Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

Bidirectional navboxes?

A year ago, after suggesting it here and getting no response, someone added "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional". To me, that seems insufficient to achieve bidirectionality. Template:Beyond Fear is transcluded in Beyond Fear and rightly links to the article. OK. But the template also links Yngwie Malmsteen and that article, probably sensibly, does not transclude the template so there is no link back (except in the article text).

Even the first part of the advice seems wrong. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt transcludes {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} but we wouldn't want Ancient Egypt including in the template. Would we? Thincat (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:UCS and WP:IAR. :) –Quiddity (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually Thincat, you've got it spot on. To achieve bi-directionality, if the article transcludes the navbox, the navbox must include the article. And vice versa. If it's inappropriate to include the article in the navbox, it's inappropriate to transclude the navbox in the article. And vice versa! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I also agree that the navbox must include the article, but included the qualifier "normally" to cover unforeseen cases. The "related articles" section of the {{Beyond Fear}} navbox that contained a link to Yngwie Malmsteen is very odd. The whole purpose of a navbox is to provide bidirectional links between related articles, hence including a related article subsection in a navbox is redundant and completely unnecessary. In my opinion, if Yngwie Malmsteen should not link back to Beyond Fear, then Yngwie Malmsteen should not be in the navbox. In any case, Yngwie Malmsteen was removed (in my opinion appropriately) from the navbox in this edit. Similarily Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt should never have transcluded {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} and was removed (again, in my opinion appropriately) in this edit. Boghog (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Is transclusion of a navbox in Talk, User, or Wikipedia space not innocuous? --P64 (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that transclusion of a navbox in Talk or User space is innocuous. Furthermore the text currently contain in this guideline "Every article that transcludes a given navbox ..." explicitly is restricted to navboxes that are transcluded into main/article space. The purpose of a navbox is to provide links between related articles. Hence if a navbox is transcluded in main/article space, that navbox should contain links to all articles in which it is transcluded so that the navigation is bidirectional. Boghog (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the guideline to elaborate on the reciprocal nature of "bidirectionality" as it wasn't clear. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this edit may overstate the case. Headings in templates are often linked to articles that do not transclude the template. This is common usage in thousands of templates. I agree that the added guidance is applicable for non-heading articles included in the navbox, but I think more discussion is needed to determine if the same rule applies to links on headings in navboxes. 15:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

But these headings should not be linking. A navbox is for navigation, not information. I keep seeing, for example, navboxes that list cities, with "City" linked. What purpose would this serve? Only related articles should be linked. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That perhaps may be a valid question, but I think we need a discussion with much broader participation to determine a consensus for a change that affects usage that is so widespread. older ≠ wiser 16:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"If it's inappropriate to include the article in the navbox, it's inappropriate to transclude the navbox in the article." I disagree with this. In many cases, an article might be part of a wider main topic, and the article might not be appropriate for the navbox due to the number of articles. Example: a television programme with hundreds of related articles (episodes, characters, etc). One wouldn't expect to include all those hundreds of articles in a single navbox, but doesn't it make sense to include the main navbox on every page? And in addition there might be separate navboxes for episodes and characters, etc. –anemoneprojectors– 12:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That is what "bidirectional navigation" implies though. Look at the mess with {{The Beatles}} which seems to appear on every Beatles related article. How is that supposed to ease navigation? What we should have is small, separate concises navboxes, each relating to a single subject or subset of the subject. Take for examples {{Glee episodes}}. It is appropriate to have that on Glee (TV series) and on the season articles and individual episodes, but each episode does not need the template {{Glee}} on it (although this would appropriately also be on the season articles), as you can link back to the main article from {{Glee episodes}}. The way I see it is that you should never click on a link in a navbox, and then not see the same navbox at the target, and you should not see a navbox on a page without seeing the current article in bold, so as a visual aid, its relation to the subject is apparent. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I agree that the Beatles template is a mess and doesn't ease nagivation. OK yeah, I might come around to this ;-). Yes, Glee (TV series) has all the templates, but an episode of Glee should just have the episodes template (though all the ones I've looked at have both templates). But also some articles are missing templates, and perhaps lots of links should be removed from templates. How do you decide which to do? –anemoneprojectors– 15:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Templates seem to suffer a fair amount of abuse. I like tidying them up when I see them, but sometimes the resistance to change from other editors just isn't worth it! On the other hand, there are some really good templates around that manage to only show the relevant pages and achieve bidirectionality perfection. I happened upon {{Doctor Who episodes}} earlier and was surprised at its functionality. Have a play! As far as removing/adding links/templates, generally it's a common sense issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

