someone wants two templates in the same section with duplicate links? Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree, this doesn't make sense. --woodensuperman 14:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Woodensuperman: In the edit summary to your last revert to the essay, you stated "You're missing point 1: 'All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.' Tangentially related articles would not come under this, and inclusion of tangentially related articles misses the entire point of a navbox." I am not missing WP:NAVBOX Criterion #1 for good navboxes; you are ignoring the implications of Criterion #5 and Advantages List Item #6, as well as conflating WP:NAVBOX's differing recommendations for navboxes and sidebars.

Criterion #1 only requires recommends that the articles included in navboxes be related to a single subject; it makes no recommendation for the degree of relatedness of the articles. Conversely, Criterion #5 states that "If not for [a] navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of [the] articles in the See also sections of the articles", while Advantages List Item #6 states that navigation templates "[mitigate] large 'See also' sections, potentially duplicated and out-of-sync among related articles." This implies that links articles that are related enough to be included in See also sections may also be included in navigation templates. However, MOS:SEEALSO states that "One purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics", and otherwise makes no specific recommendation for the degree of relatedness of the articles included and only recommends that they be related. What Criterion #5, Advantages List Item #6, and MOS:SEEALSO imply is that whatever the recommended degree of relatedness between articles for inclusion in navboxes is, it must encompass be broad enough to include topics that are tangentially-related, and also that tangentially-related is not equivalent to unrelated given that related and tangentially-related are not defined in WP:NAVBOX, WP:CLNT, and WP:CLNT or MOS:SEEALSO.

This is further implied by WP:NAVBOX's recommendation that articles in sidebars but not navboxes be "tightly related", and by the relative prominence of placement sidebars, See also sections, and navboxes, and categories are recommended to have in WP:NAVBOX, MOS:ORDER, and MOS:LEADELEMENTS, where: sidebars are recommended to be included before article content but not generally in lead sections, that See also sections are to be included second among appendices, and that navboxes are to be included at the end of articles but before categories. Thus, if an editor may include tangentially-related articles in a See also section, they must be allowed to include tangentially-related articles in a navbox. In turn, all WP:NAVBOX's suggestion that articles included in navboxes be more than loosely-related must imply is that the recommended degree of relatedness for articles included in navboxes is greater than categories or and lists, but and that tangentially-related is a stricter of an intermediate degree of relatedness than to in between tightly-related and loosely-related given that tightly-related and loosely-related are also not defined in WP:CLNT either.

The Content section of WP:P&G requires that "Policy and guideline pages should…[b]e clear...as concise as possible–but no more concise... [and] [n]ot contradict each other… [because] [t]he community's view cannot simultaneously be 'A' and 'not A'.", while Accordingly, WP:POLCON requires that "If policy and/or guideline pages conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so all the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence." However, since WP:NAV is an explanatory essay under WP:SUPPLEMENTAL while WP:NAVBOX and WP:MOS is a are guidelines under WP:POLICIES, what WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, WP:POLCON, and WP:POLICIES imply is that WP:NAVBOX and WP:MOS take precedence over WP:NAV and that WP:NAV must be revised to be along the lines of WP:NAVBOX, WP:MOS, and other content policies and guidelines under WP:POLICIES where inconsistencies and ambiguities arise. So, per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and WP:DETCON, unless you can identify some other policy or guideline that suggests otherwise, it occurs to me that content you removed should be restored since your revert does not have a clear basis in policy. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Firstly, item 1 states that All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. the fact the text says "single" and "coherent" clearly implies the links should NOT be tangential, as tangential entries are not within the scope of links to a single and coherent subject.

You're misinterpreting the points regarding the see also sections. Navboxes should not be seen as replacements for see also sections, but complementary. Whilst it may be appropriate to include some of the links from a see also section, tangential links would only be appropriate on certain pages per WP:OVERLINK. We do not have to add everything from a see also section to a navbox. The introduction of tangential links to navboxes can mean that links from an article become further and further removed from the subject and irrelevant to a large number of pages that the navbox would be transcluded on.

This is an explanatory essay about how we apply guidelines in practice, and in practice tangential links are routinely removed. You are mistaken if you think this essay is at odds with the guideline, it is merely your personal interpretation that is at odds.

