This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Per some of the problems that were raised by the (now on wikibreak) editor who seems to take guidelines literally and make mass changes based on his interpretation, I added the following refinement of the bidirectionality standard. (diff here)

An article that transcludes a given navbox should normally be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. However, this is not required, and particularly where inclusion of every article transcluding the navbox could result in hundreds of links, a link to appropriate lists or general topic overviews with links to the articles in question is acceptable. A navbox in an article that cannot be accessed from the navbox within two clicks is inadvisable.

I think this clarifies actual use; having hundreds of links in a navbox is generally not desirable in the eyes of most folks here, but at the same time, a navbox in an article that is not necessarily in the navbox can help readers get back to a main topic from a more obscure article. Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Took me some time to understand. For the time being: oppose per K.I.S.S. principle. Could you give an example that illustrates the idea of what you want to express in the guideline? Is there a navbox that is on hundreds of pages, with a more limited set of links (because that's what this is about, right?)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Is this in response to the ((Aviation lists)) RfC, or have you got another navbox in mind? If the former, I'd say that's a done deal. Alakzi (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Open to clearer phrasing. Case in point: List of horse breeds, List of donkey breeds, Glossary of equestrian terms and others at ((Equine)). Over 400 articles in the horse breeds list, making it too much for even a breakout navbox for breeds. but yes, seeing the concern at the aviation lists RfC could become a problem. Montanabw^(talk) 23:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • There are break-out navboxes for breeds, e.g. ((Horse breeds of Germany)), and that template has a link to List of horse breeds at the bottom. Don't see the problem. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • The "breeds of nation" navboxes are quite incomplete, (generally confined to truly small groups) and can be duplicative (the Lipizzan breed is claimed by about five different nations) This was a source of drama last summer; thanks to the same editor; he argued for pure bidirectionality as well as elimination of all redlinks from all navboxes, which was a patently absurd result. (Trust me, I would be proposing this if it weren't a potential problem that could recur) I don't think my proposal creates anything that does not already exist and may tone down the drama about interpreting "bidirectionality" - particularly when I see a similar pattern at ((Johann Sebastian Bach)) where there are links to lists such as Cantatas, Motets, etc. Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Re. ((Johann Sebastian Bach)): bi-directionality in order I think, maybe one exception, the "students" link (that's why the guideline has "normally..."). But e.g. Violin Concerto in A minor (Bach) does not have the ((Johann Sebastian Bach)) template, while there's a break-out ((Bach violin concertos)) template. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
          • • No, there are links to multiple different things, Cantatas, Motets, and so on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)

I really don't understand the purpose of the above edit. It waters down bidirectionality to the point that it becomes meaningless. Since this edit does not yet have consensus, I have reverted it. Full bidirectionality would require:

Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. Likewise, to achieve this bidirectionality, every article linked in the navbox should normally have the template transcluded. Exceptions to this general guideline include but are not limited to navbox headings and footers that need not transclude the navigation template.

The whole purpose of navboxes is to aid navigation between related articles and that navigation is easiest and most natural when the links are bidirectional. A navbox without bidirectionality is a badly designed navbox.

navbox can help readers get back to a main topic from a more obscure article How did the reader get to this obscure article? If this article is not contained as a link in the navbox, then the reader obviously wasn't using the navbox. So why would a reader look to a navbox to get back to the main topic? Worse yet, if the reader did use the navbox to get back to the main topic, then the navbox itself can not be used to get back to the obscure topic. Wikilinks in the article text or in a "see also" section will be much more likely be noticed by the reader and hence a more effective way to leading the reader back to the main topic. Including navboxes in hundreds of articles where the articles are not contained in the navbox defeats the purpose of having a navbox. It would be far better to have a navbox dedicated to the related obscure topics with a title or footer in the navbox that leads back to the main topic. Boghog (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is relevant: Template talk:Aviation lists#‎RfC: Should this navbox be removed from non-mentioned articles?. The conclusion of that RfC is that at least for ((Aviation lists)), it is not appropriate to include this navbox in articles where the article is not included as a link. Boghog (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree; full bidirectionality is an extreme - the caveat "normally" is being ignored by editors who go around removing navboxes from articles and so on. Your argument for see also lists or article text links is really an argument to not have any navboxes at all for anything. (I presume that isn't your view) Everyone has a different web surfing style, one gets to the end of an article on a specific topic, then moves on to something else relevant to the general topic, but a person doesn't always use inline links to access related material - link can go far beyond the topic or category to totally unrelated topics. And a see also list is not supposed to get too long, and those of us who create content are actually strongly encouraged to keep them to a minimum, particularly when cross-referencing. Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The aviation lists drama was a poor outcome and an example of yet more problems caused by the same (now on wikibreak) editor who confuses guidelines with policy. Frankly, no one is going to remove that template from thousands of articles if that's how many it's on ... When you actually create content, you see how there is a need for certain types of navigability and the reality of how navboxes are used in the real world is quite different from these guidelines, which need some clarification. (((The Beatles)) is a great example) I'm really quite serious; I don't particularly want to be hre, but I'm tired of now a second round of one editor using these guidelines ad a bludgon. Time to fix them. Montanabw^(talk) 06:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Bidirectionality is not extreme, it is common sense. By your logic, all guidelines should be abolished because some editors may confuse guidelines with policy. If an editor is using a guideline as a bludgeon, the problem lies with the editor, not the guideline. The "poor outcome" was the result of consensus which I strongly support. Several of the editors who supported removing ((Aviation lists)) from articles which were not included as a link quoted bidirectionality as one of their arguments. Clearly these same editors support the principle of bidirectionality. Your proposed changes to the bidirectionality guideline directly contradicts that consensus.

