This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Categories, lists, and navigation templates page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Templates This page is within the scope of WikiProject Templates, a group dedicated to improving the maintenance of Wikipedia's templates. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TemplatesWikipedia:WikiProject TemplatesTemplate:WikiProject TemplatesTemplates articles Categories This page is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CategoriesWikipedia:WikiProject CategoriesTemplate:WikiProject CategoriesCategories articles

Should we really be including relatives of people in navboxes just because they are related? We don't categorise people by other people because this is not a defining characteristic, and notability is not inherited, so shouldn't the same principle apply here? As far as I can see this fails points 3 and 5 of navbox also. Take the case of Gregory W. Brown and his inclusion at ((Dan Brown)). We don't need to link to him from every work by his brother on this navbox. It is enough that he is linked in the biographical article. --woodensuperman 15:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would strongly agree, except in the rare case that there is strong overlap (e.g. Frank Herbert and Brian Herbert working on the same fiction franchise; same with J. R. R. Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien; but not [that I know of] Stephen King and Joe Hill (writer)).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. Let's look at every one of the U.S. presidential navboxes, which have included a 'Family' section, likely since the first one was published. It is a standard section. As far as I know it has not been questioned before. The linked articles undeniably provide biographical information about the president's themselves - the subject of the navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe there is some kind of middle ground, some rationale for doing it in certain sorts of cases. There seems to be more public reader interest in relatives of heads of state than relatives of writers or composers. But I'm not really sure how to extrapolate from that into a "razor" to use.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems if a writer was prominent enough go become a cultural icon, say Ernest Hemingway, then the long-term inclusion of his wives, children, parents, etc., flesh out Wikipedia's map of the subject. It's a question of "should a line be drawn" somewhere between Abraham Lincoln, Ernest Heminway, and Dan Brown, or just leave notable family members who have Wikipedia pages remain on a principal topic's navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that does seem basically to be the question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A relative will generally not meet WP:NAVBOX #3: The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. The relative will generally only refer to the subject of the navbox, and not every other related link. The relation is presumably already mentioned in the respective article's body.—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'm following you correctly, since it seems to imply that if musician's navbox lists all their notable albums that each album page needs to talk about all the other albums.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but talking about even some of the records is more likely than talking about a relative at all. —Bagumba (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but it doesn't entirely address that "articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent" has to be, well, reasonable. It's more reasonable to expect that an article about a Hemingway book will mention some other Hemingway book than mention a Hemingway descendant; but that doesn't necessarily make the Hemingway descendant unreasonable to have in the navbox, since they'll reasonably be mentioned in the main bio and perhaps several other pages, even if not most articles on specific works. Anyway, I don't feel overwhelmingly strongly about inclusion/exclusion, just want to address the reasoning as clearly as possible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Navigation template#Problem with redlinks per WP:EXISTING. --woodensuperman 14:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does anyone else have an option at Template talk:The Lord_of the Rings#Repeated removal of icon contrary to WP:BRD? --woodensuperman 22:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a biased header here, the discussion isn't so specific. Well thought-out and well selected images on navboxes are in almost all cases fine, as long as the navbox isn't very large. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to WP:NAVDECOR they're not fine in any of those cases, but the navbox in question is large anyway. Pretty sure I've seen you advocate against them in presidential navboxes too... --woodensuperman 23:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of the presidential boxes are way too large for images but editors keep putting them on sometimes. Too large, no image (at least in the body of the navbox itself), it really squeezes the large navbox into an elongated shape. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have way too many navboxes with images that provide no navigational function. If I am reading WP:NAVDECOR and MOS:DECOR correctly, these are a definite no, right? I cannot see any argument for an image being in ((Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence)), it's clear what the article is about from the title. --woodensuperman 13:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What should WP:BIDIRECTIONAL say?

• Option A (status quo): Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional.
• Option B: Articles that transclude a given navbox should normally be included as a link in the navbox, enabling bidirectional navigation, but exceptions may be made when inclusion would be undue.
• Option C: There is no requirement that articles that transclude a given navbox have to be included as a link in the navbox.