I would suggest you seek consensus before trying to re-add your own misinterpretation of the guideline again. --woodensuperman 07:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

the fact the text says "single" and "coherent" clearly implies the links should NOT be tangential, as tangential entries are not within the scope of links to a single and coherent subject. You're misinterpreting the points regarding the see also sections. Nope. This is not an interpretation since understanding the language does not require some complicated textual analysis and only an understanding of basic grammar. Criterion #1 uses single and coherent as modifiers for subject rather than relate. What modifiers are used with respect to related in WP:NAVBOX and MOS:SEEALSO are tightly, tangentially, and loosely. Along with the reasons provided in my previous comment, this more strongly indicates that the links included in navboxes may be tangentially-related to the subject.

Navboxes should not be seen as replacements for see also sections, but complementary. ... We do not have to add everything from a see also section to a navbox. This concern would not justify removing the content I added, but rather making a minor modification to its wording where it said "one of the advantages of navigation templates is that they mitigate the size and need for See also sections".

Whilst it may be appropriate to include some of the links from a see also section, tangential links would only be appropriate on certain pages per WP:OVERLINK. After reviewing MOS:OVERLINK, the guideline only clearly provides recommendations for linking in the lead and body sections of articles rather than navboxes in light of its statement that "The purpose of linking is to clarify and to provide reasonable navigation opportunities, not to emphasize a particular word." Since it offers no guidance for the enhanced navigation provided by navboxes part of the end matter of articles, it does not appear to be relevant to the explanatory essay or this discussion. While MOS:UNDERLINK states "If you feel that a link is relevant to the topic of the article but does not belong in the body of an article, consider moving it to a 'See also' section", this language only further indicates that uses of tangentially-related and unrelated in the guidelines are not equivalent and does not clearly preclude the inclusion of tangentially-related topics in navboxes.

The introduction of tangential links to navboxes can mean that links from an article become further and further removed from the subject and irrelevant to a large number of pages that the navbox would be transcluded on. This is only really a concern when the subjects of navigation templates are so broad that they allow for such bloat and are not organized in such a way that they cannot be split into smaller templates. If tangentially-related articles are still related to an article, then the links are not irrelevant but should be given the lower prominence of placement in the article—which is what navboxes provide to a greater degree than See also sections per MOS:ORDER.

This is an explanatory essay about how we apply guidelines in practice, and in practice tangential links are routinely removed. If removal of tangential links is a routine community practice with support of a community consensus, it would be reflected explicitly in WP:NAVBOX and MOS:SEEALSO per the Content section of WP:P&G, WP:PGCHANGE, WP:CONLEVEL, and WP:NOTBURO rather than including ambiguous language that suggests that there are overlapping degrees of relatedness for article inclusion between See also sections and navboxes.

You are mistaken if you think this essay is at odds with the guideline, it is merely your personal interpretation that is at odds. ... I would suggest you seek consensus before trying to re-add your own misinterpretation of the guideline again. I believe that the content of your edit summaries and tone of your comment falls within the scope of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:NPA. Coupled with your edit summaries making no reference to a specific policy or guideline related to the content of explanatory essays, the language you are using is less focused on content on and more on me, and your suggestion for seeking consensus sounds more like a polite rephrasing of "Please do not make any more changes without...our approval" rather than following the actual process described in WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and WP:DETCON. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I have been reviewing the edits you have been making over the last few months and I have serious concerns over how you seem to be misrepresenting how navboxes are used and implemented. I have asked for wider input at a couple of locations, hopefully others will chime in. --woodensuperman 20:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I see that issues with your unilateral rewrite have also been brought up before at Wikipedia talk:Navigation template/Archive 4#Large changes to the essay. Perhaps these changes should be discussed one by one and consensus sought. I suggest we go back to the last good version and discuss here BEFORE making these changes. --woodensuperman 14:12, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Woodensuperman: I have been reviewing the edits you have been making over the last few months and I have serious concerns over how you seem to be misrepresenting how navboxes are used and implemented. … I see that issues with your unilateral rewrite have also been brought up before at Wikipedia talk:Navigation template/Archive 4#Large changes to the essay. … Perhaps these changes should be discussed one by one and consensus sought. I suggest we go back to the last good version and discuss here BEFORE making these changes.

