Wikipedia talk:Navigation template/Archive 3
 | 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Avoid redirects
The advice to avoid redirects isn't here any more, seems it was removed [1] a while ago. User:Thumperward did it move to a meta-template doc? Regards
{{anchor}}
- Avoid redirects
- The link to the page on which a particular instance of a navbox appears should be displayed in black, bold type, not as a link. This will happen automatically, provided all links go directly to their target pages, avoiding redirects. (Piped links are perfectly all right.)
- In the rare event that a navbox contains a link to a disambiguation page that doesn't have "(disambiguation)" in its title, use the {{D'}} template to resolve the conflict between this requirement and the requirements concerning intentional links to disambiguation pages.
Widefox; talk 10:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm afraid there's no hope of me recalling the specifics here, given that we're talking about edits from nigh-on four and a half years ago. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Widefox: Perhaps WP:BRINT? --Izno (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's it. I added a link at Wikipedia:Navigation template#See also and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Navigation templates. Widefox; talk 21:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Widefox: Perhaps WP:BRINT? --Izno (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I created {{Mr. Tambourine Man (album)}} as a navigation aid for use at the bottom of the album's song article pages. On its own, the template appears OK, but when used on the song pages (usually preceding the artist navbox {{The Byrds}}), an extra blank line appears between the two (click on any of the song links and you'll see). How do I fix this? Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ojorojo, by removing the blank lines at the bottom of the template. Frietjes (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
- I tried that earlier, but it didn't work.[2] Did Izno's removal of the nonlinks fix the problem? (several other album navboxes have a blank line and unlinked songs, but don't create the extra blank line problem when used in articles.) —Ojorojo (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Ojorojo: The non-links should not have created an issue. If the whitespace was unaffected on the articles-proper, that's probably because the job queue was processing the updates made to the template. You can jump the job queue by purging the article-in-question to make sure you've fixed the issue, but you should usually otherwise let the job queue do its thing. --Izno (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. BTW, there's a discussion about track listings and album navboxes if you're interested. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Ojorojo: The non-links should not have created an issue. If the whitespace was unaffected on the articles-proper, that's probably because the job queue was processing the updates made to the template. You can jump the job queue by purging the article-in-question to make sure you've fixed the issue, but you should usually otherwise let the job queue do its thing. --Izno (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- I tried that earlier, but it didn't work.[2] Did Izno's removal of the nonlinks fix the problem? (several other album navboxes have a blank line and unlinked songs, but don't create the extra blank line problem when used in articles.) —Ojorojo (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
For example, Template:Hydropower currently includes a link named Banki turbine which is actually piped to Cross-flow turbine, where we learn that this device is also known as Bánki-Michell turbine or Ossberger turbine. Should only one of the names be listed in the navbox? If all are to be listed should they go in parentheses, or have their own piped wikilink? --Theodore Kloba (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- I just about always use the name of the actual article to which we are pointing. One of the exceptions that I can think of is where the name is obvious from context e.g. in a group called "Turbines", taking a link to cross-flow turbine and piping it to cross-flow. --Izno (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've just started a discussion at Template talk:Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio. Template:Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio is the most atypical navbox I've seen in a while, but my previous attempt to try to bring it in line with other templates was reverted. Any additional points of view on it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. ‑‑YodinT 10:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Change template from "guidance essay" to "Supplement"
This page is now tagged as a Template:Guidance essay. There is a low standard of consensus for that tag, and such essays might just be the opinion of one or two eds. This is a high impact essay with lots of attention. I'd like to change the tag to the one requiring a strong consensus, i.e., Template:Supplement. I propose using the parameters of that tag to explain that this essay is elaborating on the "official" guideline found at Wikipedia:CLN#Navigation templates. The reason I care is because I'm working on a bit of housekeeping related to the distinction between these tags. As part of that process, I'm looking at this linked as "guidance essays" that seem more like "supplement" essays. Comments anybody? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Boldly tried it out today NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Los Angeles City Attorney and other pages like it
At the bottom of the above-named article, there is a navigation template which lists all the city attorneys, chronologically, and their family names only. I want this to be changed to a list of the city attorneys by full name, alphabetically. There was a heated discussion about this proposal here, and then it was abandoned. How can I bring this up again, or has there already been a decision somewhere on how to deal with templates like this one? Thank you, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Template:Largest cities of India has recently been added at the foot of many cities, eg Ludhiana, by way of use as a navbox. Is this template creep?
