Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

What is seen in mobile view

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

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)

Apparent contradiction with Categorization guidelines

In the Categories section there exists the following text - "Exceptions should also be considered when the article subject has a relevance to the parent category that is not expressed by the subcategory's definition. For instance, if Category:People executed by guillotine during the French Revolution was the only subcategory of Category:People of the French Revolution, it would not make sense to remove major figures of the French Revolution solely because of the means of their death."

This appears to contradict the guidelines in Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages and Wikipedia:Categorization#Non-diffusing_subcategories. This article has a much stronger view that subcategories should be diffusing unless specifically labelled as non-diffusing. Whereas the Categories section in this article gives the impression that the editor is free to choose how the categories are structured as long as it "makes sense".

Could I get some clarification on this. I am in discussion with another editor on the most appropriate method for categorising a particular area. It would be of assistance to the discussion if this point were cleared up. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest that WP:Categories should probably be taken as the more "correct" guideline to reference for category-related discussion, if there is a contradiction here. --Izno (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment: Use of interlanguage links in Wikipedia templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In March 2015, Moxy made a change to this guideline. I see no consensus for this change. A few editors at User_talk:Robsinden#Interwikis_links have said that this June/July 2015 RFC covers the topic at hand, but it is about sister project which is a different consideration. There has been no statement that we want to treat foreign language wikipedias like sister projects. The prior discussion was about templates that looked like this. What is at issue is templates that look like this. Do we want to show the readers redlinks with corresponding foreign language Wikipedia links next to them. These links take the reader to wikipeias with the content that would be at the English language redlink with the only additional action necessary being to hit the translate button. Do we want to send the reader to a link that has the exact content that they are interested in on a foreign Wikipedia. I don't think there has been a consensus not to send readers to such links.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• • For those tempted to WP:TLDR this discussion, the crux of the issue is whether we want to allow templates that have redlinks supported by interlanguage links in the format of these two following examples that I also mention below:User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Twelve Chairs and User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/2010-2019VSFashion Show.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
• Not sure why people think this way based on that talk above.....was an edit for clarification......as we dont need permission to edit these pages to what is abvious. Was simply a wording upgrade to current usage....as most will agree spamming templates with external links was not a good thing. Reversal does not change the meaning for most editors.....that would require an exception added....not less guidance. That said see below for more on the bold why. IF the argument put forth is that other laguage wikis are not external links.....this is the wrong spot to change that POV.-Moxy (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Some people have noted that they were contacted about this RFC. Full disclosure. I have notified the following sets of people

1. Those involved in my earlier discussion at User_talk:Robsinden: Randy Kryn Robsinden and Frietjes (see [4])
2. Editors of the template that I learned interwiki techniques from: MirandaKeurr and The Banner (see [5] and [6]) N. B.: one is likely on each side of the debate as one added it to the template and one removed it.
3. Editors of {{Ill}} especially PBS, Izkala, Primefac, BU Rob13, Gerda Arendt, and Jc86035. See ([7])

• I was not sure who else to notify. I will make a statement here if I figure out other groups to notify.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

