Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Lists (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 


Navboxes - criteria for exclusion from an article[edit]

I'm having an issue at 3801 with an editor resisting inclusion of {{Hunter Region places and items of interest}} in the article, a navbox that includes a link to 3801 because of the historical relevance of the locomotive to the Hunter Region. He doesn't think the navbox should be included and I don't really understand his opposition. My question here is what are the criteria for exclusion of a navbox form an article? --AussieLegend () 13:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

A consensus at the talk page the related article usually is the only criterion. My suggestion is that you request a WP:3O there or discussion from the relevant projects related to the navbox/article (keeping in mind WP:Canvassing). --Izno (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I made minor comments to the article[edit]

1 2

Could somebody check if everything is right? Ushkin N (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Cast and crew in navboxes (again)[edit]

Would anyone like to comment at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#Cast lists in television/film navboxes? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for WP:PERFNAV (or similar)[edit]

Given the longstanding consensus not to include cast and crew in film and TV navboxes, which has been supported by the multiple recent template deletions at WP:TFD, how should we go about codifying this into the guideline? For categories, we have WP:PERFCAT, we should have something similar for this. We should probably also include something regarding the consensus for not including filmographies at the same time, killing two birds with one stone. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Killing one bird is fine (depending on species and pie capacity) but on individuals templates, such as Madonna's, the inclusion of major awards should be allowed. Madonna won the Golden Globe for Best Actress for Evita, and this could be noted on the template. By major awards I mean Best Actor and Actress for the Golden Globes and Academy Awards, best song and album in the major music awards, best actor and actress for the Tony theater awards, etc. Not too many (unless you're Katherine Hepburn) and not too few, but an actor's major awarded works, for example, could be included on their template without adding too much space and would give readers another point of interest to explore. Randy Kryn 14:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no consensus for this subjective partial inclusion and not a practice we currently follow. It would cause absolute chaos anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest a wording of something like (taking my lead from WP:PERFCAT):
Avoid adding performances of entertainers into the navboxes for the productions that they appeared in, or crew members into navboxes for the productions they worked on.  This includes, but is not limited to actors/actresses, comedians, televison/radio presenters, writers, composers, etc.  This avoids over-proliferation of navigation templates at the bottom of performer's articles, and avoids putting WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others.
Filmographies (and similar) of individuals should also not be included in navboxes, unless the individual concerned could be considered a primary creator of the material in question.  This avoids over-proliferation of individuals' navboxes on each production's article, and avoids putting WP:UNDUE weight on the contributions of certain individuals over others.
What do we think? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
AngusWOOF, by game shows do you mean something like this edit which Robsinden made a few hours before your post, amidst other such edits on game show templates (or the ongoing attempt to delete the {{Family Feud}} template after Tahc reversed his edit). Perhaps this edit should be reversed also, bringing back a great deal of information and context to a not overly large template, a well-put-together article-map of Wheel of Fortune (which, truth be told and in the best of times, should always include Vanna White). On a personal note, and this just shows that different editors prefer different styles and may never understand the other's viewpoint, it is now near the point of something which reminds me of a deboned fish. Randy Kryn 4:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes it would. Cast and crew members are actual people, and hosts of a TV show are just cast and/or crew. Navboxes like this just encourage WP:TEMPLATECREEP and put WP:UNDUE weight on certain performances of an entertainer over others, and most of the time the people involved are only tangentially related to each other. Having said that, we're not currently applying this to reality shows where the contestants are non-professional individuals not known for anything else (i.e. {{Big Brother UK housemates}}) or winners of reality contests (per {{Big Brother UK}}), as the jury is still out there, and consensus has yet to be formed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Pay particular attention to the closing admin's comments on the Celebrity Big Brother TfD: "The consensus here favors deletion, which happens to also match the long-running overall community consensus that is repeatedly found at TfD." --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Please, everyone coming to this discussion, click and read each and every one of those linked discussions. These "decisions" were made by not even a handful of editors in most cases, in some of them two or three people, and all of them include or start with Robsinden saying that we must delete because this is a long-standing consensus. If the same two or three people can remove other people's work in these scarcely-attended discussions by saying it's a "long standing consensus" then maybe we need to understand that templates are not a backwater form of information-map but a very viable and important part of Wikipedia. For those who don't know, there are many many templates put onto a daily list for deletion which, then, almost nobody looks at or comments about. So of course "consensus" is reached (although almost all of them have an editor or two opposing, but the closers seem swayed by the words "long standing consensus" even though there is none). The linked discussions themselves indicate that there is something broken here, a claimed "consensus" about game show templates where none really exists. Randy Kryn 11:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Read again BU Rob13's close at the Celebrity Big Brother TfD and the discussion from 2009, along with multiple discussions spattered all over Wikipedia. This is exactly why we need to centralise in a guideline so that we don't need to point out the consensus to you. Every. Single. Time. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
There was really no consensus on most of these, just a few people talking to themselves and most of them contain disagreements. The {{Family Feud}} and {{Wheel of Fortune}} templates I linked to seem(ed) fine as they were, and now they are, or you suggest that they be, either deboned or deleted. Either option seems counter-productive. Randy Kryn 12:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Every single one was closed with a consensus to delete. How can you claim that there is no consensus? There are many many more discussions to be found all with the same result. And filling Wikipedia with useless navboxes is what's counterproductive. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Template:1966-1968 Batman television series cast and crew, WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 October 22#Template:DoNotAdjust, WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 September 8#Template:Heroes recurring, WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 September 29#Template:Gary unmarried, WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 August 12#Template:RaisingtheBar, WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 September 16#Template:Everybody Hates Chris, WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 16#Template:Beautiful People, WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Template:X-Men film series cast and crew, WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 December 14#Template:Spider-Man film series cast and crew, WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 23#Template:Las Vegas cast. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Each one had "Keep" comments, which were beaten back by a constant claim of "long standing consensus". Game show templates, which is where the disagreement seems to be, seem fine and useful. Since you mention the Celebrity Big Brother template, which maybe was overly long (I think winners of the shows and not every contestant should be named) both Superdry19 and Jim Michael had some good points and should be pinged to find their way here (as should anyone involved in those very small discussions). Randy Kryn 12:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
That's clear WP:CANVASSING of users who you know will oppose this proposal against the already established consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
You mentioned the discussion, so people involved in it should be made aware of this wide-ranging discussion (which doesn't have to be if true consensus were aimed for, where everyone agrees on the wording). Randy Kryn 12:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
In which case, you ping all of the users, and not just the ones who agree with your viewpoint. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Alucard 16, Davey2010, Reli source, Frietjes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course there were "keep" comments. There are in most deletion discussions, but the closing admin weighs up both sides of the arguments. That's how we make consensus!!!! --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
