Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

RfC: WP:BIDIRECTIONAL

What should WP:BIDIRECTIONAL say?

  • Option A (status quo): Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional.
  • Option B: Articles that transclude a given navbox should normally be included as a link in the navbox, enabling bidirectional navigation, but exceptions may be made when inclusion would be undue.
  • Option C: There is no requirement that articles that transclude a given navbox have to be included as a link in the navbox.

(Prior discussion above.) Sdkb talk 04:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Clarification note: If it aids understanding, Transcludes can be read as uses. Sdkb talk 17:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

  • Option B. Navboxes are part of articles, and therefore the reasons that we have WP:DUE apply to them just as well as anywhere else. This means that sometimes it makes sense for niche topics to have navboxes that don't link back. For instance, for a professor or administrator who spent their entire career at a university, it might make sense to have the navbox for the university at their article, but it wouldn't make sense to add them to that navbox. Sdkb talk 04:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option B, tetatively. This seems reasonable to me, though I do wonder about potential fallout. Someone might try to apply a navbox to every article in a broad category (e.g. {{Cue sports}} being jammed onto every pool/billiards/snooker player bio, event page, etc.). What prevents that from happening?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    I share your concerns, it's not inclusion of the link in the navbox that would be undue, it's the transclusion of the navbox on the article that causes the undue issue. --woodensuperman 07:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option A, but we need to tighten the rules. Every article that is in the navbox should have the navbox transcluded, but if this causes an WP:UNDUE issue at the article, the link should be removed from the navbox. The navbox should not be added to articles where it is not linked. This is what bidirectional actually means. --woodensuperman 07:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option A with rewording. A navbox is for navigating between articles on a particular subject. Taking the example in the previous section of a professor who spent their career at one university, the text of the article about the professor would of course include a link to the article about the university. That's sufficient, and no navbox is needed. But Option A should be reworded, because currently it seems to suggest adding links to a navbox rather than removing the navbox from the article. It should say something like Only include the navbox on articles that are linked to by the navbox. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Navboxes aren't only for navigation, though — per the fifth bullet point of WP:NAVBOX here (which has guideline status), they also function as substitutes for see also sections. Sdkb talk 17:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    No they're not substitutes for see also sections. You're reading that wrong. Navboxes are purely for navigation, nothing more. --woodensuperman 17:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Quoting from the guideline: Good navboxes generally follow most or all of these guidelines: ... 5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. Sdkb talk 17:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, but that doesn't mean that it should be considered a substitute, it's just a consideration as to what can be included in a navbox. We should still follow the general principle of the very first sentence in the section, namely Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. --woodensuperman 17:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option A. If the article isn't worthwhile to link back to, then the article does not belong on the navbox. --Gonnym (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option B. Middle ground or...C..lets give content editors a choice/chance as to what is relevant for an article, especially during GA and FA reviews. Lets slowdown the workaround of our MOS:SEEALSO guideline and our November 2020 RfC for article stewards.Moxy- 13:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option C because A and B are irrational (see my comment below). I don't like option C but I prefer it to abstaining. Thincat (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option A Retain status quo, as B and C are not improvements, opening editors to slapping on navboxes for every employer or performance, and tangetial subjects like alma maters and hometowns.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba:..You seem to be advocating for C....dont added them allover?Moxy- 09:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
No, C seems to allow the bio for Person X, who works for ACME, to include ACME's navbox, even if they are not linked there. I prefer A.—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Ohhh I see.... Add them even when they're not linked in the template. So for instance every movie that Elizabeth Taylor is in thoses templates would be on her autobiography.Moxy- 17:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's the potential problem. —Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option A is how I have always understood the issue and seems best for the science and philosophy navboxes that I usually deal with. The WP:Ignore all rules policy (and the hedging phrase "should normally" that is already in Option A) allows reasonable exceptions, and the exceptions can also be noted on the talk page of especially problematic navboxes or articles. Biogeographist (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option B, though we might want to provide a little guidance for when a navbox is appropriate in an article despite the article