1. I have also notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• As nominator I support foreign language wikipedia links when English is a redlink and oppose the addition to this guide of a limit to English WP links.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support links. Yes, the discussion mentioned above was about templates that looked like this, which included a few links to our valuable and pertinent sister projects such as 'Wikiquotes' and 'Wikisource', and even the closer said he missed the late addition of important evidence. On this new question, which covers links to Wikipedia in other languages - it is still Wikipedia, and if the English encyclopedia doesn't have an article on a subject I can see little reason why we can't have a tiny link so deep-researchers and fully-informed scholars can get the entire picture of Wikipedia's coverage of a subject. Good idea, Tony, and a good addition. Randy Kryn 17:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• We should be careful to distinguish between navigation boxes and article prose. for article prose, we liberally allow for redlinks, external links, interwiki language links, etc. however, the purpose of a navigation box in an article is for navigation between articles on this wiki. links which navigate away from this wiki are not serving the purpose. if you want to encourage translating articles from another wiki, the {{ill}} template works great in article prose, but we should keep it out of the navigation boxes. Frietjes (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Navigation boxes are for the purpose of helping the reader navigate to encyclopedic content in other articles. Why doesn't that include foreign language wikis that have the content of interest?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    • when I want to read articles in French, I go to fr.wikipedia.org. I never said that we can't have external links, but again, navigation boxes are for internal links, not external links. the same reason why we don't put google search links in navigation boxes. it's not about providing every possible link that a reader might find useful. it's about providing navigation within articles on this wiki. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
      • If the content is not available in English, why not put the French article link nearby so the reader can go there and hit the translate button to get the desired content?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
        • the standard for notability for a topic on the English WP is that it has an article on the English WP. there are many topics which are not notable here, but are considered notable on other WPs. we don't need to include links for non-notable articles. if the topic is notable, but doesn't have an article, then write the article. it's the same reason why we generally don't put redlinks in navigation boxes. Frietjes (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Your statement that "the standard for notability for a topic on the English WP is that it has an article on the English WP." is not true or an article could never be deleted once created.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose When there is no article, acknowledge it. When you want an blue link instead of a red link: write the article. Do not give misleading link to another language as there is a massive chance that people can not read that language. The Banner talk 18:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi The Banner. The links that Tony suggests are still red-links, not blue, but can contain very small links to pages on Wikipedia which have foreign language articles on the topic. The red links will still encourage editors to create pages, yet scholars, students, and deep-researchers will be given another valuable tool. Templates of a subject are maps to our in-house information, and Wikipedia is an intact international project created for the world to share. Randy Kryn 18:39, 20 January 2017 UTC)
    • A template is supposed to offer navigation between existing articles, what more or less suggests that it refers to articles in that language. A template like this is no help at all. An deep researchers will search wider than just Wikipedia. The Banner talk 18:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
      • • I think that is largely because you are pointing us to a version of the template where the template is broken due to a change in the parameter syntax following a template merger. It is likely that many of those intended links were useful.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Links to Japanese language articles on an English language template? I severely doubt that those links are useful. Beside that, there is, as far as I can find, no indication of a merger. The Banner talk 17:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Here is your indication of the merge Template_talk:Interlanguage_link#Requested_move_17_November_2016. The merging of the parameters is what makes some historical versions of uses of the {{Ill}} look bad.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
      • That definition will have to change and expand a bit in order for these templates to reach their full potential, and for "other" Wikipedia outlets and our sister-city projects to reach their full potential. Wikipedia is 16 years old, and by the time it is 26, or 32, these templates, unrespected by many editors on the site, could be one of the most known and valued elements of Wikipedia. Tony's idea will help make this happen. And no, it's not about absurd examples like the one you linked to (that link should be in an EEng museum), but minor expansions like Tony linked to. A few per template, or an agreed upon percentage, should cover the important red-linked topics. And people will not get lost, be troubled, or even complain if they click on one of those tiny links. They will try it once, see what happens, and then either use it or not use it again. This gives readers and researchers another path to knowledge and further access to the shared collaborative work of Wikipedians. There is no downside. Thanks again to Tony for such an innovative and logical concept. Randy Kryn 04:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• I made what I thought was a normal addition for clarification not for exclusion ( I edit policies etc..alot). The edit was based on a talk not about templates...but about how sister projects and other laguage wikis are external links and that external links should clearly be identifiable to our readers as such. There was metion at this talk I am refring to (that I can't find...but am looking for)...that if labeled as a link to a sister project that would be fine in templates like these. But to behonest I think most editors already thought these templates were for internal navigation only...and cotent separated from adminitration (as I see WikiProject links removed all the time from cotent templates). It's been sometime the edit was made and noone till now from what I know have complained about the wording or what it implies. That said lets see if the community thinks it is a good idea to add something like " English Wikipedia and related Sister projects were applicable.." As for my position on external links in templates.....I have non anymore....will let thoses that work on them decide....but would question links to laguages that our English readers cant read. Since these templates are not seen by the majority of our readers now (mobile and app views) I think they are more for editors now a days....thus if you want to help our readers, editors need to take the time to add to see also sections....dispite FA article editors preferences on this. -Moxy (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support ill links in templates, as they are accepted for example in List of composers by name. They tell the reader many things a simple red link doesn't:
  • The subject is notable in another language, indicating that language.
  • If you can handle the language, you can read there.
  • If you can translate and make the link blue, even better.
  I translate often (from German) and can tell you that it's much more than running Google translate. Sometimes I'd rather write from scratch on sources I have than find those sources somewhere else. Remember the recent discussion because the "translate" didn't know that "Fried" is short for "Friede" (peace), so instead of "sing peace" had "Fried sings". I don't trust it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support links to other Wikipedias. Helpful to readers who can understand the other languages, and helpful to editors who want to translate. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 15:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support in limited cases. There is a general practice that navboxes only contain bluelinks. As far as I know it's just a general practice, not a guideline, but it goes neatly with the following guideline (quoted from the same section we are discussing): Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. If the navbox contains redlinks, obviously there can't be any bidirectional linking in that case ... yet. The practice I mention and the guideline I've quoted both help to make navboxes simple, predictable, and easy in navigation. Which suggests to me that using "Ill" templates in a navbox should be considered a rare rather than a normal thing ... rather as redlinks in a navbox are rare rather than normal.

Negative (imaginary) example: we don't have articles about the early 20th century Ruritanian foreign ministers. If we create a navbox for RuritanianFMs, should we extend the list backwards with a long row of "Ill" templates? I don't think so, because it makes the template look messy and complicated, and someone wanting to create those articles would probably start from another Wikipedia anyway.

Positive (imaginary) example: if Ruritania has a new prime minister, and the editor who notices this can see that we have no biography yet, and can't go ahead and write one, should the editor add the new prime minister to the RuritanianPMs navbox anyway? Surely yes. A strong case, because a current prime minister is certainly notable. So, should the new prime minister be added as a plain redlink, or as an "Ill" template with a link to a language that got in ahead of us? It's more helpful to add the "Ill" template, because that makes it more likely that some other editor will then be able to create the article.

So we should leave ourselves free to add "Ill" templates to navboxes: we shouldn't rule it out. Well, that's what I think :) Andrew Dalby 17:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

If you want to add a subject to a navebox that does not have an article, then write a stub for it. At least then there will be the usual checks for notability. -- PBS (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose I was notified of this RFC. I agree with what Frietjes has written above. In addition how does one choose the foreign language to display (or do people suggest displaying all of them? -- that would be ugly) That it is in a nave box means that it is for another article other than the subject (so it is not directly obvious). The links will likely also cause problems when the text is copied via the CC BY-SA 3.0 License onto other sites. There are several other indications that this proposal does not fit into the current consensus(the June/July 2015 sister RFC (already mentioned above) and the guidance in WP:NONENGEL. I tolerate (and use) {{ill}} because I see it as a temporary measure (that, for example, a biographical article on a French general inscribed under the Arc de Triomphe will eventually have an English language article), but I am opposed to permanent links using {{ill}}, or similar, to subjects that are not notable in English. Navigation boxes do not need non-English language article for the purpose of navigation. -- PBS (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I too would oppose permanent links, but is anything on Wikipedia permanent? The purpose of {{ill}} links is surely to be temporary, till the English article is created, and indeed to assist that process. Andrew Dalby 19:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Suppose there is a redlink in English wikipedia with articles in a half dozen other wikipedias.. That would likely be great encouragement for English language editors to create a bluelink.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

