Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 12

In March 2015,

• • For those tempted to
    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
   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]
   )

• 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.--
  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?--
    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?--
        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.--
            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.--
          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
              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
  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.--

WP:WAWARD

) 19:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:WAWARD

) 06:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I think there should be a bot that checks {{

WP:WAWARD

) 06:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Also notice an example from the template in the opening post above

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)
  • 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. --
  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 (
      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:
      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)
        • 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)

• 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)

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:AFD).-- PBS (talk
  ) 13:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This highights a problem caused when the
    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: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
    WP:WAWARD
    ) 16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment
  WP:NOTSEEALSO? -- PBS (talk
  ) 14:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• 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.--
  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)

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)
  • 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
            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.--
  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)

• 1. Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_7#Bidirectional_navboxes.3F started May 15 2013
  2. Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_7#Bidirectionality_revisited started September 14 2014
  3. Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_9#Tweak_bidirectionality started June 27 2015
  4. Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_10#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL_navbox_requirements started November 19 2015
  5. Wikipedia_talk:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates/Archive_11#WP:BIDIRECTIONAL_considered_harmful.3F started May 9 2016
  6. WP:WAWARD
     ) 13:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course not, bidirectional is so restrictive that it somehow overrides even

WP:COMMONSENSE. There have been a few discussions about this after the {{Zoos}} template, which had been put onto all of the zoo pages and provided a wonderful background map of Wikipedia's zoo articles to anyone interested in zoos, was removed. I would suggest that pages which have a large amount of templates already, such as Baseball pages of individual players or teams, do not need the main baseball templates. But pages with very few or no templates, such as the before mentioned zoo articles, could only be made better by providing such a map to the readers. Thanks for bringing this important topic to the fore again. Randy Kryn (talk

) 16:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to spam large numbers articles about individual zoos with the {{Zoos}} navbox. There are already a number of geographically based zoo navboxes (e.g., {{Zoos of Germany}}, {{Zoos of California}}, etc.) with a link to zoo in the header (note: header links should clearly be exempt from bidirectional guideline). These geographically based templates link closely related articles of similar importance and also provide a link to the general subject of zoos. Boghog (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree 100% with your proposed change, SK. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Support change....academic topics don't follow the current wording....great for pop culture articles as is but not academic ones. Some projects (for years) have used a hierarchical system to maintain a reasonable/manageable template spam and size with topic focus. .....e.g., The

People of Canada}} they both link to Military history of Canada that has the {{Canadian military history}}....all of these basically link many of the same parent articles but are reduced in sized with more topic focused links for our readers. There really is no need - or want - from editors involved in writing and maintaining these pages to duplicate links by way of inserting redundant templates.. Its frustrating to have to deal with editors spamming templates all because of this rule over looking at the oblivious hierarchical system. Many say it reduces spam....this is not my experience.--Moxy (talk

) 20:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

With the exception of the header link to the more general topic of Canada, the Canada navboxes are bidirectional compliant. If bidirectionality were also applied to the headers, the Canada would be littered with a large number of navboxes which obviously is not desirable. Hence I would support explicitly exempting links in headers to the more general subject from the bidirectional guideline. Boghog (talk) 07:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Tentative Oppose: I currently think navbox links should always be bidirectional. I was made aware of this discussion after removing the

Sondra.kinsey Was there a specific set of articles that were not in a navbox that prompted this discussion. If so, what were they? Mitchumch (talk

) 14:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• You removed the 'Suffrage' template from the
  WP:COMMONSENSE should raise its beautiful head and extend this guideline's limit to its logical conclusion. We can't keep the Suffrage template on pages like Emmeline Pankhurst? Goddess have mercy. Randy Kryn (talk
  ) 14:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose – Navigation is inherently bidirectional, hence per

WP:COMMONSENSE, links in navboxes should also be bidirectional. The purpose of a navbox is to link to closely related articles of similar importance. Furthermore, if the size of a navbox becomes too large, it becomes unusable. By including bidirectional links, it quickly becomes apparent when a navbox is becoming too large and needs to be split into subtopics. The only exceptions to bidirectional should be navbox headers and footers that may contain links to more general or to more specific topics. The distinction between technical topics and pop culture is artificial. Even pop culture (e.g., sports awards) can have a enormous number of related articles. Boghog (talk

) 14:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, per

WP:COMMONSENSE, if we can't put the Suffrage template on Emmeline Pankhurst's page, then there is something wrong with this picture. Templates are maps to a subject, and when the main activists and proponents of that subject are purposely kept off its main template and then that template is not allowed on their pages, that's where the relevant discussion should start, not end. Randy Kryn (talk