Discussion at Template talk:Largest cities of India#Should Template:Largest cities of India be used as a navigation box?. Thanks, Batternut (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello project.
There is an ongoing discussion over at Talk:ISU Speed Skating World Cup involving the design of navboxes for articles that are one level above ordinary "games articles". Please take part.
HandsomeFella (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Over at Template talk:Alt-right footer there's been a lot of discussion about how connected a person needs to be to the alt-right to be included in the navbox, whether that has BLP implications, etc. But it seems like Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates takes a much more casual approach, comparing navboxes to "See also" sections that don't require citations. Thoughts? Smooth alligator (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- As templates are mostly unsourced, they should try to follow article contents as far as possible. So if people are associated with the alt-right, and that is reliably sourced in the associated article, only then should they be included in the template. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Add note that Existing templates/modules should be used when possible?
I have recently been active in converting templates to use {{Navbox}}, {{Sidebar}} and {{Infobox}} when appropriate. I have gotten a couple of editors who have pushed back for two reasons. The first is that they don't think that these templates can accurately represent the template. This case is usually a result of an inexperienced editor not understanding how versatile these templates actually are. The second reason is people continually saying "Well wait where is the consensus that all Sidebars should use {{Sidebar}} instead of just being their own hardcoded table..." I was curious if it would be appropriate to add a line in the properties section that says something along the lines of Whenever possible sidebars/navboxes should be created using {{Sidebar}} or {{Navbox}} as a base. This would be build off the line that is already on this page that says The usual way to create navigation templates is to use the {{navbox}} or {{sidebar}} master templates. This simplifies the process of creating a functional and consistent template.
. How do people feel about adding onto that? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm reviewing the situation with Template:Christian denominations in the English-speaking world, which appears to be the issue that's motivating you to look for a change here. I think the reason editors are pushing back against this change is that they're being protective of over-engineered efforts. Some editors love to get fancy or "cute" with the tools. Sidebars within sidebars? I'm sure someone is very proud of that particular bit of construction, but it doesn't pass muster with WP:SIDEBAR's guidelines, particularly #2 ("The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article."), #3 ("The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent."), and #5 ("If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections."). Furthermore, that template isn't even included on many of the pages that it links to, which nullifies its usefulness as a navigational element.
- So, in that specific case, I'd argue that the whole template should be deleted and replaced with a WP:OUTLINE article.
- More generally, my view is this: Complex, specialized, tightly-packed sidebars with small font sizes and dozens of links are user-hostile and should be avoided. They aren't easy for editors to maintain, and they aren't easy for people to read. Lists, categories, and outlines are the preferred tools for presenting related content, and unlike these complex sidebars, are easily accessible to readers on mobile devices, which is fully half our audience. Warren -talk- 06:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Warren: that situation was one of the major ones where I got push back. Nice to know you are on the same page as me. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Removal_of_historical_characters_from_navboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Disadvantages (changing the section name from Advantages)
As some of you have been already aware, the mobile view and the official mobile app do not display {{navbox}} and {{sidebar}}. I see the advantages of converting from a list of wikilinks under the See also section to navboxes. But the problem is that more than half of the entire Wikipedia page access is via mobile, and thereby the conversion is not so recommended nowadays.