PBS, suppose you were looking Template:2010-2019VSFashion Show and saw Gracie Carvalho, wouldn't that be better than Gracie Carvalho? It would make a stronger clarification that we need an article, IMO. Note that although there are 7 foreign languages that have articles for this subject the template will only display the first 5 currently.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I think there should be a bot that checks {{Ill}} on WP and adds all additional foreign languages to the ones presented. It should order them by prose size or KB size (not sure which is a better comparison across languages). Then once a WP non-redirect is created that bot should replace the {{Ill}} with the actual article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Also notice an example from the template in the opening post above The Twelve Chairs (1938 film).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:PBS explanation, naviagation boxes are for internal links not to introduce links outside of en:wikipedia which may come as a suprise to English speaking readers expecting more information that they can understand. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Will surprise English encyclopedia readers who didn't know other language Wikipedias existed perhaps, but won't surprise, shock, or discombobulate readers who will look at where the link brought them, understand their purpose, and perhaps click on them again, not click on them again, or decide to write an English language page. At that point it would be a matter of offering more choices. People keep mentioning the sister-project RfC which, as I've mentioned, was both wrongly worded from the original question and contained late evidence which the closer said he missed and which might have made a major difference to editors who had commented before it was presented. The idea of linking two or three sister-project links to the bottom of templates, such as our Wikiquotes and Wikisources projects worked on by thousands of Wikipedia editors, is certainly something which will eventually occur. To not do so helps to keep templates as second-class clutter (I've removed dozens of those navbox cages which trap two or three templates, maybe six exposed templates is pushing it if some are just a little-related, but navbox respect is lacking on this project), and separates, say, a large collection of quotes and full-sources from people who appeciate the templates of writers like Shakespeare and Twain. Just adding small Wikiquotes and Wikisources links to templates of writers would expand those templates usefulness by adding the hard-work of sister-project editors (sister-projects are friends, not food). Randy Kryn 18:21 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Cat, yes. Nav templates, no. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Walter Görlitz, What are you saying. Link to foreign language cats?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm saying it's appropriate for categories to have interwiki links, but not navigation templates. And templates should not even link to same-project cats let alone cats from other wiki projects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I think there's some misunderstanding here. Categories as such, and navboxes as such, have interwiki links via Wikidata. Categories can't contain links to relevant articles on other wikipedias (or, at least, I don't see how they can: if they can, the misunderstanding's mine). Navboxes can contain such links. The question is, should they ... and, if not, why not? Andrew Dalby 09:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of interwiki links per the same logic as the last RFC regarding inter-project links as well as long-standing exclusion of external links. Aside: Randy Kryn should drop the stick regarding inter-project links. --Izno (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Izno. Please notice that the first mention of that discussion, which I did not put on RfC, was brought up in the introduction of this question. The stick is one which I know, in the long run, will be decided on in the affirmative, although it may take ten years. As they were for many years across Wikipedia in a span of hundreds of templates, the links to Wikiquote and Wikisource will once more be a valued tool. And as they did for many years these links on the bottom of some templates will act as a "hands-across the world" connection reminding Wikipedians that our sister-projects live in the same house and are usually written and researched by the same people. Will drop it for now, but I didn't bring it up in the first place. Randy Kryn 21:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support The use of red links in navigation boxes is quite common while a set of articles is being built. The navigation box serves as a handy way of accessing a set of related articles for both the readers and the writers. The inter-language links provide the reader some information, which is better than no information at all. They help the translators too (not all foreign language articles are easy to find). Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose interwiki links in navigation boxes (same for red links), since navigation boxes are for navigating. If a topic is notable, just start a stub article, and ask for assistance expanding it per WP:TRANSLATETOHERE. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support -- mostly per Gerda Arendt, as the inter-lang link indicates that the subject is notable in another language. It also facilitates expansion of en.wiki. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. They do not aid navigation between articles on the English-language Wikipedia. Anything which does not perform this function does not belong in a navbox, as this is the whole purpose of a navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I don't understand the benefits of restricting navigation to enwp. {{ill}} is an admirable template in the way it works. Thincat (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And what are the benefits of links to, let us say, articles of the Dutch, Finnish, Farsi, Chinese or Japanese Wikipedia? The Banner talk 13:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The examples above (Gracie Carvalho and The Twelve Chairs (1938 film)) would both make me give a more serious consideration to creating an ENWP article than just a redlink?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • N.B.: If we did not have a current limit of 5 foreign languages on the template it would look like this: Gracie Carvalho--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      • That looks extremely confusing... The Banner talk 10:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, none of the languages you list would help me personally without machine translation but French and German I can make some sense of. I think a link to one language (the "best" article in a European language) would suffice because from there readers could reach all the other language articles. I'm surprised, The Banner, that you wouldn't sometimes find the Dutch Wikipedia useful if we had no enwp article. For linguists, a link might encourage them to translate the foreign article into English. Thincat (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      • What is the purpose of a template: to aid the inexperienced Wikipedia-users or the very experienced Wikipedia-users? In my opinion template are there to aid the inexperienced, to help them find related articles in that language. Linguists and experienced searchers can find their way through Wikidata while searching for their Holy Grail. The Banner talk 20:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Thincat, regardless of whether any languages help you personally without machine translation, it is 2017. If you open any of the foreign language WPs with Google Chrome, there is a Google translate button that will pop up. Website translation pages are also readily available elsewhere on the internet. If there is an English redlink, the foreign language WPs provide lots of free knowledge that can be read or translated by many.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
          • Well, yes, and I use machine translation quite a bit and it's very helpful. To me it seems very peculiar to be disallowing relevant navbox links to foreign Wikipedias where there is a missing article here. The argument against seems to be mainly that we have not generally done this in the past and so some people would be surprised to see them. For me it would be a nice surprise. In reply to The Banner I think the purpose of navboxes is primarily to help readers and I suppose most will be inexperienced in the topic to hand. I expect these links would help such people and not be a surprise. Thincat (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
            • • The in experienced users will get a nasty surprise when they c;lick on a link and they suddenly get an article in another languages, possible one they do not master at all. The Banner talk 10:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
                • Maybe that's slightly overstating it? To reach the page (even if you don't understand the language), to see its external links, and to be offered Google translation gives you at least a couple of options. A redlink can be a nasty surprise too!
                • I'd hesitate to add more than one language link, though (commenting on what Tony, The Banner and Thincat say above). Stop at one. Navboxes ought to look easy -- and via any one language link you can get to all the other existing pages. Andrew Dalby 12:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support: this is not prohibited by the guideline, and adding such links makes navigational sense. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually it does prohibit external links.....this change does not change that......the wrong thing is being argued here...Removal of English Wikipedia does not address our rule on external links. Need and RfC to add an exception to our rule on external links..not removal of 2 words that just clarify a long standing rule on external links.--Moxy (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It is a guideline, not a prohibition or rule, and it allows for common sense and occasional exceptions. It can and should be changed if there is appropriate consensus. Thincat (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