being undue for the navbox. The most obvious example, to me, are articles that were split into sub-article for length - the navbox is often still appropriate for the sub-articles, but listing them all there could be redundant and undue. --Aquillion (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option A – The status-quo language already allows for exceptions. We don't need more cases of templates like {{National Register of Historic Places}}, which is currently plastered on nearly 29,000 articles about places that happen to be on the National Register of Historic Places. Graham (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option B, at least for sidebars. Quoting my reasoning from above: As commonly interpreted, it encourages sidebar bloat, with excessive articles added to sidebars to avoid their removal from those articles. The flaw in that logic is that while, say, Islamophobia might be a major element of an article (making the sidebar due), the article may be too minor to belong in the sidebar. Sidebars also have less space for links than navboxes at the bottom. The chief consequence of the status quo guideline isn't more parsimonious inclusion of sidebars ("this article wouldn't be due in the sidebar so I won't transclude it"), it's extreme overlinking of barely-relevant articles within sidebars ("the sidebar is relevant here", then someone else inevitably comes along and adds a link, bloating it), and I don't think that's a good outcome. DFlhb (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Option B gives the community a chance to detail an entire story only if, and that is important, only if the exceptions are done well and reasonably communicate to the reader. My own contributions to navboxes rarely include such exceptions, except in the case of the navboxes I've created for many of the United States Founding Fathers. These include an above portion which gives a biographical timeline that actually saves what some editors call 'navbox creep'. If these above sections were not allowed, then a separate navbox cage would have to be created, for example, for delegates to the Second Continental Congress, who are now covered within their biographical navboxes (i.e. {{Richard Henry Lee}}. Exceptions are one of the valued rungs in the backbone of Wikipedia, they are called for in each guideline summary, and they give Wikipedians some breathing room in their editing style. But again, rare but efficient is the key. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Pinging participants from the prior discussion: @Mudwater, Woodensuperman, Randy Kryn, Moxy, DFlhb, Bagumba, and SMcCandlish: Cheers, Sdkb talk 04:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem with B is that it opens the door to pages including very tangentially related navboxes. Putting every employer of a person, all their performances, etc. For example, this would defeat the purpose of WP:PERFNAV. I still think an includer should be listed in the navbox, but am open to discussion about whether say Elizabeth Taylor's bio needs to include every navbox she is listed in.—Bagumba (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the ongoing issue with awards navboxes and similar causing clutter. When you have this many navboxes on a page, it defeats the point. People treat navboxes as a substitute for articles sometimes, this is not what they are for. They need to be restricted to clearly defined smaller sets, and be subject to more stringent scrutiny in the way that say WP:DEFINING is used in categories. --woodensuperman 07:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
We discussed awards navboxes above. They are fine, long term, and show the achievements of an actor or a sportsperson who, having chosen their profession, achieve its top and either win an event on their own or are awarded by selection by their peers or the profession's main observers. If a person is named on an awards navbox its inclusion on the page is approved by all three of the options above. I would lean towards B, such as of course keeping the links on {{Richard Henry Lee}} to his career in "above" and participation in some of the Founding events which don't have everyone's navbox on the page, such as the signing of the Declaration of Independence) but am concerned that you, in particular, will look for and find loopholes in the language of any one of these to continue to remove individual items and entire areas of linked items (i.e. option A would remove portals and categories, etc. as well as historical listings of an individuals life in the "above" sections). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Question: What, exactly, does "transcludes" mean in the context of this wording? Even reading the dictionary definition I'm not totally clear what it would mean per this discussion. Can someone give examples, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    transcluding = placing the navbox in the article. --woodensuperman 11:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. Then on my question above about, for example, {{Richard Henry Lee}}, what would be removed, if anything, per Option A, Option B, and Option C. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Anything in the "above" section for a start for all options. It's a navbox, not an infobox. Without going too in depth (as it's not a topic I have any knowledge of), there seems like quite a few inappropriate inclusions in the body, Memorial to the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence for one. And that's before we even go into options a, b or c. --woodensuperman 12:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    So you'd gut the navbox in any case. Would like SMcClandish's opinion on this. The Memorial honors all the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and is their main honoring, as a group, in the United States. The "above" is fine for informational purposes (and for navigation for those who wish to familiarize themselves with the positions), and define the individual's life without having to place the navbox on all relevant pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Per your The "above" is fine for informational purposes. I repeat. This is a navbox, not an infobox. --woodensuperman 12:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Using above for such purposes has been in effect for well over a decade. Letting readers have insight on a topic does not have to be reserved for "infoboxes" but can be presented in the official Wikipedia map to the topic (navboxes). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    The very first line of WP:NAVBOX states: Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia (emphasis mine). All the time we are linking away to an article that does not have the navbox transcluded upon it does not perform that function as it navigates away from those articles, not between them. --woodensuperman 13:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    I've seen some really ridiculous use of the language disparaging two items on navboxes, such as "what does topic Afoo have to do with topic Bfoo", when both topics are directly related to the subject of the navbox. You take wording too literally. In the example above, {{Richard Henry Lee}}, if you object to the inclusion of the major memorial to the signers of the Declaration of Independence then we should add a navbox cage which includes the navboxes of the signers who have navboxes, which would add many navboxes to the page which seems to be your concern. It's easier just listing the national memorial (as is done with the Jefferson Memorial being included on Jefferson's navbox) rather than adding all the navboxes to the memorial page - and recall, this is the national memorial to all of the signers of the Declaration and should be a major inclusion in their navboxes. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    No. What should happen is that that article should be removed from this and any similar navbox as it would not be appropriate to have 56 navboxes in a "cage" on the article. What however is appropriate is to include the people and the memorial on the navbox {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} so you can navigate between those articles through this method. --woodensuperman 13:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    (although there is a massive overlap with a section of {{Historical American Documents}} which quite frankly is a mess. I think I'd prefer to see a discrete {{Declaration of Independence}} navbox which combines elements of both.) --woodensuperman 13:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Are you serious??, you're going to go about purging American independence navboxes because I mentioned one here? You've removed the long-time image from {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} and now want to disfigure {{Historical American Documents}} which is one of the best navboxes pertaining to American independence on the site? Will stop here before getting way too personal about your way of editing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    {{Historical American Documents}} is a f*cking travesty of a navbox. I don't know where to begin with that one. If you're calling it "one of the best navboxes [...] on the site", you might need to have a rethink about what makes a good navbox. A navbox that size with multiple sections that repeat the same links over and over again is way too complicated to provide any useful navigation. If it was split to its components it may prove a more concise useful navigational tool, but as it stands, ugh! --woodensuperman 13:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    And with regard to the image at {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}}, see WP:NAVDECOR: Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative; Per MOS:DECOR, images are rarely appropriate in navboxes. --woodensuperman 13:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Here we go, the deletionist treatment, please just leave American independence navboxes alone. "A f*cking travesty of a navbox"? One of the best navboxes on the site? And maybe the best for its topic? What, in Wales' name, is wrong with you (a good faith rhetorical question). The image at the Declaration signers is appropriate per both the WP's you mention. And it is not an icon (I'm with you on not liking icons on navboxes). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Welcome to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --woodensuperman 13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Wrong venue for WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE
  • Thanks, appreciate the welcome and the acknowledgement that editors can edit. If I were the ANI kind of editor I'd put you up, for discussion at least, for going on an American independence navbox run just because I happened to mention one in this discussion (hounding?). Given your bias towards teeny-tiny navboxes, let's use {{Historical American Documents}} as an example, which option best keeps it as is? Option B with improved option language per Moxy's wording? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    So, stop telling me which topics I can and can't edit. Do NOT ever tell me to to "leave American independence navboxes alone". --woodensuperman 13:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    {{Historical American Documents}} should be "split to its components [so] it may prove a more concise useful navigational tool". Nothing to do with any of the options mentioned above, you went off topic. --woodensuperman 13:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Just pointing out how you came upon those navboxes in order to edit them, through this discussion because I mentioned them. Would like to point out for readers here that Wooden and I have a combative history, and if I like something he has had in the past a tendency to dig in and change it. Not cool, and probably WP:Hounding or at least on the edges. I don't do that to him. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    FFS, WP:AGF Randy, I'm not hounding you. I'm just trying to clean up the navboxes in line with the guidelines. And this is wildly off topic. --woodensuperman 14:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    I assume good faith, and also take past history into account. I use an example and suddenly you are going to edit American independence navboxes. This is not off-topic, the example given, {{Richard Henry Lee}}, pertains to what would be removed and what remains as descriptive of a navbox topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    That doesn't sound like good faith to me. I was just doing a bit of wikignoming when I came across something that needed tidying up, the same way I usually edit. --woodensuperman 14:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Uh huh. Anyway, does option B allow for the document navbox to exist as is (as it has for well over a decade)? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • To answer your question at the top of the thread, Randy, "transcludes" = "uses". I think changing that to the plain language, regardless of the outcome of this RfC, would be a good step. Sdkb talk 17:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Transcludes is already linked to Help:Transclusion upon first usage at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. —Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Even so, it's clearly causing some degree of confusion, so we should avoid jargon whenever possible (and we could still keep the link, even if we changed to plain English). Sdkb talk 17:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    If we must, then includes is more succinct than uses. —Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Transclusion is specific to the placing navboxes on articles, it is not the same as "using". If you are editing around navboxes, you should be familiar with the principle. --woodensuperman 17:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Pinging @Gonnym, given that the comment in your !vote seems to speak to something different than what is being proposed. Sdkb talk 17:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    No, I understand fine. If it's linked in the navbox, the navbox must be used in the article. Gonnym (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
  • This wearisome issue has been discussed for at least the last ten years (starting here?} and every year or so since then. The first part of option A Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox does not ensure bidirectionality . For that Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox and every article linked to from the navbox should normally transclude the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional. I find it very hard to wrap my mind round that (increasingly so as I get older!) but the deep underlying problem has led to many of the difficulties of varied understandings. Thincat (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, this is how EXACTLY how it should work. And this would help to stop the overproliferation of navboxes we see now, and the psuedo infoboxes we see way too much now. --woodensuperman 21:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    But with commonsense exceptions, which I'll describe further in the survey. Exceptions are allowed and encouraged in all guidelines. For example, Woodensuperman would like to delete Memorial to the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence from individual navboxes even though, like Richard Henry Lee, it's his only memorial in Washington D.C. If this and similar exception aren't made then the other solution would be to include the navboxes of individual honored at the Memorial in a single navbox cage with a descriptive label. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, that article does not need to be included in all of those individuals' navboxes. They are linked in the navboxes {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} and also in {{Historical American Documents}}. This is already sufficent to provide navigation between these articles. Also I am seeing some redundancy between the two. --woodensuperman 09:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
    In fact, looking at {{Richard Henry Lee}}, most of the "above" section should go too. This is a navbox, not an infobox. For example, we don't need to include a link to List of United States senators from Virginia in this navbox, when Lee is included in {{United States senators from Virginia}}. This is how WP:BIDIRECTIONAL should work. --woodensuperman 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
    Those would be exceptions (do you understand that all guidelines use common sense and exceptions?). A navbox is a map to articles on Wikipedia which pertain to the subject. As for the Memorial to the 56 page, if you are going to delete that from navboxes (really going overboard don't you think?) then will have to put up a collapsed hidden navbox (the navbox cage) to include the six or so navboxes which include the page. As I said earlier, this is the only public honor for Richard Henry Lee in Washington D.C., the capitol city of the country that he had such an impact in forming. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
    How many exceptions do you need in a single navbox? The odd one, maybe, but that entire "above" section is all exceptions. Use {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} or {{Historical American Documents}} as your map, not the individuals' navboxes, that way you don't need to transclude them in a "cage". If the information is pertinent, the reader will be able to find the link in the article, you shouldn't be trying to use navboxes as substitutes for articles. --woodensuperman 12:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of episode count on {{Doctor Who episodes}} navbox?