• Frankly, no one is going to remove that template from thousands of articles if that's how many it's on – ((Aviation lists)) was transcluded in 17,000+ articles which has now been reduced to 245 (see Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Template:Aviation_lists for the bot that removed the template from thousands of articles).
• Your argument for see also lists or article text links is really an argument to not have any navboxes at all for anything. Not at all. All I was suggesting is that there are better alternatives. Another alternative is ((main)). I also suggested a much better way to link back from obscure articles to the main subject is by creating a navbox that links related obsurce articles and has the main subject in the heading or footer of the navbox (see the "exceptions" clause in my proposed wording above). Boghog (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• • • The "balkanization" of navboxes isn't helpful, though, it's the same problem as content forking articles. For example, ((Equidae_extinct_nav)) was a fork of ((Equus)) and, frankly, I think they both are unreadable and busy. An infobox that summarizes the key articles in a given project allows the reader to move not just within a highly specialized topic, but into articles that are within the scope of the project, such as moving from, for example, domestication of the horse to the article on horse equipment (horse tack). Montanabw^(talk) 19:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This "balkanization" nothing to do with content forking, but rather creating walled gardens. This "balkanization" of articles and navboxes can easily be prevented by adding bidirectional links between project navboxes. Navbox headers allow readers to move move from specialized topics back into the main topics of the subject area. Conversely footer links from the main project navbox the more specialized project navboxes allow readers to find more specialized subtopics. You see, bidirectionality is useful! ((Equidae_extinct_nav)) is not a fork of ((Equus)) and it was very appropriate to separate the two. Boghog (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

((The Beatles)) is a great example because of its full bidirectionality and as a consequence, it really can be used as a navigational tool to quickly navigate between related articles of related importance. This is how a navbox should look and function. It previously did not conform to bidirectionality because of its huge size that in turn was due to the template transcluding several other large navigation templates. Such templates should be used very sparingly because of the excessive number of links. The template was split into its component parts greatly reducing its size and thus allowing full bidirectionality. Boghog (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sincere question, though? Wouldn't a lot of people say that the current Beatles navbox is still way too large and horribly bloated? Particularly those who argue for a "small" number of links, as in my other suggestion below? Montanabw^(talk) 19:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't thinks so nor do I think a lot of other people would think so either. (Note: using ((Navbox with collapsible groups)) is one way reducing the size of the displayed template while retaining all of the content) One should always keep in mind that "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." per WP:GUIDELINE. If there is a disagreement on the appropriate size of an individual template, this should be resolved like all other disagreement are resolved, through obtaining consensus. Boghog (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: After a RfC that goes overwhelmingly in one direction (aviation lists), rewriting the applicable guideline in the opposite direction reeks of WP:SNOW. Maybe think of it this way: most guidance is already based on what editors generally want. WP:CCC and all that, but it doesn't seem the time that this is going to happen on this particular issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "What editors generally want" is an open question: is it what the content creators who actually have to use and navigate between articles want, or is it what the people who concern themselves only with the technical aspects of navboxes want? There is a disconnect here. Clearly, there needs to be slightly stronger language than the word "normally" to allow for the exceptions to the general bidirectionality rule, as some literal-minded editors have no common sense and try to remove templates from all articles that aren't linked in the navbox, even though it's obvious that the navbox belongs on those articles, particularly when they are covered in a list article and would be highly impractical to put into any sort of comprehensive working template. Montanabw^(talk) 19:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I felt inspired yesterday and started ((Franz Schubert)). --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What I'm after here is basically to be sure we clarify that a navbox can be placed on an article that is not linked in the navbox under certain, limited circumstances, and specifically where the navbox link goes to a list article that contains the article that transcludes the navbox. So how do we get there? Montanabw^(talk) 19:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Writing out such detailed clarification is actually rather something for guideline hogs. The current recommendation is sufficiently flexible for the odd exception in practical circumstances. Not for applying the aviation lists template to hundreds of articles. Editors generally don't want it that way, and that is reflected in the guideline. Aspersions against editors who don't appear to see it your way isn't really helpful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Francis, unfortunately, you are (believe it or not) wrong. A need for detailed clarification occurs when vague and nonspecific guidelines are misinterpreted. And here they have been, I've had to deal with two incidents, about six months or more apart, both involving an interpretation of bidirectional that ignores the caveat "normally" and IAR. I think a "two click" rule to allow lists to be in a navbox and the navbox transcluded on each article contained in the list, on a limited basis, is actually a very good way to handle a topic with large numbers of items; a 200-link navbox is really most suitable for date series articles ( {[tl|The Boat Race)), for example) or things that are numbered (like Bach composition) and it is more problematic for things like vehicle models and such—or the works of L. Frank Baum; how much simpler would that navbox be if there could simply be a link to "List of Oz books by L. Frank Baum." Montanabw^(talk) 03:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Re. "...misinterpreted..." – says who? the one who decides who "is" right and who "is" wrong? I don't see consensus swayed by the current approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, Francis, you don't agree, but you are not a consensus of one. Sadly, the walls of text have made it difficult to even have a rational discussion at this point. Montanabw^(talk) 07:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Concerning this proposal to tweak bidirectionality, I agree with Francis, so that is at least a consensus of two. If one includes the consensus at the aviation lists RfC, then the consensus is overwhelming against this proposal. The wall of text is a direct result of your failure to WP:LISTEN. Boghog (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I WP:HEAR you loud and clear. But a lack of traffic at this page and a drama board RfC that only pings people who haunt RfC (and not the relevant wikiprojects) is not anything close to a community-wide assessment of the issue. All I see here is a pair of bullies who WP:OWN this page and will not accept any form of change or compromise, let alone discuss anything in good faith without resorting to bullying, condescension and personal attacks. That said, I'll walk away from this one for now, I need to make a choice where my energy will go, and it isn't here. But if the literalness problem coupled with an inability to IAR or to note the word "normally," comes up again on a template or article where where I think it important, I now know what is apt to happen and will be prepared to respond appropriately. Montanabw^(talk) 04:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