You got it 100 percent right.... change with appropriate consensus...not removed years later because someone just noticed the long stable guideline. Been editing policy for over a dacade now and this is the first I have seen an edit war over the wrong section of a guideline. As metioned many times now .....need to add guidance about interwiki extrnal links not remove two words that will not change the meaning of this guideline. They are editwarring over the wrong section/wording.-Moxy (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• PBS, Andrew Dalby, Thincat, and The Banner and all concerned. I have mocked up the two example templates employing multiple links whenever possible to the fullest extent: User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Twelve Chairs and User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/2010-2019VSFashion Show. In my mind the multiple languages both provides the opportunity to see encyclopedic content on the relevant topic from different perspectives and points editors to which redlinks to consider creating articles for.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That looks better than I expected so regard my !vote as indifferent between one or several (/all?) foreign links. However, I can imagine situations where to have all {{ill}}s would be excessive. So, editorial discretion, not rules, should apply in my opinion (as I nearly always think). Thincat (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. It's quite OK that way: I agree 100% with Thincat. Andrew Dalby 13:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

And I have shown you an example of an absolutely useless template, mainly filled with l;inks to articles in the Japanese language. The Banner talk 10:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The Banner, you keep pointing to a version of a template that is broken because of a syntax change following a template merger. After {{ill}} and {{illm}} were merged all kinds of interlanguage link uses looked like a mess.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Links to Japanese language articles on an English language template? I severely doubt that those links are useful. Beside that, there is, as far as I can find, no indication of a merger. And why do we have Wikidata when you want to bypass it? The Banner talk 20:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed. That sort of catalogue of omission belongs on the talk page of an article or project, certainly not in a navbox. It should be edited into a sensible state (as you have been doing). Thincat (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Navigation boxes are unusual things because they are usually placed below the sections (notes and references) that contain the citations for an article. It is necessary that any entries in such boxes are self-contained and not in need of in-line citations. This can be achieved only if the entries in the boxes are not in need of citations ie they meet the requirements of the first sentence of WP:V "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia [sic] can check that the information comes from a reliable source." The only way that can be done is if the links are blue and those links have reliable sources to support them. If the blue links lead to articles that do not contain reliable sources that cover the article then it is in those article where sources can be requested rather than in the navigation box. It is also necessary that the items meet the requirements of WP:OR "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed." If an article is a red link then how can one verify that the claimed link in the navigation box is not OR? If it is a blue link one can presume that the liked article is at least Wikipedia notable, and check the content of the link to makes sure that the navigation box claim to a relationship is not OR. So Hawkeye7 I think that red links in navigation boxes means that two of the three content policies are not being met. If the creator of a content box wants to include a subject then they ought to take the time to write stubs where no articles exist. These can then be tested under the normal procedures that are used on all/most new articles that are inadequately cited, or not notable (WP:SPEEDY and WP:AFD).-- PBS (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This highights a problem caused when the WP:REDNOT guideline was watered down. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that diff -- I now understand a bit better how and when redlinks in navboxes became increasingly deprecated. Andrew Dalby 12:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:Verifiability is not accomplished through our own links - that would be WP:CIRCULAR. So it is not necessary that all links in a article - even a featured article - be blue. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    • @Hawkeye7 you are not quite correct. Verifiability states "Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." A navbox with a blue link will presumably be less likely to be challenged (ie meet that requirement) than text that does not link to a Wikipedia article. If you do not agree with this proposition then presumable you would support moving nav boxes above reference lists so that they can carry inline citations, in which case it does not matter if they contain text or redlinks because they will also then be able to carry citations like any other statement in an article. I add lots of {{unreferenced section}} templates to sections that contain family trees, precisely because I think that family trees must be fully cited, because the relationships between family members as laid out in tress implies information over and above that contained in many blue articles contained within trees. It only takes the simple mistake of assuming that the mother of a person was the first wife and not the second for many other leaves of a tree to be incorrect. This tends not to happen in simple nav-templates and it is fairly easy to check if the information implied by an entry in a nav-box is supported by cited information within a blue link. -- PBS (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Notability for one laguage does not mean notability for English Wikipedia. Links of this nature will bypass English Wikipedia's notability policies.--2605:8D80:5C4:4A08:F11D:CBF1:BEB5:14B3 (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Please note that 2605:8D80:5C4:4A08:F11D:CBF1:BEB5:14B3 is a WP:SPA WP:IP whose only edit is the oppose above. Please disregard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment TonyTheTiger you ask several questions up above, here is one for you that might help answer some of them. Why do you think there is a prohibition on redlink in WP:NOTSEEALSO? -- PBS (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• PBS, did I say something about a prohibition on redlinks above?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am asking you why you think there is a prohibition on redlink in WP:NOTSEEALSO? The point being the if an editor wants to include a link to a foreign language wiki article that may or may not meet the requirements of English Wikipedia then why not encourage them take the extra effort and create a stub article themselves with the advantages that brings -- per my comment above (13:41, 25 January 2017)? -- PBS (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• What kind of encouragement would you like me to make. Would you like me to leave a message on their talk page every time they read a redlink? Pointing out that other languages have articles on a subject of interest to them might actually encourage them to create an article, in my mind.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• @TonyTheTiger you ask "What kind of encouragement would you like me to make." I would like you to change your mind over this proposition as it encourages the use of redlinks in nav-boxes. ie strike through "I don't think there has been a consensus not to send readers to such links." and replace it with "I think there is a consensus not to send readers to such links." -- PBS (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