Given the language of WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, my previous comments, and what was actually said in the previous discussion, it is unclear to me that your suggestion is actually necessary. With respect to the previous discussion, at least one of the other editors there acknowledged the validity of the WP:POLCON rationale I articulated for my edits to the essay. Also, in light of the decision to exclude navboxes from Wikipedia's mobile version per Phabricator Ticket T124168, there must be a community consensus disapproving of how navboxes are used and constructed in practice, so how they are used in practice under WP:EDITCON should not given great weight in the essay per WP:CONLEVEL if the Wikimedia Foundation had to intervene in community decision-making and took a content policy decision out of the community's purview.

More importantly, WP:SUPPLEMENTAL explicitly states that: "Informative and instructional pages are… not policies or guidelines themselves, [but] they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms. Where essay pages offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, information pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia impartially." What this implies is that if the content of explanatory essays exist not strictly as a clarification but as a supplement (i.e. an addendum) to a policy or guideline, the content must still conform to the requirements of WP:P&G's Content section, WP:POLCON, and WP:POLICIES since the explanatory essay would be articulating additional required standards or recommended best practices beyond what the policy or guideline it seeks to supplement explicitly states or implies given the requirement of WP:P&G's Content section that policies and guidelines not contradict each other.

However, considering the language of WP:POLICIES and WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, my guess is that explanatory essays probably only exist for the purpose of clarification and not as a supplemental addendum for additional required standards and recommended best practices. If that is the case, then part of the purpose of an explanatory essay must be to articulate the relationship between the policy or guideline it seeks to clarify and all other policies and guidelines with which it could potentially come into conflict since, considering the requirement of WP:P&G's Content section for concision in policy and guideline language, there may be no explicit language articulating those relationships in the policy or guideline itself that providing provides direction to editors to avoid creating policy-violating or guideline-inconsistent guideline-conflicting content. While explanatory essays may provide advice, the content still needs to be consistent with current policies and guidelines.

Following WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, all of the changes I have made to the explanatory essay link to specific policies and guidelines and have only been an attempt to articulate the relationships between WP:NAVBOX and other policies and guidelines. Thus, you have still not articulated a clear policy-based rationale for your reversion or proposed removal of the content I added to the essay per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:DETCON, or WP:CONBUILD, while my edits and arguments here have been entirely policy-based. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

light of the decision to exclude navboxes from Wikipedia's mobile version is not a community decision, it is a decision made by the WMF. Izno (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that the essay should match the advice given in the guidelines, the spirit of the guidelines, common practice and common sense. However I don't believe what you are doing achieves this, but actually causing more inconsistency and contradiction. Your distillation of points 1, 5 and 6 (ignoring point 3) to suggest that we all of a sudden now allow tangential links is misguided and is merely your own interpretation, not the interpretation, or implementation of the guidelines by the rest of the community.

For this reason, we need to revert to the status quo, and discuss the merits of your proposed changes on a case by case basis. This way, we can all have some input, rather than you unilaterally interpreting the guiudelines in your own way. As pointed out by others, this diff makes no sense at all.

It would be useful if you created a section for each proposed change, so that the responses do not get too long-winded or off-topic, and keep the discussion concise.

For now we need to revert to the last good version per WP:BRD pending your further discussion on this talk page. --woodensuperman 08:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree with editor Woodensuperman that this edit (a revert) by editor Randy Kryn was warranted and should be upheld. We've seen many articles with four and more navbars that each show the article's title in bold. That means there will be other links in those navbars that are duplicates of links in associated navbars and probably of article links as well. So that paragraph should be reverted as impractical, indeed impossible, to enforce. I've not closely analyzed your other edits, so I won't speak to those; however, this particular entry is not feasible. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 09:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

PS: It appears that the edit in question has already been reverted – justifiably. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 09:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Woodensuperman: In light of your maintained position throughout this discussion, I don't see why there is a need to discuss this further. Clearly, nothing I've said has changed your mind and nothing else I say probably will. Like many long-time editors who hold inflexible opinions about how Wikipedia should work and collectively assert ownership over this project, the only really change to how the project works would have to be imposed on it from the outside—which isn't going to happen since the Foundation presumably won't do so. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