'One click' advantage

How about this: "navboxes work best when exploiting the 'one click' advantage they have over categories and over linking to a list: these last two need at least two clicks to get to a similar article" – I don't propose this as a replacement of the bi-directionality guidance, but as something sketching the wider context explaining the sense of leaning towards bidirectionality for navboxes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I like it since it explains why bidirectionally is useful. We could add to this "With bidirectionally, the article's self-link will be bolded in the navbox which provides the reader with an immediate visual clue as to where in the navbox the current article is located and what are the most closely related articles." Boghog (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Both are actually helpful additions that clarify this guideline, though perhaps just, "... over categories or lists." (Keeping in mind that a small number of category or list links may well be included in a navbox and even the existing guideline doesn't prohibit that, according to how you have interpreted the present guideline). You have to be aware that I am not opposed to bidirectionality in general, I merely believe there are exceptions; but I am here because I've had trouble on two separate occasions, about six months apart, with a user who seems to have trouble with exceptions... WP:IAR is to be applied carefully and with good reason, but it CAN be applied. I simply seek acknowledgement of that. Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

An editor has removed the stat_ref value from at least one instance of the Largest cities template (i.e. ((Largest cities of Maryland))) because it's a NAVBOX, and the unofficial WP:NAV guidance and archived discussions forbid external links in NAVBOXes.

While I interpret the prohibition as applying to external navigation links, the opposing editor applies a literal interpretation that any external source link (including usually government data in a source) is forbidden, stating that "Navboxes across wikipedia aren't sourced" and that the linked "articles have the sources". To the contrary, NAVBOXes that include Template:Largest cities template are sourced across Wikipedia, via the stat_ref parameter. Some example articles: Algeria, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Bangladesh, Benin, Demographics of Canada, China, Chile, .... There are hundreds of such articles.

What are others' opinions on the validity of including external source links in such templates and NAVBOXes? —ADavidB 03:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