PBS, You are not making much sense, this discussion has 10-11 running total (10-10 if you ignore the WP:SPA WP:IP) raw count. That is not a consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – allowing iterlanguage links from navboxes is absolutely nuts. This will lead to a rats nest of confusing links and bloated navboxes. One of the reasons that Wikidata was created in the first place was solve this exact problem [replacing many ↔ many (n² links) with many ↔ one ↔ many (2n links)]. For obvious reasons, foreign language links will be of limited usefulness to most readers. It is much cleaner and more helpful to readers to create an English wikipedia stub and let Wikidata provide the foreign language links. Boghog (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, navigation templates are meant to help moving around existing articles in the English language Wikipedia. They are not a to do list for developing new articles. In particular, notability in one language does not automatically confer notability in another. older ≠ wiser 13:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Bkonrad What does the inclusion of foreign language links have to do with notability. None of the support voters say anything about notability. Just you and the WP:SPA WP:IP2605:8D80:5C4:4A08:F11D:CBF1:BEB5:14B3 make this argument. The reason to include the links is to lead the reader to information on a related topic (the purpose of a NAVBOX), to have editors evaluate whether ENWP should have an article, to expose both groups to the multilingual element of WP.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)a
    • It goes along with navigating among existing English-language Wikipedia articles. Navboxes are not and cannot possibly be an efffective device for navigating among other language articles. Simply because an article exists in another language has no relevance whatsoever for a navbox on the English Wikipedia. Also, navboxes are not to do lists for article creation. Again, simply because an article exists in another language does not mean that an article in English about that same topic would satisfy notability criteria. older ≠ wiser 14:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, for what it's worth Frietjes and PBS make similar arguments. User:Gerda Arendt and K.e.coffman essentially make the opposite claim (which I explicitly disagree with). And an exchange between Andrew Dalby and PBS also touches on notability. older ≠ wiser 14:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't think PBS has quite got it yet. He talks (just above, to Tony) of encouraging users to write stubs (which is fine) and in the exchange you mentioned he encouraged me to write a stub (which is fine too) but he doesn't seem to see that the "Ill" template is exactly the practical encouragement that's needed. It gives a link to the very source from which a new English page could be started. And as soon as that page exists, the notability issue can be settled -- before that, it can't be. Andrew Dalby 14:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
        • My point (and I think PBS' as well) is that navboxes are not an appropriate place for such encouragement. They are not to do lists for article creation. If a Wikiproject thinks there is some potential for translating some number of articles, then they are more than welcome to set up project pages for tracking such work. But I think it is inappropriate to use navboxes for such purposes. older ≠ wiser
          • I agree with what older ≠ wiser has stated. And yes I get it. For example see the article Waterloo Campaign: Quatre Bras to Waterloo, the text of which is largely my creation using Attribution of a PD source. It contains red links, which if there is a foreign article is surrounded with {{ill}}. However all the sentence in those cases contain inline citations to support them. ie the sentence is supported by an inline citation and the fact that a foreign language link is provided is not necessary to support the notability or the authenticity of the text. Red links in navboxes need to be discouraged because they breach WP:NOR and WP:V, it makes no difference if they contain links to other wikipedia language articles or not. A stub goes a long way to fixing the problem for the reasons I have stated. -- PBS (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
            • Thanks, PBS, for explaining more fully. I didn't previously grasp the logic of your position: I do now, although, starting perhaps from different premises, I don't agree with it :) Andrew Dalby 12:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
• Well my 13:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC) post was in order of importance. First and foremost this is an attempt to help readers find topical information. All they have to do use open the link in google chrome and hit google translate. Encouraging readers to consider article creation is only the secondary reason for this proposal. O.K. so maybe you have a good reason to oppose my secondary point but what about getting information to the reader. Much like inline citations provide information to the reader our own foreign WPs can provide information.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Through Wikidata you can get the same effect, without utterly confusing links to perhaps strange languages. The Banner talk 23:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support inter-language. I work with a lot of ancient MILHIST, especially Roman, so italian and german inter-language links are very helpful. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• 'Support inter-language links as long as they are appropriately labeled as such: there is no reason to expect all articles to exist in English Wikipedia, and we should be able to provide tools sufficient for readers to find information about a topic, especially if we don't have that content. Sadads (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why, do you think, have they started Wikidata? The Banner talk 13:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to clarify BIDIRECTIONAL