{{Doctor Who episodes}} is an excellent template and I tried to do something similar recently but I couldn't get it to work or something. I think I should have another try. –anemoneprojectors– 15:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

While I'm here, is there a rule about including links to categories in navboxes? I know of a few that do this. –anemoneprojectors– 15:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm unsure of this too. I tend to leave it alone when I see it, but I think as long as it meets the bi-directionality requirement (i.e. if the template is visible at the category), it's okay. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if navigation templates belong on categories, and in most cases I know of, there's no bi-directionality. Oh well. Perhaps in some cases, a list could be written and the category link replaced with the list article. –anemoneprojectors– 15:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

While there was no broad agreement above to the suggestion for bidirectionally, there is was no strong objection to it either. Furthermore the current text reads Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. which is a suggestion, not a requirement. In practice, most navbox links are bidirectional. Furthermore the purpose of a navbox is by definition an aid to navigation, which is a lot easier if the links are bidirectional. Hence I think the current wording is a common sense suggestion. Boghog (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the previous text is that only describes one direction, thus not demonstrating the bidirectionality it is supposed to describe. I've restored the addition, as it is confusing if it professes "bidirectionality" but only gives "monodirectionality" as an example. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the second sentence which I agree is needed. I didn't notice that the reversion had only restored the link and not the full text. Boghog (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• There are many reasons why BIDIRECTIONAL is only a suggestion and not a requirement. In templates regarding works, there are several types of subjects that should not be bidirectional. Suppose for example a template about a work has links to all of the characters (some fictional and some historical, e.g. {{The Last of the Mohicans}} or {{Henriad}}). Suppose for example a historical character in a work is King of England. We don't want every template about a work that includes the King of England or even a specific King of England to be included on that page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Except for the fact that that is exactly how navboxes are supposed to work! --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

yes, navboxes are for navigation, not substitutes for lists and tables in articles, where every tangential topic needs to be listed. Frietjes (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. One of the important features of navboxes is that the article name is bolded within the navbox to make it clear how this article relates to other articles in the navbox. This is particularly useful if the navbox is subdivided into sections and the bolding makes immediately clear which are the most closely related articles relative to the current article. This will only happen if the article that is transcluded by the navbox is also included in the navbox. Boghog (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned this a while back, but one of the flaws in a pure bidirectional model is when there are hundreds of potential links, which are kept at a list article. It makes far more sense for the navbox to link simply to the list, not to the several hundred individual articles. There is a place for monodirectionality, particularly bringing a user from a tangental piece back to home base, so to speak. Montanabw^(talk) 03:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Paraphrasing Frietjes above, with monodirectionality, the navbox is no longer a navbox, it becomes a list. Boghog (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Both regular articles and lists contain wikilinks to other articles. If a navbox is transcluded into a list article and the list article is also included within the navbox, the links are still bidirectional. In this respect, lists and articles are identical. Boghog (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

And looking at those specific templates, I think the best thing to bring these in line with the guidelines would be to remove the historical characters. Tony's very quick to accuse me of having an agenda, yet seems to have his own rules when editing navboxes that don't have a lot in common with the guidelines here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Seeing as the clarification of the meaning of "bidirectional" has been reverted yet again, do you think we should start an RFC? --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think an RFC would be a good idea in order to obtain wider consensus. Boghog (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The RFC should fairly illustrate the potential scope and impact. For example, consider the following navboxes (and these are only sampled from geographical topics an area that I browse frequently and have some familiarity with this very typical navboxes):

• Template:First-level divisions of Mongolia
• Template:Shawnee County, Kansas
• Template:Shaanxi
• Template:Cherkasy Oblast
• Template:Russia topics.