) 15:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Suffrage is linked in the first line of Emmeline Pankhurst. If someone wants to learn more about Suffrage, one follows that link. {{Suffrage}} does not belong on Emmeline Pankhurst because she is a specific example of person who was a suffragist. The focus of the article is on the person, not the general topic of Suffrage, and hence this particular navbox should not be there. This is common sense. A more appropriate navbox for Emmeline Pankhurst for could be made from List_of_suffragists_and_suffragettes#British. Boghog (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Why did you add {{Suffrage}} in this edit? It doesn't belong there. Boghog (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Why did I add the 'Suffrage' template to the Emmeline Pankhurst page? First of all: Suffrage, Emmeline Pankhurst, that's where
  WP:COMMONSENSE comes in. As you point out, she is listed on the page already, in the list of suffragists and suffragettes, just not in a collapsible section. She is also on the page as the subject of a Memorial, which should in itself allow for the template placement. Randy Kryn (talk
  ) 11:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• You haven't actually stated why {{Suffrage}} belongs on Emmeline Pankhurst. Simply stating it is common sense is not a reason. Stating that there is already a List_of_suffragists_and_suffragettes#British is also not a reason. A geographically based list does not preclude having a geographically based navbox. Boghog (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• He's re-added it three times now... --
  talk
  ) 11:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• At a minimum, Pankhurst is specifically included twice on the template: the
  Pankhurst Memorial and the Pankhurst Centre (her home and museum). This should certainly be enough to warrant the template's inclusion on her article, not to mention the massive and unprecedented contributions Emmeline Pankhurst made to the topic itself. Randy Kryn (talk
  ) 12:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Umm, just no. She is specifically included exactly zero times on the navbox. --
  talk
  ) 12:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Randy Kryn Why not create a new template that deals specifically with suffrage of American women? I'll volunteer to work with you to make it. The Template:Suffrage is suppose to deal with the topic on a global scale, not simply American women specifically or American suffrage in general. Mitchumch (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  I suggested this to Randy a year and a half ago during the most-recent, large, "bidirectional" RFC, yet it seems he continues to operate under the assumption that a link must be included on the highest-of-navboxes or not be included in any navbox at all (an assumption that seems most-often to be applied to people). This is an incorrect assumption. Take for example Amelia Earhart. There are some potential navboxes there that are, or may be, missing. One might be Template:Pioneers of flight (which has a corresponding list at list of aviation pioneers, actually, which could serve as the |title= in a navobx). Another might be Template:Women in flight (though that might need its own constellation instead, given just the size of our category on American female aviators). It's not all-or-nothing. --Izno (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Mitchumch, I'll get back to both these comments later, just so much Wikipedia politics at a time, but two quick points. Suffrage isn't just about women, and Emmeline Pankhurst is English, not America. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Randy Kryn I've encountered too many articles of American women with the suffrage template. Given that suffrage covers everyone, I think we need to create more narrower templates. That's really my only point. In the case of Pankhurst, create Template:Suffrage of British women. Mitchumch (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Randy Kryn and Mitchumch: Based on List_of_suffragists_and_suffragettes#British, I went ahead and created {{British suffragists and suffragettes}}. There are only two men on the list, so I didn't think it was worth subdividing by sex. As always, please feel free to rename or edit as you see fit. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Navboxes are for navigating between related articles. These proposals would change the entire purpose of a navbox. They are not to be worn as "badges" on all pages loosely related to a subject. --
  talk
  ) 10:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose -- no need for a change; templates are not supposed to be used decoratively. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

In reading the above discussion, it has become clear that several of the objections to the bidirectional guideline has to do its application to navbox headers links to more general subjects. I don't think the guideline was ever meant to apply to these type of links and hence I propose to explicitly exempt them:

• Navboxes should normally include a link to every article which
  transcludes them so that the navigation is bidirectional. Links in headers to more general subjects are exempted from this guideline.^[1]

Boghog (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The language is wiki-legalistic, please define it in understandable language. Specifically, what does this mean in connection to lists? I think the main objection to bidirectional is that some editors exclude lists from it (lists of zoos, list of suffragists, etc.) which includes the option of adding the template to those on the list who have a direct connection to the subject and who don't have an excess amount of templates on their pages. The question of putting templates on articles on lists, such as Emmeline Pankhurst who is on the list of suffragists, has been discussed and the results seem inconclusive. Lists are just a shorter way of condensing a section of the template into one link, and major articles on those lists should still be open to the placement of the appropriate templates. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The second sentence in the above proposal is very clear and simple. The third "wiki-technistic" sentence precisely defines what it means in terms of navbox template code. We can move the third sentence to a footnote if you prefer. A series of geographically based navbox would be preferable to plastering a large number of individual suffragist or zoo articles with {{Suffrage}} or {{Zoos}} navboxes respectively. Boghog (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Third sentence now moved to a footnote. Boghog (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose both proposals This is an attempt to wiilawyer for deletion of content.--
  WP:WAWARD
  ) 13:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would cause
  talk
  ) 10:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the objection. I completely agree that including a link to a commonly understood term like

WP:EGG. All of the usual link guidelines would still apply to navbox headers. Boghog (talk

) 11:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it leaves the door open for editors trying to justify these kind of inclusions, which are already commonplace. I'm sure the exceptions you're trying to make here would already be well linked in the relevant articles anyway. --

talk

) 11:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Current wording leads to spam like at Meryl Streep#External links.....luckily academic topics ignore this rule Black hole#External links. This template spam in pop culture articles should stop - fixing this rule would help. No need for flyby spam.....let editors that work on the articles decide what is best.-Moxy (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If we prohibit the links in the navboxes in the first place, then excessive transclusion shouldn't be a problem, as we already have the guideline to allow us to remove the navboxes. --

talk

) 11:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(By the way, I'm with you on the awards navboxes - they're way out of hand - but that's a separate issue). --

talk

) 11:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes the problem is anyone can make a box then spam it all over because of this rule.....what we need is editor discretion at the article level.--Moxy (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)