It is not always easy to tell the difference between ownership and stewardship. And there are better ways to deal with disputes than cutting off communication or making ownership accusations. I sincerely hope you will pursue those resolutions if you want to and for the sake of the WP project. Sometimes the biggest arguments result in the best improvements! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

It is not always easy to tell the difference between ownership and stewardship. If Woodensuperman's actual aim is stewardship and that the explanatory essay be consistent with the language and spirit of WP:NAVBOX and other content policies and guidelines (P&Gs), it is unclear how they could also believe that what I added to the essay caused greater inconsistency and contradiction with WP:NAVBOX and other P&Gs and instead only reflected my personal interpretation of the P&Gs considering that the content that I added to the explanatory essay followed the language of WP:NAVBOX and other P&Gs as closely as possible and also included links to those P&Gs so that it was clear where the language that was added originated from.

Coupled with what I have already said in this thread about how WP:SUPPLEMENTAL recommends that explanatory essays not articulate additional required standards or recommended best practices, it is likewise unclear to me that if stewardship was Woodensuperman's aim why they would continue to insist that the explanatory essay continue to reflect existing community practices not clearly articulated by WP:NAVBOX or other guidelines. As I noted before with respect to common community practices and the inclusion of tangentially-related links in navboxes specifically, If [something] is a routine community practice with support of a community consensus, it would [already] be reflected explicitly in [policies and guidelines] per the Content section of WP:P&G, WP:PGCHANGE, WP:CONLEVEL, and WP:NOTBURO.

If stewardship was Woodensuperman's actual aim, they would only be taking issue with the wording of the content rather than its substance (which is what the actual objection appears to be). As such, I do not believe that their opposition to the inclusion of the content I added to the explanatory essay can be understood as stewardship but as ownership, and that their request that every contribution I made be reviewed on a case-by case basis is being tendered so that the WP:CON policy can be abused like the filibuster to reject each individually. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

What I'm taking issue with is your unilateral decision to change an essay that has been stable for some time without any discussion. I disagree with your interpretation, as do others (see the edit summary of this diff for example, and an earlier discussion regarding your changes). It is clear from this that you do not have community consensus for these changes, since they keep being reverted. Therefore it would be best if you proposed any change here, rather periodically trying to make the changes that fit your personal view. --woodensuperman 13:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

What I'm taking issue with is your unilateral decision to change an essay that has been stable for some time without any discussion. Per WP:PGCHANGE, this is not a policy-based complaint.

I disagree with your interpretation, as do others (see the edit summary of this diff for example, and an earlier discussion regarding your changes). It is clear from this that you do not have community consensus for these changes, since they keep being reverted. The only other editor you are referring to that has raised objections and has been reverting is Randy Kryn. Only one other editor in the previous discussion actually took some issue with the content that I added but only with the wording of what was added and not the substance. Perhaps you should actually read what was said in the previous discussion.

Therefore it would be best if you proposed any change here, rather periodically trying to make the changes that fit your personal view. Again, the ownership attitude. As a counterexample, consider the following change: "Avoiding repeating links to the same article within a template" to "As navigation templates include embedded lists, duplicate links within a template are permissible where it aids the reader" following the explicit text of MOS:REPEATLINK ("Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader") and MOS:EMBED's designation of navigation templates as embedded lists ("Embedded lists are lists used within articles that supplement the article's prose content. They are included in the text itself or appended, and may be in table format. Wikipedia uses several standard appendices, usually in list format, as well as navigational templates.")

As such, how could "As navigation templates include embedded lists, duplicate links within a template are permissible where it aids the reader" possibly be my personal view? That's what MOS:REPEATLINK and MOS:EMBED explicitly say and clearly imply. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Right, you clearly didn't read the diff did you, where Drdpw reverted you with the edit summary "You should not just change things to fit your views/wishes".