((Largest cities)) is a very confusing template. It appears to be a hybrid between an infobox and a navbox. A pure navbox should only contain links to Wikipedia articles each of which in turn is already sourced so it should not be necessary to include sources within the navbox. Also the placement of ((Largest cities)) (e.g., ((Largest cities of Maryland))) is sometimes like an infobox (e.g., Maryland in the body of the article uncollapsed), or as navbox (e.g., Columbia, Maryland at the bottom of the article and collapsed). In addition, a pure navbox should not contain information other than links and explanatory headings. ((Largest cities of Maryland)) contains graphics which is appropriate for an infobox, but not a navbox. Finally the consensus is to delete many of the instances of this template. Since most of the instances of the ((Largest cities)) template is as an navbox (i.e., placed at the bottom of the article), it would be better to convert ((Largest cities)) template into a pure navbox by removing |stat_ref= and extraneous information such as graphics. Boghog (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that ((Largest cities)) has an optional parameter |class=nav(box). One alternative would be to modify the template so that it accepts a |class=info(box)/nav(box) option that controls the display of the template. This way, one could use the template either as a infobox (uncollapsed and displays both |stat_ref= and |img_n=) or as a navbox (collapsed and suppression of the source and graphics). Problem solved. Boghog (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Even in infoboxes I would suggest that external links (or at least references) are discouraged since everything within the navbox, like the lead itself, should be sourced somewhere in the article-proper. An infobox is a summary. --Izno (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This navbox uses a particular template, as described above. Templates are used by design to simplify addition of content. Why require a list of largest cities to be identified and referenced again outside the navbox when the template content itself otherwise fully suffices? The main subject of the articles that include these lists is the country or other encompassing government body. —ADavidB 05:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are putting non-en.Wikipedia links in a navbox, you're probably failing to use a navbox for its expected purpose. I see little reason why the numbers should be listed, or for that matter the images, in this navbox, and the county isn't relevant to a topic of "largest cities". Suggest stubbing it down to the simple links. --Izno (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The template is used broadly as a means of listing largest cities and providing a non-en.wikipedia source reference. As I see it, the numbers quickly give a relative difference between populations and help avoid disputes or edits that might otherwise result in incorrect reordering of the list (even more likely if a source reference is disallowed). —ADavidB 05:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What you are describing is an infobox, not a navbox. A navbox is designed to facilitate navigation between closely related articles. Nothing more. Graphics and sources do not belong in navboxes but may be appropriate for infoboxes. Adding a reference to a navbox that is placed at the end of an article is awkward because it creates a new reference section below the navbox separated from all the rest of the references. I still think the best solution is to add support to ((Largest cities)) for a |class=info(box)/nav(box) parameter that would control whether the template behaves like a navbox (displaying only links) or as an infobox (displaying links + graphics + sources). Boghog (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the solution you describe. I believe the template is more often used/intended as an infobox. —ADavidB 06:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The ((Largest cities)) template is much more often used as a navbox (positioned at the bottom of the article collapsed) than as a infobox (in the body of the article uncollapsed). For example, the ((Largest cities of Maryland)) is used only once as an infobox in Maryland and in the remainder of the articles, as a navbox. Hence I think the default |class)= should be set to navbox. Boghog (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Adavidb: Suggested the above change here. Boghog (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I propose that, due to the prominence of navboxes and sidebars, criterion numero 5 in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates § Navigation templates be reinforced with:

5. The subject of a navigation template should be of a defining nature to the articles that the navigation template is placed in.

Rationale

• Navigation templates, and navboxes in particular, are often placed in articles they're peripherally relevant. One recent example would be ((Black Lives Matter)), the subject of which, Black Lives Matter, is only mentioned in passing in all of the shooting articles. Navigation templates are visually distinctive and thus demand the attention of the reader; the reader may be left with the impression that the subject is of import to the article. This is tantamount to a WP:UNDUE violation.
• Non-defining navboxes clutter the footer of articles. Take, for instance, the international organisation country membership navboxes, which are themselves contained in navbox containers, in China or Japan.

Alakzi (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose based on structure; neutral pending discussion on concept. The rationale below clarifies your intent, which I think is, basically, "don't put navboxes into articles where they aren't relevant (though the bidirectionality standard we are debating above also requires this, as a general rule) but the phrasing above is pretty vague and fuzzy. I think that this is a new criterion based on when navboxes are added to an article (and how many, and if they are collapsed, etc.). The wording "of a defining nature" is kind of meaningless and should be rephrased or clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
  • The bidirectionality standard does not require this. If anything, WP:BIDIRECTIONAL facilitates the inclusion of navboxes in articles where they aren't particularly relevant. Alakzi (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, WP:DEFINING is a difficult to handle concept, even in the context where it's used currently (categorization). Also it doesn't prevent articles to be flooded with dozens and dozens of categories. So not a good idea to use this concept as an instrument to limit the number of navboxes (we'd get hopelessly trivial navboxes e.g. tenthousands of people born in the same year, doubling the existing category). The "Defining" concept is on a root level incompatible with navboxes. "Re-interpreting" the concept for use with navboxes would even give more mess in the categories departement (where the concept is regularly disputed, giving new ammunition to the disputants). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles". The guideline applies as a whole; a WP:DEFINING-akin criterion would coexist with all other criteria. Therefore, no, we'd not get born in year navboxes. So long as we agree that there exists an issue with navbox creep, we can work on what the exact wording should be. Alakzi (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Really, WP:DEFINING is not the place where to look for help for addressing this navbox issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• What does "defining nature" mean? I think those are the words your suggestion focuses on. To me defining nature would be anything which defines a subject further, a subject which is related closely enough so that a reader may find the template educational and useful. Randy Kryn 14:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that's probably too open-ended. I'd define it as a core theme or attribute, or a distinctive characteristic; it would be something you might expect to find in the lead of the article. See the rules of thumb at WP:NON-DEFINING - we won't be copying them verbatim, I presume, but it's a good starting point. Alakzi (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• The current criterion #5 says, "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." I think you are actually discussing a different concept—the inclusion of the navbox in an article, not the contents of the navbox. Also, navboxes are not categories; a navbox might encompass topics in multiple categories and a category might encompass many things not in a particular navbox ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)