Should we change the current section name from "Advantages" to "Pros and Cons", for example? FYI: {{Template display}} is available to inform template users of the display compatibilities. However, this display notice template is still a beta version and no significant progress made since a request for improvement on the talk page. Appretiate your thoughts on how to get more awareness of this device compatibility matter. --Mis0s0up (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Asking for an opinion in Talk:Cenk Uygur#Template "Denial of Mass Killings". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Impact on 'What links here' revisited
The issue raised a decade ago at Wikipedia_talk:Navigation_template/Archive_1#Impact_on_'What_links_here'_pages persists today. Yet this page, which purportedly details the properties -good or bad- of navbox templates makes no mention of it. According to Help:What_links_here#Overview: The list of links to an article is useful in a number of ways: The number of incoming links gives a rough indication of how important or popular a page is. The considerable impact navbox templates can have on this function is, I believe, worthy of a mention here.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I have started a discussion here abouth the inclusion of casual games into the navbox {{Agatha Christie video games}}. They don't have separate articles, nevertheless they exist as subsections of the pages about the novels they were inspired by: for example 4:50 from Paddington and Peril at End House. I think they should be included, for the sake of completeness. What do you think about? You may discuss here.--Carnby (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- @Carnby: - Generally I agree. The "[...] redirects should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles" was added[3] in September 2017 without discussion. I think its a bad "rule" because navbox becomes meaningsless after article are merged, and a lot of navboxes doesn't follow this "new" rule. I suggest its removed again Christian75 (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested regarding a content dispute concerning an image in the Nav Template:Hungary topics. Please see Template talk:Hungary topics#Coat of arms. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Redlinks again
@Randy Kryn: your two reverts on this template (and bizarre instructions to WP:BRD without a discussion after you reverted) are not what I read in the discussions above. Please discuss. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Page language allows for red links on templates: "Red links and redirects should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles." I've done three reverts of good faith edits, so can't do a fourth, so can someone else change the template back to its long-term language. At present the language is inaccurate. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think your reverts are an improvement. The text I changed the note to matches the text in the headings of the page. The section with the section heading about existing pages already includes the caveats regarding non-existing pages. (The missing heading about decoration could probably be added with some phrase like "plain".) The note is a summary of general cases, which is what the page is framed as generally. --Izno (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment and good faith edit. Yet the language of WP:EXISTING correctly states that red links are fine if an article is likely to be written. There are many templates with a ridiculous amount of red links, yet a few are certainly fine. There's a brief ongoing (I think) discussion of this at the visual arts wikiproject, which point out some of the excessive uses. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- The summary seems to match the text agreed upon above. Personally, I disagree with the idea of having redlinks in nav templates, simply because they are not body text and people expect to be able to navigate to items in nav boxes. Is there a preferred wording for the summary (I'm at 3RR as well, so I couldn't add it if I wanted to). Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- You and I agree that WP:EXISTING already states the current guideline about it (WP:REDNOT). However, that is a caveat to the main point both of this page and to the point of navboxes. The eggshell summary of a page a) should list the summary of the page, in as-full of a summary as we can without b) diving into all of the caveats. That summary is "Links, to similar topics with existing pages, on English Wikipedia". You are still free to point to EXISTING (or again, REDNOT) if someone comes along and says otherwise. WG: I too disapprove of red links, but there was an RFC on this specific point and text inserted at REDNOT. --Izno (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the RfC, but that was specifically for body copy, not nav templates. There is a local consensus that they should contain fewer that the prose of articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are thinking of the wrong RFC then. I'm referring to this one. --Izno (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm aware of the RfC, but that was specifically for body copy, not nav templates. There is a local consensus that they should contain fewer that the prose of articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment and good faith edit. Yet the language of WP:EXISTING correctly states that red links are fine if an article is likely to be written. There are many templates with a ridiculous amount of red links, yet a few are certainly fine. There's a brief ongoing (I think) discussion of this at the visual arts wikiproject, which point out some of the excessive uses. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think your reverts are an improvement. The text I changed the note to matches the text in the headings of the page. The section with the section heading about existing pages already includes the caveats regarding non-existing pages. (The missing heading about decoration could probably be added with some phrase like "plain".) The note is a summary of general cases, which is what the page is framed as generally. --Izno (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TurokSwe Use a tool or something. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Please do explain how exactly they're unrelated, because as far as I can see, they are absolutely related. - TurokSwe (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- TurokSwe, it would really help if you used edit summaries, I can't tell which are the template additions being discussed and which are edits. Thanks, and Happy New Year! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