(Prior discussion above.) Sdkb ^talk 04:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification note: If it aids understanding, Transcludes can be read as uses. Sdkb ^talk 17:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

• Option B. Navboxes are part of articles, and therefore the reasons that we have WP:DUE apply to them just as well as anywhere else. This means that sometimes it makes sense for niche topics to have navboxes that don't link back. For instance, for a professor or administrator who spent their entire career at a university, it might make sense to have the navbox for the university at their article, but it wouldn't make sense to add them to that navbox. Sdkb ^talk 04:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B, tetatively. This seems reasonable to me, though I do wonder about potential fallout. Someone might try to apply a navbox to every article in a broad category (e.g. ((Cue sports)) being jammed onto every pool/billiards/snooker player bio, event page, etc.). What prevents that from happening?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I share your concerns, it's not inclusion of the link in the navbox that would be undue, it's the transclusion of the navbox on the article that causes the undue issue. --woodensuperman 07:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A, but we need to tighten the rules. Every article that is in the navbox should have the navbox transcluded, but if this causes an WP:UNDUE issue at the article, the link should be removed from the navbox. The navbox should not be added to articles where it is not linked. This is what bidirectional actually means. --woodensuperman 07:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A with rewording. A navbox is for navigating between articles on a particular subject. Taking the example in the previous section of a professor who spent their career at one university, the text of the article about the professor would of course include a link to the article about the university. That's sufficient, and no navbox is needed. But Option A should be reworded, because currently it seems to suggest adding links to a navbox rather than removing the navbox from the article. It should say something like Only include the navbox on articles that are linked to by the navbox. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Navboxes aren't only for navigation, though — per the fifth bullet point of WP:NAVBOX here (which has guideline status), they also function as substitutes for see also sections. Sdkb ^talk 17:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No they're not substitutes for see also sections. You're reading that wrong. Navboxes are purely for navigation, nothing more. --woodensuperman 17:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Quoting from the guideline: Good navboxes generally follow most or all of these guidelines: ... 5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. Sdkb ^talk 17:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but that doesn't mean that it should be considered a substitute, it's just a consideration as to what can be included in a navbox. We should still follow the general principle of the very first sentence in the section, namely Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. --woodensuperman 17:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A. If the article isn't worthwhile to link back to, then the article does not belong on the navbox. --Gonnym (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B. Middle ground or...C..lets give content editors a choice/chance as to what is relevant for an article, especially during GA and FA reviews. Lets slowdown the workaround of our MOS:SEEALSO guideline and our November 2020 RfC for article stewards.Moxy- 13:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option C because A and B are irrational (see my comment below). I don't like option C but I prefer it to abstaining. Thincat (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A Retain status quo, as B and C are not improvements, opening editors to slapping on navboxes for every employer or performance, and tangetial subjects like alma maters and hometowns.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba:..You seem to be advocating for C....dont added them allover?Moxy- 09:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, C seems to allow the bio for Person X, who works for ACME, to include ACME's navbox, even if they are not linked there. I prefer A.—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh I see.... Add them even when they're not linked in the template. So for instance every movie that Elizabeth Taylor is in thoses templates would be on her autobiography.Moxy- 17:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the potential problem. —Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A is how I have always understood the issue and seems best for the science and philosophy navboxes that I usually deal with. The WP:Ignore all rules policy (and the hedging phrase "should normally" that is already in Option A) allows reasonable exceptions, and the exceptions can also be noted on the talk page of especially problematic navboxes or articles. Biogeographist (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B, though we might want to provide a little guidance for when a navbox is appropriate in an article despite the article being undue for the navbox. The most obvious example, to me, are articles that were split into sub-article for length - the navbox is often still appropriate for the sub-articles, but listing them all there could be redundant and undue. --Aquillion (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option A – The status-quo language already allows for exceptions. We don't need more cases of templates like ((National Register of Historic Places)), which is currently plastered on nearly 29,000 articles about places that happen to be on the National Register of Historic Places. Graham (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B, at least for sidebars. Quoting my reasoning from above: As commonly interpreted, it encourages sidebar bloat, with excessive articles added to sidebars to avoid their removal from those articles. The flaw in that logic is that while, say, Islamophobia might be a major element of an article (making the sidebar due), the article may be too minor to belong in the sidebar. Sidebars also have less space for links than navboxes at the bottom. The chief consequence of the status quo guideline isn't more parsimonious inclusion of sidebars ("this article wouldn't be due in the sidebar so I won't transclude it"), it's extreme overlinking of barely-relevant articles within sidebars ("the sidebar is relevant here", then someone else inevitably comes along and adds a link, bloating it), and I don't think that's a good outcome. DFlhb (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B gives the community a chance to detail an entire story only if, and that is important, only if the exceptions are done well and reasonably communicate to the reader. My own contributions to navboxes rarely include such exceptions, except in the case of the navboxes I've created for many of the United States Founding Fathers. These include an above portion which gives a biographical timeline that actually saves what some editors call 'navbox creep'. If these above sections were not allowed, then a separate navbox cage would have to be created, for example, for delegates to the Second Continental Congress, who are now covered within their biographical navboxes (i.e. ((Richard Henry Lee)). Exceptions are one of the valued rungs in the backbone of Wikipedia, they are called for in each guideline summary, and they give Wikipedians some breathing room in their editing style. But again, rare but efficient is the key. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Pinging participants from the prior discussion: @Mudwater, Woodensuperman, Randy Kryn, Moxy, DFlhb, Bagumba, and SMcCandlish: Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 04:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with B is that it opens the door to pages including very tangentially related navboxes. Putting every employer of a person, all their performances, etc. For example, this would defeat the purpose of WP:PERFNAV. I still think an includer should be listed in the navbox, but am open to discussion about whether say Elizabeth Taylor's bio needs to include every navbox she is listed in.—Bagumba (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the ongoing issue with awards navboxes and similar causing clutter. When you have this many navboxes on a page, it defeats the point. People treat navboxes as a substitute for articles sometimes, this is not what they are for. They need to be restricted to clearly defined smaller sets, and be subject to more stringent scrutiny in the way that say WP:DEFINING is used in categories. --woodensuperman 07:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed awards navboxes above. They are fine, long term, and show the achievements of an actor or a sportsperson who, having chosen their profession, achieve its top and either win an event on their own or are awarded by selection by their peers or the profession's main observers. If a person is named on an awards navbox its inclusion on the page is approved by all three of the options above. I would lean towards B, such as of course keeping the links on ((Richard Henry Lee)) to his career in "above" and participation in some of the Founding events which don't have everyone's navbox on the page, such as the signing of the Declaration of Independence) but am concerned that you, in particular, will look for and find loopholes in the language of any one of these to continue to remove individual items and entire areas of linked items (i.e. option A would remove portals and categories, etc. as well as historical listings of an individuals life in the "above" sections). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: What, exactly, does "transcludes" mean in the context of this wording? Even reading the dictionary definition I'm not totally clear what it would mean per this discussion. Can someone give examples, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  transcluding = placing the navbox in the article. --woodensuperman 11:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Then on my question above about, for example, ((Richard Henry Lee)), what would be removed, if anything, per Option A, Option B, and Option C. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Anything in the "above" section for a start for all options. It's a navbox, not an infobox. Without going too in depth (as it's not a topic I have any knowledge of), there seems like quite a few inappropriate inclusions in the body, Memorial to the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence for one. And that's before we even go into options a, b or c. --woodensuperman 12:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So you'd gut the navbox in any case. Would like SMcClandish's opinion on this. The Memorial honors all the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and is their main honoring, as a group, in the United States. The "above" is fine for informational purposes (and for navigation for those who wish to familiarize themselves with the positions), and define the individual's life without having to place the navbox on all relevant pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per your The "above" is fine for informational purposes. I repeat. This is a navbox, not an infobox. --woodensuperman 12:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Using above for such purposes has been in effect for well over a decade. Letting readers have insight on a topic does not have to be reserved for "infoboxes" but can be presented in the official Wikipedia map to the topic (navboxes). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The very first line of WP:NAVBOX states: Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia (emphasis mine). All the time we are linking away to an article that does not have the navbox transcluded upon it does not perform that function as it navigates away from those articles, not between them. --woodensuperman 13:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've seen some really ridiculous use of the language disparaging two items on navboxes, such as "what does topic Afoo have to do with topic Bfoo", when both topics are directly related to the subject of the navbox. You take wording too literally. In the example above, ((Richard Henry Lee)), if you object to the inclusion of the major memorial to the signers of the Declaration of Independence then we should add a navbox cage which includes the navboxes of the signers who have navboxes, which would add many navboxes to the page which seems to be your concern. It's easier just listing the national memorial (as is done with the Jefferson Memorial being included on Jefferson's navbox) rather than adding all the navboxes to the memorial page - and recall, this is the national memorial to all of the signers of the Declaration and should be a major inclusion in their navboxes. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No. What should happen is that that article should be removed from this and any similar navbox as it would not be appropriate to have 56 navboxes in a "cage" on the article. What however is appropriate is to include the people and the memorial on the navbox ((Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence)) so you can navigate between those articles through this method. --woodensuperman 13:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (although there is a massive overlap with a section of ((Historical American Documents)) which quite frankly is a mess. I think I'd prefer to see a discrete ((Declaration of Independence)) navbox which combines elements of both.) --woodensuperman 13:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you serious??, you're going to go about purging American independence navboxes because I mentioned one here? You've removed the long-time image from ((Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence)) and now want to disfigure ((Historical American Documents)) which is one of the best navboxes pertaining to American independence on the site? Will stop here before getting way too personal about your way of editing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ((Historical American Documents)) is a f*cking travesty of a navbox. I don't know where to begin with that one. If you're calling it "one of the best navboxes [...] on the site", you might need to have a rethink about what makes a good navbox. A navbox that size with multiple sections that repeat the same links over and over again is way too complicated to provide any useful navigation. If it was split to its components it may prove a more concise useful navigational tool, but as it stands, ugh! --woodensuperman 13:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And with regard to the image at ((Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence)), see WP:NAVDECOR: Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative; Per MOS:DECOR, images are rarely appropriate in navboxes. --woodensuperman 13:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here we go, the deletionist treatment, please just leave American independence navboxes alone. "A f*cking travesty of a navbox"? One of the best navboxes on the site? And maybe the best for its topic? What, in Wales' name, is wrong with you (a good faith rhetorical question). The image at the Declaration signers is appropriate per both the WP's you mention. And it is not an icon (I'm with you on not liking icons on navboxes). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Welcome to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --woodensuperman 13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To answer your question at the top of the thread, Randy, "transcludes" = "uses". I think changing that to the plain language, regardless of the outcome of this RfC, would be a good step. Sdkb ^talk 17:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Transcludes is already linked to Help:Transclusion upon first usage at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. —Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even so, it's clearly causing some degree of confusion, so we should avoid jargon whenever possible (and we could still keep the link, even if we changed to plain English). Sdkb ^talk 17:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If we must, then includes is more succinct than uses. —Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Transclusion is specific to the placing navboxes on articles, it is not the same as "using". If you are editing around navboxes, you should be familiar with the principle. --woodensuperman 17:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging @Gonnym, given that the comment in your !vote seems to speak to something different than what is being proposed. Sdkb ^talk 17:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I understand fine. If it's linked in the navbox, the navbox must be used in the article. Gonnym (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This wearisome issue has been discussed for at least the last ten years (starting here?} and every year or so since then. The first part of option A Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox does not ensure bidirectionality . For that Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox and every article linked to from the navbox should normally transclude the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional. I find it very hard to wrap my mind round that (increasingly so as I get older!) but the deep underlying problem has led to many of the difficulties of varied understandings. Thincat (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this is how EXACTLY how it should work. And this would help to stop the overproliferation of navboxes we see now, and the psuedo infoboxes we see way too much now. --woodensuperman 21:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But with commonsense exceptions, which I'll describe further in the survey. Exceptions are allowed and encouraged in all guidelines. For example, Woodensuperman would like to delete Memorial to the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence from individual navboxes even though, like Richard Henry Lee, it's his only memorial in Washington D.C. If this and similar exception aren't made then the other solution would be to include the navboxes of individual honored at the Memorial in a single navbox cage with a descriptive label. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that article does not need to be included in all of those individuals' navboxes. They are linked in the navboxes ((Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence)) and also in ((Historical American Documents)). This is already sufficent to provide navigation between these articles. Also I am seeing some redundancy between the two. --woodensuperman 09:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, looking at ((Richard Henry Lee)), most of the "above" section should go too. This is a navbox, not an infobox. For example, we don't need to include a link to List of United States senators from Virginia in this navbox, when Lee is included in ((United States senators from Virginia)). This is how WP:BIDIRECTIONAL should work. --woodensuperman 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Those would be exceptions (do you understand that all guidelines use common sense and exceptions?). A navbox is a map to articles on Wikipedia which pertain to the subject. As for the Memorial to the 56 page, if you are going to delete that from navboxes (really going overboard don't you think?) then will have to put up a collapsed hidden navbox (the navbox cage) to include the six or so navboxes which include the page. As I said earlier, this is the only public honor for Richard Henry Lee in Washington D.C., the capitol city of the country that he had such an impact in forming. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How many exceptions do you need in a single navbox? The odd one, maybe, but that entire "above" section is all exceptions. Use ((Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence)) or ((Historical American Documents)) as your map, not the individuals' navboxes, that way you don't need to transclude them in a "cage". If the information is pertinent, the reader will be able to find the link in the article, you shouldn't be trying to use navboxes as substitutes for articles. --woodensuperman 12:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have anything to add at these deletion discussions? Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 1#AFI templates and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 February 29#Template:Cahiers du Cinéma's Top Ten Films. We've already deleted other AFI ones and a Sight and Sound one recently. --woodensuperman 17:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as they are all good functional and popular navboxes. In fact the Sight and Sound navbox will be up for deletion review soon as it was "decided" by three 'voters', two of who wanted to delete it and the third, in a fuller and more reasoned response, wanted it kept. I was personally unaware of that discussion or would have been in its midst as a Keep editor - the Sight and Sound poll is the definitive listing of best films ever made upon its renewal every 10 years, and the 2008 Cahiers du Cinema poll, its navbox up for deletion now, isn't far behind as an honored and reputable poll of film. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I point you to this discussion where it seems consensus was not to WP:DRV this. --woodensuperman 08:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a deletion review but a limited discussion at a WikiProject talk page. If someone wants to challenge a deletion then a WikiProject discussion isn't the place to decide the issue. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This navbox included pages about genetic histories of many ethnic groups, but most of them were removed because they redirected to sections of articles. According to this guideline, should links to sections be excluded from navboxes? Jarble (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think they can be included if full and complete and can arguably be forked into their own article (some artworks have this situation), but I've seen links to sections which are too small and incomplete sections which are rightfully removed. Woodensuperman would likely know more about the history of discussion and/or guideline on this aspect of navboxes. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's a recent discussion on this but I can't find it. I think if there's a defined section, it's sometimes allowable, although I can see some issues with some of the links in ((Human genetics)). For example Early Anatolian Farmers is linked, but this redirects to Neolithic Europe#Genetics, with no section on Anatolia and no reference to Anatolia in this section. Also at this section it suggests that Genetic history of Europe is the more in depth article which has a section Genetic history of Europe#Neolithic which at leasts mentions Anatolia. However as Genetic history of Europe is already linked, we don't need to link it again anyway. --woodensuperman 13:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly Genetic history of the Caucasus is linked, which is a redirect to Prehistoric Caucasus#Genetic history, a section which suggests that Caucasus hunter-gatherer is the main article for this section, which is already linked in the navbox, so we probably don't need this redirect either. --woodensuperman 14:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(earlier discussion here) --woodensuperman 14:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAVNOREDIRECT: It is usually preferable not to use redirected links in navigational templates[...]. When a template is placed on an article and contains a direct link to the same article (rather than a redirect), the direct link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles using the template. There are exceptions to this exception: where a redirect represents a distinct sub-topic within a larger article and is not merely a variant name, it is preferable to leave the redirect in the template. --woodensuperman 14:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think we should be avoiding linking to different sections of the same article multiple times. --woodensuperman 14:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I don't recall ever linking a section to a navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need for a rule....we should simply do what is best for readers to navigate topics....that may involve a section link (especially after mergers). Moxy🍁 16:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they are done well then yes, I can see your point. Yet some editors will overload section links onto a single navbox, which should be at least discouraged. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]