What it says

"Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional."

How it's often interpreted

"Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox. Every article included as a link in a given navbox should normally transclude the navbox. Only articles linked in a given navbox should normally transclude that navbox."

(Hat tip to @Thincat: for some of this wording)

Is this what we mean?

If our main concern is bi-directional navigation (as opposed to, e.g., what's likely to be relevant or interesting for the reader), then the requirements go beyond "If the article uses a navbox, then the article deserves to be linked in the navbox".

This may be one of those things that has been left vague on the grounds that vagueness lets us do whatever we want; if that's the case, then just tell me, and I'll go away.  :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I think there has never been consensus to remove WP:BIDIRECTIONAL from the guideline nor to add to the text (which presently describes unidirectionality) and it has suited both sides to let sleeping dogs lie. Those in favour of bidirectionality use this as a slogan, ignoring the text. Those against adhere to the text because it is less bad than the whole works. Anyway, the logical discrepancy is too subtle to be kept in mind in the course of any wikidiscussion. I doubt that anyone who appreciates the problem really likes the present, longstanding state of affairs. Thincat (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Historical note: I think I first raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 7#Bidirectional navboxes?. A year later, having forgotten all about it, I returned to the talk page and found the discussion still going on![8] There were other discussions here and here and here and here. Thincat (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Lists included. The last time this was decided the question of entries on lists included on template being considered as being on the template was undecided and left open, at least as far as I understand the closer's statements after the close. If a list is semi-large, such as list of zoos, it seems easier to just list that on the template instead of including every link in a fold-out. There is nothing wrong, and everything to gain for the reader, if the zoo template is included on zoo, aquarium, aviary, and zoo association pages. None of these are overwhelmed with templates as, say, the baseball project entries. For example, the zoo template on the U.S. National Zoo page, which now has only two templates, would expose the zoo articles to over five thousand readers a month. Doing that doesn't hurt or cause a problem for individual readers in any way. It seems to be nothing but a positive for the encyclopedia and its readers. Randy Kryn 23:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Randy Kryn, Honestly, I am tempted to nominate {{Zoos of Washington, D.C.}} for deletion. A two-link template should be deleted. That template has little reason to be included in WP. Are you suggesting that we add that template to list of zoos? Once we do that, we will have a similar template for every city with many of them limited to 2 or 3 links. Alternatively, are you suggesting list of zoos be included on {{Zoos of Washington, D.C.}}?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I meant the {{Zoos}} template, which used to be on all of the zoo pages. Readers looking at Zoo pages gained from being exposed to that template (which includes the List of zoos, aquariums, etc.). Yes, the D.C. template with two entries seems a good candidate for deletion. Randy Kryn 3:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
      • {{Zoos of Washington, D.C.}} nominated at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_3#Template:Zoos_of_Washington.2C_D.C.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I have no problem with {{Zoos}} being used on all of the zoo pages.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
      • This isn't how a navbox should work. See Template talk:Aviation lists#RfC: Should this navbox be removed from non-mentioned articles? for a relevant RFC. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Well, yes, this is how a navbox should work. The zoo template is a fine example of why restrictive thinking about templates removes information from Wikipedia readers rather than sharing information and providing a clear educational inclusive subject map. People looking for a particular zoo in a small village suddenly can explore the entire meaning of zoos, how they function, etc., and find the full range of pages that the Zoo project would like them to be able to find. Randy Kryn 13:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
          • And then we risk WP:NAVBOXCREEP. You advocate overuse of navboxes too often Randy and seem to forget that people can get all this information through normal linking in articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
            • The information on the {{Zoos}} template is not linked on every zoo page, no creep involved (at least via the guideline). Notice that the template contains lists, so the zoo pages are already on the template, just condensed to save space. Would you want all 800 zoo-related pages on one template? No, of course not. So they are included in a list. The template itself, which is an overview of the zoo-related collections on Wikipedia, thus would comfortably fit on all those pages, none of which, as far as I can tell, contain many templates and thus would not fall into creeping anywhere. Speaking of creepy, I checked your edits on the {{Buckminster Fuller}} template last night because I had a feeling you'd stalk my attention to it to delete the existing links to our beautifully organized and chock-full-of-information sister-projects, Wikiquote and Wikisource, but I went ahead anyway because adding new entries to the template seemed valuable. Alas, as I sensed my stalker lurking, you came by it a bit ago, your first ever edit on the template, to erase those wonderful existing links to our sister-projects. I know that type of wikistalking is allowed, but it again makes me think twice about adding items to templates which still include the sister-project links, and so inhibits my work here. As far as I know not one other editor has ever removed those links to sister-projects, so you alone may be deleting readers accessibility to the thousands of manwoman-hours put in by the dedicated editors at Wikiquotes and Wikisource. Can we work out some way to allow me to add to those templates without the concern that you will come along to remove the Wikiquote and Wikisource links which, by the way, I've never added since they were put into hibernation? Thanks. Randy Kryn 12:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
              • WP:DROPTHESTICK. You should be helping Wikipedia by removing these external links when you come across them, not willfully ignoring a guideline you disagree with. Especially seeing as you added most of the effing links in the first place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
                • I'm nothing but proud to have added hundreds of those Wikiquote and Wikisource links over a year of work, links which had been on other templates six years or so before I started. The links from the "effing sister projects", as you called them recently, were never complained about until you decided that they weren't something you liked. The stick is still in the air and twirling. Randy Kryn 13:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
                  • How are you STILL not getting the outcome of THIS RFC???????? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)a
                    • ? I've told you several times that I haven't added one of those valuable links since the RfC, so I've accepted the temporary outcome. Doesn't mean I have to remove the ones I know about or come across, some of which have been on the templates for over eight years without anyone having a bad experience with them. As every day goes by, and nobody but you removes them, the evidence that they are welcome by readers and most editors accumulates. Randy Kryn 13:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
                      • Calling it a temporary outcome is proof of your refusal to accept the consensus! If you can't accept the decision of an RFC which was very heavily skewed in favour of not having the sister links there's clearly no reasoning with you! --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
                        • More? You know I've accepted it, as seen by my never adding another one or never reversing your deletion edits (on which you've spent lots of time). By temporary I mean it seems so logical to have a maximum of three sister-projects links placed on the below section of the templates that it will pass muster someday. When it does it'll take a long time to put them back, maybe a bot? I mainly did authors and other writers, did it for a year, and added 'Commons' 'Wikiquote' and 'Wikisource texts' although now would just add the latter two, 'Commons' is good for paintings and such. The sister project editors, who've spent thousands of hours creating fantastic treasure-troves like Wikiquotes, Wikisource, and the rest deserve this slight expansion of our connection as much as the readers do. When the question was introduced it was by someone other than me. It did not have an upper limit (three works well, two seems the way to go on most), and the closer did not read late-arriving evidence way down on the thread, which, as you surely recall, was that the encyclopedia's main template, {{Wikipedia}}, our home template, had a ridiculous way too many sister-project links, a total mess(well, maybe not that bad as an exception, if those distracting symbols are removed), which, for some reason, nobody complained about, nor edited away, for six years. For many moons. From 2009 until 2015. Don't blame me on that one, three links was my limit as well as my original proposal. Randy Kryn 19:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose / comment. If an article is listed in a navbox, should it *necessarily* transclude the navbox? No. Navbox clutter is a constant problem and mandating yet another one in a crowded article is counter-productive. The bidirectional guideline currently only applies where the navbox has already been added, and I think that is the way it should stay. The argument that "well, it's in one of the lists linked from the navbox" is fatuous. For example there are thousands of aircraft in the List of aircraft but adding Template:Lists of aircraft to every aircraft article would be absurd. See also the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. There will be occasional exceptions and these should gain local consensus, as the guideline already states. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There can be reasonable and project-decided use of these templates, not adding them to cluttered pages (baseball players, etc.). The {{Zoos}} template easily could go back on all of the zoo articles without causing any problem. Local consensus for the zoo project to include this template has been opposed by editors outside of the zoo project, which is what is holding its use up. Randy Kryn 4:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Please review WP:CONLEVEL. --Izno (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