Do we have any specific guideline or prior consensus regarding the use of images in navboxes? The issue is not dealt with here at all. Personally, I'm dead against them, as they provide no navigational value, they bloat the navboxes making them less compact, they give WP:UNDUE weight to a certain aspect of the topic, and they often repeat an image that could be found elsewhere on the page, or they show a tangentially related image. The only thing I can find is at the essay WP:NAV#Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative. I usually remove them if I come across them, unless there is a really iconic and strong tie to the topic, and especially if they force the navbox to be bigger than it need be, but I fail to see how this image enhances ((Ken Kesey)) for example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You are correct very small images are discouraged ..this is covered at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size "Images should be large enough to reveal relevant details" ...images in footer navboxs are simply to small to be of value to most readers (like mini icons) and generally say nothing about the image (no caption)....let alone how many of these images cause people to have to side scroll. This type of problem usually gets fixed during GA and FA reviews. In the case mentioned above the image in question is of very very low quality and should not even be used in an article let alone as a mini image. -- Moxy (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the usual conflict between a raw technical view and a graphic design and layout view. Similar to use of color, an image in a navbox can draw the reader's eye to the navbox and thelinks it contains. This is particularly useful for non-sophisticated readers who are not familiar with the usefulness of navboxes and also useful to catch the eyes of people with slight vision problems (yours truly included). What image to include is often a debate that is needed, but, to give the example of ((Tibetan Buddhism)), use of icons and imagery (as well as color) helps a navbox do what it is supposed to do - draw the reader to other articles on the topic. Montanabw^(talk) 00:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Above are great points.... but not what we're supposed to be doing in my opinion. All templates should have the same prominence on a page in an ideal situation. if links within a template are that Important that should be in the see also section or better yet incorporated into the article itself. just my opinion--Moxy (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I can see the point in a sidebar, which can function like an infobox and help identify the topic, and there's only likely to be one on the page. But in the footer navboxes, I think they're unnecessary, clumsy, and can actually draw focus from other "equal" navboxes, hence my mention of WP:UNDUE. Not to mention they serve no navigational purpose. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Images in templates are fine. They draw the eye to the template itself, and one of the purposes of an image, if done appropriately (and the image at Ken Kesey is very good and fits the subject well, any of you guys know the history of the 1960s?), is to give the reader a look at the template so they can familiarize themselves with what Wikipedia has to offer. Too many people I know are ignorant of both the existence of footer templates and the treasures they have in terms of an information map. Images work well for that purpose. This seems, once again, a clash of cultures in terms of "What a template/navbox is", and so is a wider question. In the last two months or so Robsinden has tried to get rid of long-time established sister-project links in the below section, red links in the template, long-time established dates in the title, and now the long-time established use of accenting images. All of which, in the opinion of some other editors, enhance the templates and the information flow. Literally two views of template-nclusion, but the problem is that all of the items in a limited templates are included in the slightly-expanded templates, and so these discussions always center on removing data which other people like but keeping all of the data the exclusionists like, thus missing a sense of balance in a final consensus. Randy Kryn 9:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If all the navboxes weren't all collapsed, the image of the bus in the ((Ken Kesey)) template is completely irrlevant and out of place at, say the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film) article, and also puts WP:UNDUE weight on the Kesey template over the ((Milos Forman)) template. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And as far as your other points go, this is not the forum for it, but adding sister project links is editing against the guidelines, so they are not "long-time established", quite the opposite in fact, same with adding redlinks until very recently. Please keep to the point in hand Randy, rather than trying to drag separate issues into the mix. Your posts have a tendency to drift off-topic and muddle the argument anyway. WP:WALLOFTEXT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As for the manual of style, the full statement is "Images should be large enough to reveal relevant details without overwhelming the surrounding article text". The images under discussion are fine and not overwhelming. Randy Kryn 9:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"Article text" Randy. A template is not an article. There is no provision for images in navboxes in the guidelines as far as I can see, this seems to be a practice that has snuck in. And people creating new templates often copy similar ones, warts and all. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Snuck in? Probably been present since the inception, although I have no proof of that. The text means the same thing, the reason the images in templates are smaller is that they are not there to overwhelm the text, but to accent the subject just enough to draw attention to the template. We all realize that templates, especially footers, are not well-known by the average general reader (the same with sister-projects), and each reader has to have the "ah ha" template moment where they find these gems. Not every template needs an image, but some are small enough or important enough so that the image fits perfectly and accents the "template experience". I'd suggest that if one or a few editors are in favor of a particular image staying, and can point out in a coherent and reasonable way why it should remain, that should carry the weight of reason and allow for their continued inclusion. Randy Kryn 10:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