As I already told you - a related navbox includes a link the article (making the article appear as bolded in the navbox there if posted under the article, if I really need to explain the obvious to you). These that don't include the link to the article are unrelated. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't recall you telling me anything (if I'm the "you" being referred to). Can you give a couple examples of which templates are tangential? Thanks. And HNYear to you. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I told
youin https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_vs._Predator_(arcade_game)&diff=prev&oldid=876147873 - the unrelated ones are these that I remove in this edit, as you can't use them for navigation to this article. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)- You've got me mixed up with someone else. Anyway, okay. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- And the link you provide seems to show that not only are the templates related, but they are both in the title of the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- You've got me mixed up with someone else. Anyway, okay. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I told
- TurokSwe, you're doing all these pages a disservice by conglomerating them into one disorganized mess. Alien, Predator and AvP are separate franchises, with the only points of intersection being the Alien creature and the list of Alien, Predator and AvP video games - which needs to be separated into different articles, by the way. We'll need to go through each and every article and once again remove extraneous information. One of the first offenders is the Alien page, which is now mostly a copy-paste of the AvP page. You know better. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 17:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yup this needs to be fixed. As far as feel I think there is room for four game lists. List of Alien (franchise) games, List of Predator (franchise) games and List of Alien vs. Predator (franchise) games could all exist in a different form of list than the current one which covers all of the related games★Trekker (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, I don't believe TurokSwe did anything in bad faith - I think quite the opposite. I do believe, however, they got a little carried away after reading up on the new Predator movie that was intended to have an Ellen Ripley cameo and jumped the gun by jumbling everything together - even if it was a gross disregard of consensus. We need to be able to work these things out and until further notice, keep these pages separated - this isn't the MCU, after all. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 18:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I weren't carried away. Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator have always been connected. The connection was initiated in 1990 and officially cemented together back in 2004 and 2007. The Predator certainly doesn't disregard the fact that these franchises are officially connected to each other. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- 1990 is not "always".★Trekker (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- It might as well, seeing as this is still about a decade from when this "Xenoverse" started and the shared universe remains to this very day as an integral part of these franchises, and the first two decades really established where this whole franchise was going. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, that it only your personal opinion. There is no "Xenoverse" franchise, that's a name of a Dragon Ball game (which is where the "Xenoverse" link redirects to) and just something a fringe group of AvP fans like to spam about on AvP discussions. So far no one agrees with you and you don't even seem to know why people have a problem with you adding unneeded navboxes to articles/lists. Navboxes must be bidirectional.★Trekker (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- "What" is supposedly my personal opinion? I didn't mean to say that the "Xenoverse" title was anything official. Why the hostile attitude towards AVP-fans? Here it seems like the true motivation behind this whole issue is revealed, namely a dislike towards the AVP-brand. This surely does not qualify as a reason worthy of discussion, as this merely concerns personal opinions. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Nope. I like tons of the AVP comics (the movies are disappointments, don't play games personally), and I have put effort into working on Predator, Alien and AVP content on this website. Don't play a victim. This discussion has gone on forever and you still don't even seem to grasp why people don't like you adding the wrong navboxes to articles, please stop stonewalling people when they try to explain stuff to you.