And why would a game show be any different to any other kind of show with cast and crew? There's no special case to be made for this specific genre of TV show here. You're the only one who seems to think so. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • And here's one from 2012 - this is not a new phenomenon. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I fully support the creation of this guideline, and I agree with the current reality TV contestant aspect, and probably the filmographies too - are there any examples of filmography templates that would be affected? anemoneprojectors 09:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
With regard to the filmography template question, it shouldn't affect anything, as this has been standard practice for a long time. It isn't explicit in any guideline anywhere, so I thought it might as well be included while implementing the other proposal, as they are opposite sides of the same coin, and it should stop the need to explain the issue every time it comes up. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The only template I know of with a filmography is Template:Bjork, but I've always liked it being there. I wonder if something like Template:David Attenborough might be affected. I noticed the filmographies have already been recently removed from the likes of Template:Dannii Minogue, which I'm defintely pleased about. anemoneprojectors 13:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that Bjork's acting roles really shouldn't be in there. There is a consensus on this I'm afraid!  ;) It's a good illustration though - note that Anna and the Moods isn't included in {{Damon Albarn}} or {{Terry Jones}}, so the inclusion of Bjork's navbox gives her contribution WP:UNDUE weight over other performers in the piece, the point made in my proposed wording. My wording above would intend to except things like David Attenborough as "primary creator", although I appreciate the wording could be worked on. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it was in Albarn's navbox, along with his other acting roles, but the navbox wasn't transcluded. Anyway, I've removed them now... --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - would be the opposite of what we normally do. Would be best to leave the inclusion or exclusion of links up to those that work on the article in question. There should be no desire for an exclusionary guideline of this nature that only takes into account looks over accessibility. Not sure how deleted templates with very few people involved with some saying keep all over equates to consensus - WP:ADVICEPAGE says it best and i think the way to go.-- Moxy (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
What your proposing here is much more then what was talked about before. Going to lead to many problems.....why because our guideline (that no one reads first) will be exclusionary in nature. Wikipedia:Nothing is in stone - wrong way to control the structure and relationships to articles.-- Moxy (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Navboxes should only be used for grouping together links that are defined by their relationship to each other. Once you move beyond that you get link farms. Betty Logan (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
But shouldn't the wording include exceptions for Game Show templates which are not overly large? The wording really shouldn't be given an up-or-down "vote" but edited in the process to come to a true consensus, where everyone agrees. Randy Kryn 12:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Why on earth should an exception be made for game shows? What singles them out from any other TV, film, or whatever? This makes no sense whatsoever!!! --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not giving an "up or down" vote. I am qualifying where I think navboxes are useful. Creating exceptions for a particular type of TV show is arbitrary. If the links are not defined by their relationship to each then what is the point of grouping them together? Nobody has ever answered that question to my satisfaction whenever these dicussions come up. Betty Logan (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • support, it's better to use a list article or list in the parent article. when you start creating cast navboxes, you get massive bloat at the foot of the articles when simple article linking works fine for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • support as something obvious. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support' - I'll be completely honest I did object to the removal of the crew/presenters etc etc in the XFactor navbox (I didn't revert but I wasn't best pleased with it) however I wasn't actually aware consensus is not to have these and when all this info is either on "List of X" or the template article then it makes having them in the navbox pointless, and Ofcourse the navbox will just grow and grow and grow so I support this policy. –Davey2010Talk 14:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - As the one who originally wrote WP:OC#Performers by performance (after several discussions at WP:CFD), I agree we should definitely address clutter issues, where appropriate. For example, if it's a scripted show, I'd support not having actors names in the boxes. But what about things like: Template:The Tonight Show, or Template:The Carol Burnett Show. I would strongly oppose removing talk show hosts or variety show regulars from navboxes. As for game shows (including so-called reality shows), obviously we shouldn't be placing contestants in the templates, but just like talk show hosts, the game show hosts, should be there. I looked at Template:The Price Is Right and Bob Barker isn't listed. Why the heck not?! The point of a navbox is to help navigation. And clutter doesn't outweigh navigation. I defy any of you to prove that hosting the Price is Right wasn't defining or notable for Bob Barker. So yes, let's reduce clutter, but let's be sane about it. There are some things which nav boxes do better than categories, and this indeed is one of them. Talk show, game show, variety show hosts/regulars should be listed in navbvoxes. To do otherwise is a disservice to our readers. - jc37 15:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    As for crew (usually only writers/directors/producers), it should depend on whether this was something they were identified with (a career-defining moment), like Thomas Schlamme and Aaron Sorkin for The West Wing. Or the costume designer for The Carol Burnett Show, Bob Mackie. All we need do is check their articles and the related references for the import when deciding whether to include. - jc37 15:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    These last two comments and suggestions would allow many readers to find what they are looking for (probably Bob Barker), and the suggestions seem like the start of good consensus building recommendations. Support their addition to the language after discussion (especially Jc37's language), and maybe this would eventually create a guideline which would allow room for everyone's vision of a good and useful template. Randy Kryn 20:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
    This is an absolutely terrible idea and opens the gates for all sorts of subjective inclusion and edit wars. It's against current consensus and if you're talking about career defining moments, no different to adding William Shatner to {{Star Trek}}. Definitely not a route we should go down. As far as Aaron Sorkin goes, The West Wing should be included in {{Aaron Sorkin}}, but not the other way around. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. There is a long-running consensus at TfD that cast/crew (yes, including for game shows, on which contestants = cast) should not be in navboxes. The PERFCAT rationales apply to navboxes and we do need a PERFNAV, because this comes almost almost every day, sometimes several times in the same day. I'd be okay with a variance for talkshow/gameshow hosts/presenters (not guests/contestants). I'm neutral leaning opposed to an exception for "reality" show contestants/participants, because we're already devoting too much space and attention to these pseudo-notable parties. They technically qualify to have articles at all under WP:GNG because of multiple non-trivial instances of coverage, but in journalistic trash like People magazine that questionably count as reliable sources (or independent ones, since almost all their income is from advertising paid for by TV networks, movie studios, etc., giving these rags a very strong incentive to manufacture pabulum stories about those corporate entities' "stars"). "Reality" shows people are occasionally individually notable after the fact because of some scandal they get into that's reported in real news, or because they were already notable (Ozzy Osbourne, etc.). But as a class, they're not really an encyclopedic topic and we don't need to help people navigate them. (They're one of several piles of evidence that GNG is too much of a "one-size fits all" solution and is causing problems.) "Was on TV" != encyclopedic. Hell, I've been on BBC News myself as an interview subject, but I don't need an article here, much less to appear in a navbox of who's been interviewed on BBC News (= who's been a guest on the Tonight Show; the fact that it's full of funny banter doesn't magically transform it from a TV interview into something else).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  20:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Okay, as discussion has stalled for a week, and there was considerable support for this, both here and at the deletion discussions, I've added the proposal. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