What should be asked in this case is does a very small out of focus image help our readers or make them wonder what the image about or who is cut off in the image...is it Ken Kesey? The image is simply not of value and posses more questions then it solves....let alone the other reasons for its exclusion. . -- Moxy (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Or, "Why is there a picture of a bus on the bottom of the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film) article?" --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've just removed the image from ((Martin Luther King)) too. I cannot understand why, when you have a navbox of that size, anyone would want to make it at least 20% bigger and add a little picture? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  Good removal, in my opinion as well. The King navbox, which I've worked on quite a bit, does look better without the image - I didn't put it there and never even looked at it with all text. It's a large template, folded up, so it's a good call. On smaller templates a picture does the opposite, it often adds to the experience (check out the fine picture on the ((Nikola Tesla)) template). On the Kesey expanded template on the Cuckoo's Nest film, it shouldn't be expanded there, so I'll swing by and collapse it if it is (EDIT: It wasn't, in fact all of the templates are locked up and hidden in one of those template-limiting "Links to other articles" cages). Randy Kryn 2:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That Tesla image is exactly my point. By removing the image, we can reduce the size of the navbox by about 50%... --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I imply I like something and you run over to remove it. The template is not reduced in size by 50 percent if the fine image is removed, you must be viewing your screen at some percentage that stretches the template very wide, maybe that's your problem with images. I put it back and reduced the size of the picture a little. Randy Kryn 13:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Small resolutions are decreasing in usage; I see the same size as Rob. That said, I'm okay with a little whitespace in the groups myself. I think he removed it as an example (and I certainly would not have expected the edit to stick ;). --Izno (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Case-by-case basis, as always. I don't see a reason to include the notion of images in the guideline (above and beyond "hi this is a thing that you can do", if that).

  Images have been present in navboxes since at least 2007, so saying they've creeped in is a mischaracterization of fact.

  On the general, my feeling is that one image, properly representing the topic of a navbox, is acceptable. For example, this edit of T:MLK I would disagree with under this principle. Another such item might be Template:Half-Life series, which uses the Half-Life logo. --Izno (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree. I don't see any reason (nor a demonstrated consensus) for a rule either way, other than the default "it isn't forbidden". postdlf (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • There is no hard and fast guideline on images in navigation templates. Obviously, there's nothing to say they must use images, but there is also nothing to say they can't or shouldn't use images. Common sense would seem to be the mandate here. Removing the image from ((Martin Luther King)) was a good call, as the template looks much better without it (which I think is a good general rule-of-thumb for template with collapsible sections, such as, for example, ((William Blake)). There are literally thousands of images we could use on that template, but to do so would look awful). A similar situation can be found at ((Romeo and Juliet)). No sections, but before it became the ungodly orgy of links to everything in the history of the world that has ever had anything whatsoever to do with the play, it used to have an image, but when it ballooned in size, the image was rightfully removed. Same thing for ((Hamlet)). Many smaller templates, however, use images much more effectively. And I can see little problem with that, short of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bertaut (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree, they have their place and disputes are best handled on a case-by-case basis. I am quite concerned with this overall "movement" that Randy Kryn noted and share his concerns - it would be counterproductive to somehow make all navboxes some sort of rigid, uniform, rather dull, obscure boring things... They have multiple uses, and making things too narrow and too rules-focused isn't helpful. Montanabw^(talk) 03:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Navboxes are for navigation not decoration. Graphics have no place in navboxes. Boghog (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
        • People differ in what they find most satisfactory. Personally I think it is a plus if navboxes are not purely functional devices for navigation, but also are good to look at and, if possible, have a well-chosen graphic capturing something central about the navigation topic. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • The problem with some of the smaller templates having images, is that they expand the navboxes unnecessarily. What could be a single line navbox becomes 4-5 times larger if an image is included. Yes, there are arguments that they have their place if appropriate (like the ((Half-Life series)) example - image doesn't distort the navbox size too much, wholly identifies the topic, etc.), but I'm concerned that sometimes it's just an image for the sake of having an image in there. I'm coming across a lot of writer navboxes with a (sometimes massive) picture of the author in it. And sometimes the only reason for inclusion is WP:ILIKEIT or WP:PRETTY. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Many here are confusing navboxes with infoboxes. Navboxes do not have multiple uses, they have one use, navigation. An exception might be navigational sidebars at the top of an article that look and function somewhat like infoboxes. Cramming distracting items like graphics into a navbox that is at the bottom of an article interferes with its primary purpose by unnecessarily increasing its size and therefore is not helpful. It is better that the navbox focus on its primary function (navigation) so that it performs that job optimally rather than several jobs poorly. Boghog (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• There's a comment floating around in my head regarding size of templates which "best suit images". Generally, templates with less than N groups with M links/group and an image look bad on large screens (vertical spacing in the groups); templates with more than I groups and J links/group look bad on both large and small screens (whitespace through the image cell).