★Trekker (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I love Alien and mildly fond of Predator and AvP. I haven't been and I'm not a boogieman after these properties. On the contrary, I've been one of the biggest contributors to the Alien (franchise) page, I rewrote and brought up to FL status the List of Alien characters page and I created and immediately brought up to GA status the David 8 page. I do, however, recognize these as separate continuities with intersecting points of interest, including the Alien, the Predator and Weyland-Yutani. And, above all else, I want the pages to only improve in quality, which these more recent edits that intersect the franchises have not been helping with. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think this is the problem right here, personal preferences play a big role here (noting that I'm not partial, I don't "love" one product and "am mildly fond of" another related product, I love and acknowledge them in their entirety, and have no problem whatsoever with any of the twelve feature films), and quite often in regards to this franchsie and its fanbase there is a persistent dedication towards either Alien or Predator but as soon as the official crossover brand is thrown into the mix there is controversy, disputes, and division because of mere lesser appreciation of the brand, so much so that there is good reason to suspect that such bias towards a particular brand and the silent exclusion of another is to be expected (and seems evident) even in discussions such as this one. - TurokSwe (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- "What" is supposedly my personal opinion? I didn't mean to say that the "Xenoverse" title was anything official. Why the hostile attitude towards AVP-fans? Here it seems like the true motivation behind this whole issue is revealed, namely a dislike towards the AVP-brand. This surely does not qualify as a reason worthy of discussion, as this merely concerns personal opinions. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- No, that it only your personal opinion. There is no "Xenoverse" franchise, that's a name of a Dragon Ball game (which is where the "Xenoverse" link redirects to) and just something a fringe group of AvP fans like to spam about on AvP discussions. So far no one agrees with you and you don't even seem to know why people have a problem with you adding unneeded navboxes to articles/lists. Navboxes must be bidirectional.★Trekker (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- It might as well, seeing as this is still about a decade from when this "Xenoverse" started and the shared universe remains to this very day as an integral part of these franchises, and the first two decades really established where this whole franchise was going. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- 1990 is not "always".★Trekker (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I weren't carried away. Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator have always been connected. The connection was initiated in 1990 and officially cemented together back in 2004 and 2007. The Predator certainly doesn't disregard the fact that these franchises are officially connected to each other. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Wait, I just noticed that Ellen Ripley's been added to the Predator navbox. I get that they explored having her cameo in the film, but that never happened. So, why include that? This seems to have gone off the rails. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Because it actually happened (and not just Ripley but Newt and Weyland-Yutani as well), the scenes were prepared, produced, and filmed, and Ripley is now officially and permanently part of The Predator. Had that never happened it would have been a different story of course, but Fox clearly did not mind, and they supported it so far that they ended up as actual produced and filmed scenes in The Predator (even if not being present in the final product, at least not on-screen). If you don't like it, blame 20th Century Fox, but it still happened. - TurokSwe (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Deleted scenes are not part of an official product. It's also worth noting that in most cases a simple cameo does not mean something should be included in a navboxes. But since you seem to ignore everything I've tried to tell you so far about navboxes I don't imagine you will care about this fact either. By your own logic of how franchises and navboxes should work come you have not added Blade Runner content too since they are also considered part of the universe according to Ridley Scott and material from the Prometheus DVD? Because it's not actually notable.★Trekker (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yes they most certainly are part of the product. Not being present in the final product on screen does not negate the fact that they are an official part of the product. Blade Runner is a product owned by a different company and has never crossed over into the Alien/Predator franchise and has only been referenced in easter eggs (and thus mean nothing at this point and can simply be interpreted as separate from Blade Runner) and I reckon Ridley Scott has never even said that Blade Runner is connected to this franchise and nor does he have the power to connect them (while it would be awesome if they were crossed over). You must have misunderstood (or misrepresented) my understanding of how franchises and navboxes should work. I only reject your arguments because they are poor. - TurokSwe (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
- Deleted scenes are not part of an official product. It's also worth noting that in most cases a simple cameo does not mean something should be included in a navboxes. But since you seem to ignore everything I've tried to tell you so far about navboxes I don't imagine you will care about this fact either. By your own logic of how franchises and navboxes should work come you have not added Blade Runner content too since they are also considered part of the universe according to Ridley Scott and material from the Prometheus DVD? Because it's not actually notable.★Trekker (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)