And if you want to discuss a proposed change, I really think it would be better if you kept it concise and in its own section, as it will just get lost in this massive wall of text here. --woodensuperman 15:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Right, you clearly didn't read the diff did you, where Drdpw reverted you with the edit summary Yeah, I didn't bother looking at the diff since I assumed to you were just reiterating Randy Kryn's complaint. As for Drdpw's, considering that he didn't cite any content policy or guideline for his revert's edit summary (just like he typically doesn't), I simply restored the content.

And if you want to discuss a proposed change, I really think it would be better if you kept it concise and in its own section I didn't mention the example before as a proposal; I cited it to show that your argument that the changes I made are based upon a personal interpretation of policy and guideline text is not actually based on what the content of the policies and guidelines say (regardless of how many other editors may share your view). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

There's some irony in your accusing woodensuperman of filibustering here: you have contributed about two thirds of the text in this discussion and made three times as many edits to this section as everybody else put together without, so far as I can see, managing to persuade anybody to your point of view. You would do well to be a lot more concise and use a lot less random italics – it's really hard to even follow what points you are trying to make in places!

FWIW, I also agree with woodensuperman that we shouldn't be encouraging the inclusion of tangentially-related articles in navboxes: personally I suspect that more navboxes would be improved by having links taken out of them than by having more tangentially-related links put in. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

There's some irony in your accusing woodensuperman of filibustering here I don't mean filibuster in the sense WP:BRDWRONG since, like WP:LAWYERING and WP:TEXTWALL, it's only an essay. I only mean a filibuster in the way it is used in the United States Senate: to block any change.

FWIW, I also agree with woodensuperman that we shouldn't be encouraging the inclusion of tangentially-related articles in navboxes: personally I suspect that more navboxes would be improved by having links taken out of them than by having more tangentially-related links put in. Per WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, that is not for the explanatory essay to say. If you both feel that excluding tangentially-related articles from navboxes is a best practice, then WP:NAVBOX itself is what needs to be amended to say that explicitly since WP:NAVBOX's Criterion #5 for good navboxes, Advantages List Item #6, and MOS:SEEALSO clearly imply that it is not a completely discouraged practice despite what Disadvantages List Item #7 says. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Like WP:LAWYER and WP:TEXTWALL, WP:BLUDGEON is only an essay. Nevertheless, violating all of them is unlikely to do much to persuade anybody to your side.

Per WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, that is not for the explanatory essay to say I never suggested otherwise.

WP:NAVBOX's Criterion #5 for good navboxes and Advantages List Item #6 clearly imply I do not read either of those points as encouraging the inclusion of tangentially-related links, and apparently nor does anybody else in this discussion other than you. Even if they do clearly imply something, I don't see why this particular implication is one which is important to include here (as opposed to, say, the clear implication of WP:NAVBOX§Disadvantages #7 that including tangential links in navboxes is undesirable). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I never suggested otherwise. Then there was no reason for you to say I also agree with woodensuperman that we shouldn't be encouraging the inclusion of tangentially-related articles in navboxes on the talk page for the explanatory essay per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.

I do not read either of those points as encouraging the inclusion of tangentially-related links, and apparently nor does anybody else in this discussion other than you. Even if they do clearly imply something, I don't see why this particular implication is one which is important to include here (as opposed to, say, the clear implication of WP:NAVBOX§Disadvantages #7 that including tangential links in navboxes is undesirable). Well, it's hardly my fault that the other editors willfully interpret ambiguous language differently than I do, but that just reiterates the issue with the language in WP:NAVBOX saying that good navboxes include links that would otherwise be included in See also sections per Good Navbox Criterion #5, and encouraging the use of navboxes for the purpose of mitigating large See also sections per Advantages List Item #6, as well as MOS:SEEALSO explicitly stating that "One purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". Also, what Disadvantages List Item #7 actually says is that navigation templates "Can take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related", which only clearly implies that including tangentially-related links becomes a problem when a navigation template becomes too large (which I've already noted in this discussion). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

MOS:SEEALSO might say that, but that does not mean that we extend this to navboxes. A tangential link might be appropriate on a "see also" section on one specific page, but that does not mean that this irrelevant link should then be included on every page the navbox is transcluded on. You're the one that is wilfully (mis)interpreting ambiguous language to make two and two equal five. --woodensuperman 11:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)