  There's another comment floating around my head that the inclusion of these pictures bloats the total page size for small articles (for large articles, it's "just another image", maybe) which I can be fairly certain a large number of users (especially the writers) have issues with. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• If you examine a number of navboxes with and without images you will find the addition of the image generally adds little to the size of the navbox, and often adds no increase. Some of us are visually oriented and appreciate how an appropriate image can evoke a navigation topic and add to the visual aesthetics. Others are less visually oriented and simply don't care for the images. It's perhaps more a matter of accepting that different genes are involved than trying to change the genetic makeup of our opponents by arguing. That said, if we must argue we should stick at least to logical argument. There is no logic in Boghog's view above that adding an image mysteriously causes the navbox to then perform poorly for the purposes of navigation. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• The logic is dead simple. Navboxes become harder to use the larger they become and graphics do increase the size of navboxes. Boghog (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• If they are sectioned off, properly and/or well, then templates don't become harder to use the larger they become. If done well they provide a better map, yet if they become harder the larger they are then it might be a result of poor template construction and language. The images do increase the size horizontally, so very large ones may not be suitable for an image, but on smaller and medium size templates adding an image doesn't hinder the template but provides a visual to attract the many readers who don't yet know what a template is (or those who have a better experience with an image sitting there, like comfort food with a face). Maybe all of us should bring that defect a little more into focus, that it's probable a small percentage of people coming here don't yet know to look at the templates to obtain a map to the subject. Images help and do not hinder that aspect of template awareness. Randy Kryn 18:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As numerous people have stated, there are no guidelines against navigation templates utilising images. Mr. Sindon's personal distaste for them is precisely and exclusively that, his personal distaste. All the rhetoric in the world will not change the fact that this is the definition of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and there are no grounds for removing images from templates which use them. Obviously, this is to be managed on a case by case basis, with reasonable employment of, as Mr. Bertaut says, common sense (a picture of Joyce on a Woolf template would be ridiculous, for example). Not sure what else needs to be said really. Five Antonios (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact that there are currently no guidelines on the use of graphics in navboxes does not mean that we should not develop one. Furthermore Rob's distaste for graphics in navboxes is neither exclusive (I and several other editors share his concern) nor is it simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT [the issues of (1) bloat, (2) undue, and (3) redundancy are legitimate grounds for removal of graphics from templates]. Finally as with any guideline, there are exceptions and common sense should always be applied. Boghog (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a little unfair to say that my motivation here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, seeing as in my first comment I state "they provide no navigational value, they bloat the navboxes making them less compact, they give WP:UNDUE weight to a certain aspect of the topic, and they often repeat an image that could be found elsewhere on the page, or they show a tangentially related image" when you're not actually giving a reason for them to remain. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sigh...that's not a remotely accurate way to characterise the pro camp Rob. Again, if you must keep arguing, please stick to facts and don't set up straw men. It has already been established that, apart from small navboxes, the inclusion of an image generally adds little or nothing to the size of the box. Images that are only "tangentially related" or are already included in the articles may not be appropriate images, and no one here has argued that the images should be inappropriate. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Your claim simply isn't true. The ((Martin Luther King)) example (and there are many others) shows how a large template can be greatly increased in size by the addition of an image. It's only the medium sized navboxes which aren't particularly compromised. And see my comments above regarding Ken Kesey's bus at ((Ken Kesey)) being tangential to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film). No straw men here. And I don't see any argument from you for keeping them other than WP:PRETTY. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not a remotely accurate way to characterize Rob's response. He was merely pointing out there was considerably more to his argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Furthermore you are directly contradicting yourself when you write there are no grounds for removing images from templates which use them and Images that are only "tangentially related" or are already included in the articles may not be appropriate images. Finally it has not been established that image generally adds little or nothing to the size of the box. To reiterate, navboxes become harder to use the larger they become and graphics do increase the size of navboxes. Boghog (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Rob that a sectioned navbox like ((Martin Luther King)) shouldn't have an image. On the other hand ((Commercial fish topics)) has three images that do not increase the size much at all. In general images don't seem a good idea on small or sectioned navboxes, but generally have much less effect, or even no effect on the size of navboxes which are grouped. Boghog, in your rush to find a counter-argument you claim that I wrote there are no grounds for removing images from templates which use them. I said nothing of the sort... that's another straw man. Of course discrimination is needed. Some navboxes should not have images, and even if a navbox is a suitable candidate for an image then the image needs to be appropriate. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, in ((Commercial fish topics)) viewed at 1024 x 768, the images take up about 25% of the template, forcing a much larger navbox than is necessary. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Epipelagic, Not another strawman, but rather Five Antonios who wrote that. Sorry. At the same time, I think you owe Rob an apology. Five Antonios wrote there are no grounds for removing images from templates which use them, to which Rob responded you're not actually giving a reason for them to remain, to to which you wrote that's not a remotely accurate way to characterise the pro camp. Rob was specifically replying to Five Antonios and not to the entire pro camp, hence your characterization of his response is unfair. In addition you still have not established that adding graphics does not increase the size of the template. In a narrow window for example that might be displayed on a mobile device, ((Commercial fish topics)) becomes almost twice as long with the graphics as compared to without. Boghog (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