Would anyone like to weigh in at Template talk:Doctor Who episodes#Episode count? --woodensuperman 08:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Images in navboxes (again)

I think we need to put this to bed. How does including an image in, say {{Elon Musk}}, facilitate navigation? Essay WP:NAVDECOR (Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative) states: "Per MOS:DECOR, images are rarely appropriate in navboxes", making the exception where the image is a map. A picture of a person, even Elon Musk, is nothing more than "decorative". Is it time to codify this into the guideline? --woodensuperman 12:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This is an easy one, and rests solely on the foundation of MOS:DECOR. MOS:DECOR is about icons, and discusses the images of icons being used on navboxes. I agree with it that almost all icons are just clutter on a navbox, and when used in 'below' draw inappropriate amount of attention to the icon's topic. Existing language is fine as it stands, and images are fine on smaller and slightly-medium size navboxes (on large navboxes, where I agree with you, they take up too much horizontal template space). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you explain what navigational function is gained by having Elon Musk's face plastered across the bottom of every article this navbox is transcluded on? It's clearly WP:UNDUE. I mean, look at PayPal or OpenAI for example. Or Talulah Riley, where even inclusion of the navbox could be considered WP:UNDUE... --woodensuperman 13:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Talulah Riley and Elon Musk were married (not once, but twice!) and linking a subject's wives or husbands have appeared on navboxes since they began. UNDUE is about a neutral point of view, and does not pertain to photographs on navboxes. The use of non-icon images on navboxes is fine, and has been used to great benefit on many navboxes. Relevant images on topic boxes clarify the subject in reader's minds ("oh, him, I recognize him, just didn't know his name!") and certainly does not breech "undue" neutrality. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
It is not "fine". It's useless clutter on the footer of every page. --woodensuperman 13:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
That's your opinion, mine is that they are "fine" when done properly, and do not breech any policy, guideline, essay, or talk page discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
But by being arbitrarily decorative, it does go against WP:NAVDECOR and MOS:DECOR. --woodensuperman 13:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Which, as has been repeated, are about icons, not photographs or other images. Icons are those very tiny things which represent flags, links to sister projects, and other things which draw the eye. Flags are iffy, and many editors apparently like them and they do define by country, so I wouldn't ban them from use (although I've never added one) but would question, with editors who have added them, their overuse on some navboxes. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:NAVDECOR is about images. In this case though, the spirit of MOS:DECOR is the same and we should be seeing images and icons interchangabley here, they are just decoration. Images should not be plastered on every article by use of a navbox, but specifically placed on articles encyclopediacally per MOS:IMAGES. Funnily enough, navboxes are not mentioned in this context, presumably because no-one thought anyone would even think about using navboxes to place images in this way. --woodensuperman 14:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
i.e. per MOS:IMAGES, a picture should not be placed on an artcicle if it is not pertinent. There isn't an image of Musk in Talulah Riley's main article, so why should there be one by means of navbox? Look at Boring Test Tunnel, multiple images of Musk by means of navbox and sidebar, but only one mention of him in the body of the text. How is this in line with MOS:IMAGES? --woodensuperman 14:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
MOS:DECOR is completely irrelevant for this discussion. That section not only talks about icons, it is part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons. As for the navbox, navboxes go at the end of the article and are automatically collapsed if there's more than one (and do not even show up in cell phones and tablets), so it's hardly any clutter at all. Cambalachero (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
How does an image in a navbox facilitate navigation between the articles within? After all, that's what it's for. --woodensuperman 15:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
In your example, a photo of Elon Musk next to the {{Elon Musk}} navbox gives a visual identification that those are the articles related to Elon Musk (instead of the articles related to, say, SpaceX, Tesla or Twitter). Cambalachero (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
This is a nonsense. You don't need a picture of Elon Musk to know that these articles are about Elon Musk. I go back to WP:UNDUE again, as navboxes with images are more prominent than navboxes without, this suggesting that one is somehow more important than the others. We should be WP:CONSISTENT MOS:CONSISTENT within a single article. --woodensuperman 20:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