... and the consensus agreed in this guideline is, as Steelpillow points out, that any necessary discussion should take place at each article's talk page. Thincat (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

So, the Zoo project should start a discussion at each one of the 800 talk pages to see which ones will be happy to accept the {{Zoos}} template? Maybe a bot could set that up, do you know of one that plays those games? Thanks. (by the way, I didn't get the Six Degrees reference in a comment above, but, full disclosure, I've been two degrees from Kevin Bacon since my appearance in Ferris Bueller). Randy Kryn 12:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, in theory, yes. We default to NOT having the navbox transcluded on an article which is not explicitly linked from within. If there is a good case to make an exception for including the navbox on the individual page (which there generally isn't), the discussion should be had on the talk page of the article in question. But no special blanket reason to ignore the guideline could be applied for {{Zoos}} any more than it could be for {{Aviation lists}}. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Was the question about the aviation template list (a template consisting only of lists, since there actually is no main "Aviation" template, at least it's not on the Aviation page so can you please edit-it-in there, thanks) decided on the project page? Or was it the template page, or main 'Aviation' page (probably it's proper home)? On the other hand, "Zoos" was put on all of the zoo pages without anyone complaining about it. The project members probably all have some zoo pages on their watchlists, and nobody removed any, not for a very long time. Then finally someone did, and all of this stuff ensued. Never thought of it before, but it's an entirely different set of circumstances at Aviation and the zoo limbo. Anyway, wherever the Aviation decision was discussed, project page, main topic page, or template page, wouldn't the zoo project have the same wikiright to decide the question there as well? Randy Kryn 19:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Related question: Does BIDIRECTIONAL apply to vertically arranged navboxes, e.g., {{Psychology sidebar}}? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

If only the deletionest did not abuse this guideline it would be fine.....problem we have is some use this rule to impede navigation. We are just lucky theae editors dont edit history or academic topics......as