What is seen in mobile view[edit]

The project page correctly says that navboxes aren't seen in mobile view, and lists this as a disadvantage of navboxes. Yes, it is. But unless I've missed something, categories don't appear in mobile view either, so shouldn't that fact be listed as a disadvantage of categories too? Andrew Dalby 09:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It should. Why aren't templates (navboxes) shown in mobile? Is this a size problem or a coding problem? Randy Kryn 11:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: Re templates: Deliberately designed by the mobile team. A) They're fairly bloated HTML, which is bad to deliver to mobile and B) display of a navbox is difficult to design for the mobile use case (which has screens on the order of 600px width in landscape). --Izno (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Disadvantages[edit]

A problem I find with the proliferation of navbox templates is that it totally skews the results of the "What links here" tool, which I find extremely useful for creating/expanding articles. This usefulness goes straight out the window when instead of listing other articles that contain a mention of a subject (and perhaps some information that could be added), it lists an enormous number of articles with a tenuous connection or no connection at all to the subject, leaving me to go through them all and somehow try to discern the meaningful/useful ones. Is this problem supposed to be covered by point 9? If so, I'm not sure the problem is adequately captured there. This negation of the 'What links here' tool's usefulness is probably my number one gripe with navbox template proliferation so I thought should be articulated properly in this section of the guideline.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)