would those advocating strict 100% bi-directionality want to require that the all links on headings in these navboxes be removed? Or that every one of these (and kindred templates) appear on each of the articles linked in the headings? older ≠ wiser 10:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

At a cursory glance, for the most part, these seem to comply to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL anyway, although {{Shawnee County, Kansas}} has some issues - we shouldn't be linking to "town" or "city" here! But then, they shouldn't be linked anyway, whether we change the wording or not. "Bidirectional" means just that, whether it is explained fully or not. The change to the text is only to explain what "bidirectional" means to those that don't grasp it. And I don't feel the cross-namespace link to the Wikiproject in {{Russia topics}} is really appropriate. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I realized afterwards that the first in the list is not such a great illustration of links in headings. Consider instead Template:Districts of Bayankhongor. Are you saying the link to Sums might not be helpful for readers? Or a link to CDP in Template:Shawnee County, Kansas? Should we simply assume that readers will understand whatever arcane terms might be used on navboxes? My point in listing these is that these sorts of links are commonplace. The change in text does not allow for any flexibility (other than WP:IAR. older ≠ wiser 11:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The change to the text doesn't change the guideline, it merely clarifies what "bidirectional" means. When we click on a link in a navbox, we should expect to see the same navbox at the destination - that's how they perform their navigation function. That's bidirectionality. We already shouldn't be linking to broad-topic articles. A navbox contains links to a group of related articles. The broad-topic articles are not directly related. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at the first three criteria for navboxes, namely: 1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject; 2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article; 3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent. Including a link to "city" or "town" fails all of these. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Criteria that are prefaced by Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines! I think I'm suggesting that links in headings might be considered as a type within a navbox typology distinct from the groups of links to related articles linked in the body of the template. If your interpretation is correct, then many thousands of navboxes are out compliance and the proposed language affords no flexibility. older ≠ wiser 11:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of the navboxes are a complete mess! --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The funny thing about linking to "town" for example, is that if it was in an article, it would be de-linked as a clear case of WP:OVERLINKING! Rules should be (and kind of are) stricter for navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to defend every instance of linking in these templates. Unless there is a special meaning for town or similar such terms (as there are for many areas), then I'd likely agree it is overlinking to be linked in the template. But where the term has a more specific article applicable to the context of the navbox (for example, linking to Township (Pennsylvania) or Township (New Jersey) in navboxes for subdivisions within those states.) Also while it may be that a lot of the navboxes are a complete mess! I don't think it is a reasonable approach for a tiny group of editors to agree among themselves to change an editing guideline in such as way as to instantly invalidate the established practices in many thousands of navboxes. older ≠ wiser 12:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, take for example {{Delaware County, Pennsylvania}}. If you click on the "Township" link, you end up at Township (Pennsylvania). However, at that target, the navbox is missing. Therefore, the navbox fails as a navigational aid, its only function, as it is no longer present to perform its task. And we're not changing the guideline, "bidirectional" is a concept that has been in the guideline for years, we're just clarifying what it means, as it is only half-explained. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Another thought: If (for example) even Aston Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania doesn't provide a link to Township (Pennsylvania), is it really so necessary to include a link in the navbox? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) You're assuming a strict 100% interpretation of bidirectionality and that readers are incapable of distinguishing between a link in a heading (which logically is NOT the same as one of the topic articles linked in the body of the template) and also that having links to unfamiliar terms in the navbox is unhelpful. FWIW, if it would help clarify things, I'd be fine with ditching the term "bidirectional". Well, Aston Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania probably SHOULD link to Township (Pennsylvania). That it doesn't merely suggests that the general PA township article was created later than the specific locality articles and the 1500+ articles on specific townships haven't been updated yet. This is not a particularly good argument regarding whether the link is relevant for the navboxes. older ≠ wiser 12:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