You should WP:KNOW that it is WP:POINTLESS to WP:LINK to WP:RANDOM shortcuts to make it seem as if your WP:PROPOSAL was based on WP:POLICIES WP:AND WP:GUIDELINES, when actually WP:ITISNOT (see how annoying it can be?). People read those pages. It has already been pointed that UNDUE has nothing to do with this discussion, and CONSISTENT is about using similar articles titles in articles that are part of a theme... meaning, nothing to do with any of this. Cambalachero (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay, late at night, couldn't be bothered to check, but WP:UNDUE is very much in play here. An image in a navbox gives undue weight to a topic over one without an image in the navbox. --woodensuperman 05:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
No, it isn't. UNDUE is about turning a text that says "Musk said X, and his critics said Y" into "the great Musk said X, which is right, and his critics said Y, which is nonsense". As pointed, irrelevant for this discussion. The names and shortcuts to policies and guidelines are not placeholders that can be used each time a common word, such as "undue", happens to be the same as one of them. Cambalachero (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I maintain that imposing an image onto an article that may not already have one makes certain aspects of the topic seem to have more importance than others, thus unbalancing the article. See my Talulah Riley example. Or The Space Barons, where Musk has an image, but Bezos does not. This is very much part of WP:UNDUE, which states: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. --woodensuperman 13:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Ready, the Bezos navobox has an image now. Problem solved, we can go on with our lives... Cambalachero (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Well that was WP:POINTY. It doesn't solve the Talulah Riley issue though. --woodensuperman 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
If it's not late at night and you can check, why don't you actually read the pages you cite? Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point only applies if there is an actual disruption going on, and adding a relevant image to a navbox that was lacking one is clearly not the case. And which was my point, anyway? That instead of making big discussions over the navbox of Musk having an image and the Bezos one lacking one, you can simply WP:BEBOLD, add the missing image and call it a day? As for Riley, she was married to Musk, so I don't see the problem. In fact, the "Personal life" section should have a photo of Riley and Musk, if there was a free one available. Cambalachero (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
It is disrupting, because it's controversial and we are currently in the midst of a discussion. It would be equally inappropriate to remove the one of Musk while we are mid-discussion. Musk isn't the specific issue, just one example of how images can be problematic. And it's not a "missing" image of Bezos!! Use of the word "missing" would imply that a navbox should have an image, which is clearly NOT the case. --woodensuperman 14:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to rain on your parade, but I have to remind you that the current consensus is that images are allowed in navboxes. Until such consensus changes, adding images to navboxes lacking them is not controversial. Cambalachero (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Given that WP:NAVDECOR explicitly states Per MOS:DECOR, images are rarely appropriate in navboxes the opposite could be argued. However depending on ones reading of the application of WP:UNDUE, MOS:IMAGES, MOS:CONSISTENT, etc., I maintain that the inclusion of images in navboxes remains controversial, which is why we need to wait for a consensus to be reached. --woodensuperman 15:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I also agree with the above comment on the current consensus. Remember, per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus does not require unanimity; one or two editors disagreeing does not change this. If we were going to wait for a consensus to be reached, I believe that the only way the above editor would accept this would be if everyone accepted their view, and nothing else. I'd say it's time for them to drop the stick. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Image use policy is that images should serve a useful purpose and should be purely decorative. It is difficult to imagine a reasonable argument that images in a nav box or sidebar are useful and not being used in a way that is ostensibly decorative. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
What policy? Images have been used in sidebars and footer navboxes since they began. Sidebar navbox images are placed at the top and purposely define the topic, footer navbox images are placed on the right. Wikipedians should maintain Wikipedia information, not reduce it (yes, images contain information, doesn't WP:1000 state that each image is worth 1,000 words or am I mixing that up with WP:COMMONSENSE?). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If one was being pedantic, perhaps I should have said guideline (MOS:IMAGES), which states:

Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative.

However, Wikipedia:Image use policy would give voice to the gideline and would also state:

The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central.

Invoking WP:COMMONSENSE is not a substantive argument of itself. An appeal to common sense is an argumentive fallacy. One must continue and read WP:NOCOMMON. Common sense is matter of individual perception (opinion). That is what the quote from René Descartes would tell us. The one truism regarding common sense is that it is not all that common. WP:COMMONSENSE is a section within WP:IAR. IAR (and WP:COMMONSENSE) are not a catch-all get out of jail free for doing something. It must be demonstrated through a substantive argument (ie not just opinion) that doing so is an improvement to WP and the reader's experience.

Saying that we have always had an image parameter in navboxes is also not of itself a substantive justification for their use. Argumentum ad antiquitatem is also an argumentive fallacy which presumes that what has always been done is correct, that it is done for correct reasons and that the rationale for why it is correct remain true. Is there any rationale evidenced for why this was done and why it was correct. No. It would seem it just appeared and nobody has seen fit to question it (until now). There is no evidence presented of an affirmative consensus. Per WP:WEAKSILENCE:

Consensus arising from silence evaporates when an editor changes existing content or objects to it.

Do images in navboxes serve a useful purpose or are they primarily decorative? If their use is primarily decorative, then P&G would tell us not to use them. There is no shortcut WP:1000, but there is the adage that a picture is worth a thousand words. There is a caveat to this that the picture must be relevant in both what it shows and where it is placed. However, we do not need a thousand words when a hand-full or less suffice. Images take up more space and can be a distraction or hindrance rather than a benefit - eg in the article on Elon Musk where there is a picture of him at the top of the infobox and the same picture in the sidebar at the end of the infobox.

There is the assertion that images have been used to great benefit on many navboxes. Relevant images on topic boxes clarify the subject in reader's minds ("oh, him, I recognize him, just didn't know his name!")". The assertion is a bit thin since WP uses text based searches. We get to a subject through a text based search or by clicking a hyperlink not by telepathically imagining an image to arrive at an article. And when we get to an article on a person, we see their image (usually) in the infobox. It is the article on Elon Musk that clarifies the subject in the reader's mind. Asserting there is a great benefit is opinion offered without substantiation.

Does an image in a navbox purposely define the topic? No, it is an article title and the lead of an article that define the topic of an article. It is the words in the navbox that define what the articles listed in the navbox are rlated to. Consider {{History of China}}. The image is four glyphs that could be Chinese but could equally be Japanese for what most of us know and they have no apparent meaning. They might say "Joe Biden's mother wears army boots" for what most of us know and those that do know are enjoying the joke. It is the words that tell us the purpose of the sidebar, not the image.