Moxy (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Video game series navboxes

In the same way we don't include film studios in film series navboxes, record labels in musical artist navboxes and TV networks in TV series navboxes, what's the feeling about video game studios in video game series navboxes? I'm assuming the same rationales apply. The studios' navboxes should handle all the navigation that is required, surely. I'm also assuming we can apply WP:PERFNAV to designers, music composers, etc, etc in these navboxes too... --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Unlike film studios, record labels, and TV networks, I believe video game development studios usually have only 1-2 intellectual property's-worth of series; listing them in the context of those IPs makes quite a bit of sense, and certainly doesn't lead to the insanity of sports navboxes (which is my threshold for appropriate navbox scope). (There is already a consensus at the VG project not to include studios where their only role is publication.) Where they have more IPs worth of series, we usually change the scope of the template to be the studio itself (ref {{NCsoft}}) rather than the series, at least where this is practical for navbox size; ref {{Blizzard Entertainment}} and e.g. {{Warcraft}} for a case where it's not. I certainly don't see a need to apply PERFNAV here.

People are a little more fuzzy to me in the context of a series template. A lot of them stick at a specific studio for the majority or even entirety of their career, at least where it concerns that specific series. I would suggest (although it's not the case now) that Sid Meier should be on the {{Civilization}} navbox--and I would be shocked with someone who disagreed with me. Then you have cases like Chris Metzen, who's been at Blizzard since the studio started and had an important hand in nearly every one of Blizzard's games. Sure, I can toss him on {{Blizzard Entertainment}}, but given his role...? Fuzzy to me. Then I would guess there are some people don't have a large influence on a specific series, and I would suggest those people shouldn't appear on a series navbox (perhaps Robert Kotick is an example of such). --Izno (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. My issue is with navboxes like this one for Deus Ex (which I have now trimmed) which lists multiple people (including composer and someone who wrote some spin-off novels) and multiple studios. If Square Enix were to be listed on every navbox for every game series they produced, then there would be way too many navboxes on their article. However, {{Square Enix franchises}} ably covers this part of the navigation process. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There's absolutely some examples of going overboard, but I recall when this was being done about six months and I disagreed on {{Call of Duty}}. As an easy example, this is a case where the only real focus those studios have is to maintain that franchise. They are intimately associated with it, with a very well documented three year cycle where those developers rotate on putting out CoD games. Similarly, I would be opposed to removing Blizzard Entertainment from their franchise templates. Blizzard's franchises are tightly controlled and coupled, with no other developers. In short: It's not clear cut, and each one needs to be looked at case by case. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

There is generally a much much stronger publicly-known (at least in the industry) between a video game series and its developer(s) and or principle leads, compared to films and their studios, and to not include these devs on the navbox is less helpful than it would be for the film navbox argument, with the examples give above clear reasons to keep these names. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I may have been heavy handed with some of these, but without a bright line, we're going to see editors adding all sorts of people and studios to navboxes for minor involvement, as if it were an infobox. However, I stand by the majority of my removals from the {{Deus Ex series}} navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

{{Unreal series}} needs some serious trimming along the same lines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there are definitely some names in that one (like Tim Sweeney and Cliff B. that need to stay), but its difficult to necessarily draw a bright line. It should be consensus-based decisions, but a rough metric can be guided by doing a Google News search For example with the Unreal box (recognizing that there hasn't been a major release of the Unreal series for some time so google news will not be perfect) a gnews search on "unreal" plus the quoted names bolew gives:

• "tim sweeney" : 2470 gnews hits
• "cliff bleszinski" : 1860
• "mark rein": 965
• "steve polge": 79
• "sascha dikiciyan": 7
• "bob bates": 18

If we had to draw a line, Sweeney, Bleszinski clearly pass it, Rein to an extent, but none of the other ones are close to name attachment. And to further quantify something, "unreal" + "epic games" gives about 30,000 hits, so that Sweeney's 2470 hits is not insignificant to that. So perhaps there's some google numeric guidance to consider as part of that line. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that by Google association is the best way to go about it. If we are allowing individuals (although personally I think this is against WP:PERFNAV), the inclusion criteria should be based on the role they played. In any case WP:PERFNAV would definitely preclude Reeves Gabrels from {{Deus Ex series}}. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to take the {{Tim Schafer}} approach for people. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The video game industry is more unique compare to film or television in that while there are some people that are "fluid" and work across multiple companies or series, like Schafer, just as many are well-known for a single company or series; Sweeney and Bleszinski are that for Unreal/Epic Games; Gabe Newell is that for Valve Corporation, etc. It would not make sense at all to have a "Gabe Newell" template because it would be 100% overlap with the existing Valve template. At the same time, with the concern of "over-proliferation of navigation templates", very few well-known designers/etc. are strongly associated with numerous video game series or companies that are large enough for navboxes, compared to the film industry. The PERFNAV reasoning is fine in other areas, but breaks down in video games given the nature of how the industry is treated. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue here, like in many instances of lists on Wikipedia, is that there's just been too much example bloat. Someone has a good example. Some adds another acceptable one. A third person adds three more for "equality". A fourth overzealous editor comes it and lists off every example even tangentially related to the subject. I'm constantly cleaning it up. I feel similar to Ferret and Masem above. I don't think it should be forbidden, and I don't know where exactly to draw the line, but I certainly believe we should allow for a few core developer/publishers when it comes to companies, and major creator/director type when it comes to people, and I think we should actively trim back on the examples when its anyone outside of that. Sergecross73 msg me 21:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)