It was more a musing or an observation rather than an argument. Everyone's quick to say how imperative it is that the headings are maintained in the navboxes, but it seems it's not so imperative that they should be linked to in the articles. Which is arse-about-face to my mind, but it's tangential to the discussion here. And of course I don't agree we should remove "bidirectional" from the guideline altogether - it's a very good concept, and by adhering to it, we make sure that readers don't end up "stranded" (or "Up township creek without a navbox" if you will).  ;) --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said, you're making an assumption about usability -- that users are incapable of distinguishing that a link on a heading in a navbox might lead to a higher level of article than a link in the body of the navbox and that the higher level article might not contain the specific navbox. older ≠ wiser 13:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder if it would be an improvement to delink all city names in {{Mayors of the largest 50 US cities}} as BIDIRECTIONALITY would mandate or if it would be beneficial to delink all courts in {{Current US state Chief Justices}}. I don't think so.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • an even better option would be to delete {{Mayors of the largest 50 US cities}} since 50 is an arbitrary cut-off. Frietjes (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• I have just removed Template:Boris Johnson from the Rachel Johnson article because I was being misled into thinking one of his achievements was in fact hers. This is how her article was looking. Now, vaguely remembering bidirectionality, I came here and found to my horror the thread I started a year ago (and had forgotten) is still going on. Should there be a Boris navbox? Yes. Should Rachel be in it? Yes. Should the template be in the Rachel article? No. If there are no objections I propose to remove "so that the navigation is bidirectional" from this guideline and seek the deletion of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL redirect (the only links to it are from talk pages and TFDs). No adequate justification has been provided for bidirectionality. It may be appropriate in some cases but not in others. Thincat (talk) 08:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Navigation templates on Category pages

Why I'm asking is a case like these[1]. The towns are already linked to. So what does a navbox possibly do but add more links to the same places?...William 13:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In that example, it shows redlinks, which are useful (to some). It also organizes the links semantically, rather than alphabetically, which can often be helpful. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The example transclusion of navigation template at Category:Populated places in Washington County, Oklahoma is useful, I agree (although it no longer shows redlinks). Indeed I believe it's more useful than the category tree (category plus all subcategories and pages, which extend one level down in this case) because it displays the entire tree semantically and compactly.

Does it work only because the tree is so small in that region? Or may a large well-designed navigation template also be useful in that way? See Category:Colleges of the University of Oxford. The straightforward alternative, or complement, is to put the navbox in the category and sort it to the top (before 0-9 A-Z), perhaps under +

+

Template:University of Oxford

rather than sort to the bottom (after 0-9 A-Z), under τ for 'template'.

(Sometimes that alternative puts the navbox in a parent category and also in its templates child category, which some editors do not permit. As for the Harry Potter navbox and main category:

(2014-02-21, expand the next three lines -P64)

• 8 June 2012, two edits
• 16 Oct 2012

That is, I and Lord Opeth revert each other with four-month lag.)

--P64 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Great examples P64!

I dislike using colon category as a reference or "see also." I'd rather have the tiny Washington County template, than to have only the category. Someone deserves a medal for Harry Potter. Very imaginative and easy to read. Yes, I've seen messy ones like U of Oxford. Often for US States. People trying to make it the Template of Everything. Where are are the template police when you need them? :)

I'm wondering if the Harry Potter one shouldn't be on the Project Page to show what can be done with information that could get messy otherwise? Student7 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I do try to good illustrate well.

Regarding the design of navbox Template:Harry Potter that you admire, see also Template:Narnia. I have never done any more than observe in one place that the other place has done something well.

Regarding categorization of those navbox templates among others, and sorting them in categories, I have tried to get them in the main category and sorted to the top of the Pages, rather than merely buried in subcategories.

More complete disclosure: just above I expanded my last week's Potter annotation and linkage to show that I am the person Lord Opeth reverted many moons ago, vice versa. The relevant edit summaries are clear. --P64 (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Extremely large navigational boxes

I have started a thread at Template talk:The Beatles. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with external links?

[2] in particular? Tim AFS (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Navboxes are for navigating between existing articles within Wikipedia - their function is not to be a dump for external links. It's simply not what their function is. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

To be more particular, they also introduce the potential for point of view, which in templates is something we should avoid. Too many future problems could arise because of that. --Izno (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:The Sun Also Rises use

{{The Sun Also Rises}} keeps getting removed from The Sun Also Rises. Does anyone care to comment at Talk:The_Sun_Also_Rises#Template_removal?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)