The Syrian civil war has two sidebars, both with images: {{Bashar al-Assad series}} with their photo, and {{Ba'athism sidebar}} with the flag of the Ba'athist party. In each case, it is the words that are meaningful, not the pictures. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Your claim that Images have been used in sidebars and footer navboxes since they began is false. They are something that has crept in slowly over time. And note that navboxes are here to aid navigation, articles provide information. --woodensuperman 11:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Should be removed as per the standard...... why are we going out of our way to make people have to scroll more for no reason or sandwich links all to one side. Should use the space efficiently........ This is one of the reasons why these are not seen in mobile view.Moxy🍁 11:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to state that the claim of Images have been used in sidebars and footer navboxes since they began is absolutely correct. An |image= parameter has existed within the template since its creation in August 2007. -- Alex_21 TALK 11:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Alex 21, WP:COMMONSENSE aside, this find alone should negate the intent and direction of this discussion. Woodensuperman, in the spirit of navbox respect please strike out your claim that I passed along a false statement. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm sure the very old style navboxes (when they ware hardcoded) had no scope for images, something like this that pre-dates navbox markup maybe? In any case it doesn't negate the need to discuss this, they are still problematic. Stop trying to shut down a valid discussion. --woodensuperman 12:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Over 17 years ago, before 2007? That's what you're trying to cite as a policy to support the removal of images? -- Alex_21 TALK 12:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I didn't cite that as a reason, that was a response to Randy's "we've always done it so we should still do it" argument. Just becasue we have the option to use a parameter doesn't mean we should (or indeed did). --woodensuperman 12:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Woodensuperman, are you going to strike your incorrect accusation above or just leave it so readers of this section get the wrong idea? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
That's just a tautology, "it's not useful because it's not useful". When people use something and can explain why they do it, they make it useful. What if you all just dispense with the instruction creep and just explain, in your own words, why adding an image to a navbox the way it is done is harmful or counterproductive? Cambalachero (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This talk page is about the guideline concerning the coexistence of three overlapping navigation systems, and is therefore not the appropriate forum for this discussion. Images in navigation footers has nothing to do with deleting lists in favor of categories, which this guideline tries to prevent.    — The Transhumanist   00:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

This guideline includes the guideline WP:NAVBOX which governs navboxes and it would be here that any amendment would be made, so it is exactly the appropriate forum. --woodensuperman 10:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Just do what your doing now....and what most of us do....that is remove the images and if reverted just move on to others. The vast majority of readers dont see them so no point in fighting over them like Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. In the long run the academic look will prevail over kids picture book. Moxy🍁 15:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
It would be nice to have it codified though, Cinderella157 seems to have summarized why it is inappropriate excellently. Perhaps we should have a proper RFC on this? --woodensuperman 08:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to read a long post. I would tend to agree with Moxy and In the long run the academic look will prevail over kids picture book. We might revisit an RfC in the future. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I made a request some weeks ago, still waiting for an answer: "What if you all just dispense with the instruction creep and just explain, in your own words, why adding an image to a navbox the way it is done is harmful or counterproductive?" Cambalachero (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Your inquiry was already answered a few weeks ago.... Causes more scrolling and sandwiches links to one side. Would be best to explain how it's useful to have these effects for just an image.Moxy🍁 02:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Bloated sidebars and infoboxes will impinge on the body of the article. Potentially, this will displace images at the start of the body such that they are no longer positioned relative to the text they are intended to support or they will result in sandwiching of text, which is a detriment to readability. Images that are decorative add to bloating and exacerbate the problem. Also, if we see a lead images that is similar or identical to a sidebar image (as is sometimes the case), these are a distraction - ie a detriment. Instructional creep is to add further (unnecessary) instruction to existing P&G. Existing P&G does not support the use of images in a way that serves no useful purpose and is ostensibly decorative. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Really? As this thread started citing the template {{Elon Musk}} as an example, I made a test. I have made two exact copies of that template at my userspace, one as it is and one without image as proposed, and placed together for comparison at User:Cambalachero/sandbox. As you can see, the impact of the presence or absence of an image in the navbox is next to zero if we're talking about making it more or less bloated. And on the page, the size of the template is exactly the same, it's the exact same rectangle below. It expands to fill designated global parameters, and everything within (images, links, sections and whatnot) fits into that allocated space. Cambalachero (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Umm, if one had read what I have written, one would realise that I was specifically referring to sidebars. As to navboxes any effect will depend on the text it is populated with and whether the reduced space is sufficient to force a new line in one or more of the categories/subsections of the navbox. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Agree..... but in general should we be adding images that are not accessible because they're so teeny Mini. Moxy🍁 21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_16&oldid=1250462840"