To give Epipelagic the benefit of the doubt, I did amend my earlier post moments after writing it, which had claimed that all we were seeing from the pro camp was WP:ILIKEIT and WP:PRETTY, but decided it was a little confrontational. Maybe they were looking at an older version, even though half an hour had elapsed between my post and theirs. (That said - have we seen much else from the pro-camp?) --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Size matters. I've removed quite a few images off larger templates. But since templates are maps to the subject (navbox is almost literally the definition of "map"), many maps have illustrations. They enhance or identify the subject even further for the casual reader, many of whom are tuned-into graphics and relate to the world through images. To correctly answer an objection above, there is actually a whole template for "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest", and it does not have an image on it. The image is on "Ken Kesey", where the topic focuses on the author's complete works and life and not on an individual work. Readers can tell that the bus image, which as in icon defines Kesey, does not specifically refer to 'Cuckoo's Nest' (although what do you think the boat trip stylized?). Randy Kryn 1:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Even as this is being discussed Rob is going around removing images from templates. I asked him to please stop this but he's continuing. Please see the current discussion at the ((Émile Durkheim)) template, which I've worked on recently. Randy Kryn 13:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Émile Durkheim#Remove the image. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

How do we feel about linking to categories in navboxes? I'm finding a lot of writer templates that link [[:Category:Novels by Xxxxxx Xxxxxx|Novels]] as a group heading. Per WP:EGG or WP:SURPRISE, I don't think your average reader would expect to end up at a category from this link, rather they'd be expecting to stay in article space and be directed to [[Bibliography of Xxxxxx Xxxxxx|Novels]] or similar article instead. Which leads me on to linking to categories from navboxes in the first place. With rare exception, most of the articles would be in the said categories, so is there even any benefit to include links to them in the navboxes? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been had before, has been had before, and can be found in more than one page's archives. The consensus has uniformly been to not do this, for the reasons you outlined, among others. I don't remember every one of these discussions and surely missed some, but I don't recall there being a total condemnation of including a category link. As you point out, it doesn't do anything useful for the reader. The whole point of a navigation box is to provide an alternative "window" on a category (or some subset of it that is relevant to narrower purposes of the specific navbox), so using the category in the navbox is kind of "logic loop".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

People browse differently, and that's one of the points of this guideline. In the context of the headers, I think egg/surprise is the dominant guideline/policy. In the context of the footer, where it is now common to include links to categories, books, and a handful of other on-wiki non-mainspace links, I see little issue. Someone may actually be interested in scanning alphabetically rather than by grouped or temporal sorting. --Izno (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Concur.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems to work better to explicitly link categories at the bottom of a navbox without the EGG element. In that context, they can be helpful if someone wants to browse categories. Montanabw^(talk) 09:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

One other thing that seems related: I've seen a handful of "more..." showing up at the end of a set of items in a particular group, which disturbs me somewhat more. I have the same issue here. --Izno (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the same WP:EGG situation. I think if we're going to direct people away from mainspace, this should be explicit. And I won't mention linking to other templates from within templates. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Montanabw, Izno, Robsinden.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Rob asks "Is there any benefit to including them (categories) in the first place". Of course there is. If a writer doesn't have a bibliography page then a link in the section title "Novels" to "Category:Novels by Joe Smole" expands the navigation within Wikipedia (Categories are within Wikipedia space). It seems beneficial to the project to include categories in this way. Randy Kryn 13:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Randy, you've answered part two of my question with an answer for part one. As you can see, per WP:EGG and WP:SURPRISE this is not acceptable. Any move out of mainspace to category space should be explicit. Hiding a link to categories it in group titles like this will not be where the reader expects to go. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)