Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 9

• Comment: After a RfC that goes overwhelmingly in one direction (aviation lists), rewriting the applicable guideline in the opposite direction reeks of
  WP:CCC and all that, but it doesn't seem the time that this is going to happen on this particular issue. --Francis Schonken (talk
  ) 09:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "What editors generally want" is an open question: is it what the content creators who actually have to use and navigate between articles want, or is it what the people who concern themselves only with the technical aspects of navboxes want? There is a disconnect here. Clearly, there needs to be slightly stronger language than the word "normally" to allow for the exceptions to the general bidirectionality rule, as some literal-minded editors have no common sense and try to remove templates from all articles that aren't linked in the navbox, even though it's obvious that the navbox belongs on those articles, particularly when they are covered in a list article and would be highly impractical to put into any sort of comprehensive working template. Montanabw^(talk) 19:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I felt inspired yesterday and started {{Franz Schubert}}. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What I'm after here is basically to be sure we clarify that a navbox can be placed on an article that is not linked in the navbox under certain, limited circumstances, and specifically where the navbox link goes to a list article that contains the article that transcludes the navbox. So how do we get there? Montanabw^(talk) 19:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Writing out such detailed clarification is actually rather something for guideline hogs. The current recommendation is sufficiently flexible for the odd exception in practical circumstances. Not for applying the aviation lists template to hundreds of articles. Editors generally don't want it that way, and that is reflected in the guideline. Aspersions against editors who don't appear to see it your way isn't really helpful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Francis, unfortunately, you are (believe it or not) wrong. A need for detailed clarification occurs when vague and nonspecific guidelines are misinterpreted. And here they have been, I've had to deal with two incidents, about six months or more apart, both involving an interpretation of bidirectional that ignores the caveat "normally" and IAR. I think a "two click" rule to allow lists to be in a navbox and the navbox transcluded on each article contained in the list, on a limited basis, is actually a very good way to handle a topic with large numbers of items; a 200-link navbox is really most suitable for date series articles ( {[tl|The Boat Race}}, for example) or things that are numbered (like Bach composition) and it is more problematic for things like vehicle models and such—or the works of L. Frank Baum; how much simpler would that navbox be if there could simply be a link to "List of Oz books by L. Frank Baum." Montanabw^(talk) 03:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Re. "...misinterpreted..." – says who? the one who decides who "is" right and who "is" wrong? I don't see consensus swayed by the current approach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, Francis, you don't agree, but you are not a consensus of one. Sadly, the walls of text have made it difficult to even have a rational discussion at this point. Montanabw^(talk) 07:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Concerning this proposal to tweak bidirectionality, I agree with Francis, so that is at least a consensus of two. If one includes the consensus at the aviation lists RfC, then the consensus is overwhelming against this proposal. The wall of text is a direct result of your failure to

WP:LISTEN. Boghog (talk

) 09:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I

WP:HEAR you loud and clear. But a lack of traffic at this page and a drama board RfC that only pings people who haunt RfC (and not the relevant wikiprojects) is not anything close to a community-wide assessment of the issue. All I see here is a pair of bullies who WP:OWN this page and will not accept any form of change or compromise, let alone discuss anything in good faith without resorting to bullying, condescension and personal attacks. That said, I'll walk away from this one for now, I need to make a choice where my energy will go, and it isn't here. But if the literalness problem coupled with an inability to IAR or to note the word "normally," comes up again on a template or article where where I think it important, I now know what is apt to happen and will be prepared to respond appropriately. Montanabw^(talk)

04:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

How about this: "navboxes work best when exploiting the 'one click' advantage they have over categories and over linking to a list: these last two need at least two clicks to get to a similar article" – I don't propose this as a replacement of the bi-directionality guidance, but as something sketching the wider context explaining the sense of leaning towards bidirectionality for navboxes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I like it since it explains why bidirectionally is useful. We could add to this "With bidirectionally, the article's self-link will be bolded in the navbox which provides the reader with an immediate visual clue as to where in the navbox the current article is located and what are the most closely related articles." Boghog (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Both are actually helpful additions that clarify this guideline, though perhaps just, "... over categories or lists." (Keeping in mind that a small number of category or list links may well be included in a navbox and even the existing guideline doesn't prohibit that, according to how you have interpreted the present guideline). You have to be aware that I am not opposed to bidirectionality in general, I merely believe there are exceptions; but I am here because I've had trouble on two separate occasions, about six months apart, with a user who seems to have trouble with exceptions... WP:IAR is to be applied carefully and with good reason, but it CAN be applied. I simply seek acknowledgement of that. Montanabw^(talk) 03:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

An editor has removed the stat_ref value from at least one instance of the Largest cities template (i.e. {{

While I interpret the prohibition as applying to external navigation links, the opposing editor applies a literal interpretation that any external source link (including usually government data in a source) is forbidden, stating that "Navboxes across wikipedia aren't sourced" and that the linked "articles have the sources". To the contrary, NAVBOXes that include Template:Largest cities template are sourced across Wikipedia, via the stat_ref parameter. Some example articles: Algeria, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Bangladesh, Benin, Demographics of Canada, China, Chile, .... There are hundreds of such articles.

What are others' opinions on the validity of including external source links in such templates and NAVBOXes? —ADavidB 03:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

{{Largest cities}} is a very confusing template. It appears to be a hybrid between an infobox and a navbox. A pure navbox should only contain links to Wikipedia articles each of which in turn is already sourced so it should not be necessary to include sources within the navbox. Also the placement of {{Largest cities}} (e.g., {{Largest cities of Maryland}}) is sometimes like an infobox (e.g., Maryland in the body of the article uncollapsed), or as navbox (e.g., Columbia, Maryland at the bottom of the article and collapsed). In addition, a pure navbox should not contain information other than links and explanatory headings. {{Largest cities of Maryland}} contains graphics which is appropriate for an infobox, but not a navbox. Finally the consensus is to delete many of the instances of this template. Since most of the instances of the {{Largest cities}} template is as an navbox (i.e., placed at the bottom of the article), it would be better to convert {{Largest cities}} template into a pure navbox by removing |stat_ref= and extraneous information such as graphics. Boghog (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that {{Largest cities}} has an optional parameter |class=nav(box). One alternative would be to modify the template so that it accepts a |class=info(box)/nav(box) option that controls the display of the template. This way, one could use the template either as a infobox (uncollapsed and displays both |stat_ref= and |img_n=) or as a navbox (collapsed and suppression of the source and graphics). Problem solved. Boghog (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Even in infoboxes I would suggest that external links (or at least references) are discouraged since everything within the navbox, like the lead itself, should be sourced somewhere in the article-proper. An infobox is a summary. --Izno (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This navbox uses a particular template, as described above. Templates are used by design to simplify addition of content. Why require a list of largest cities to be identified and referenced again outside the navbox when the template content itself otherwise fully suffices? The main subject of the articles that include these lists is the country or other encompassing government body. —ADavidB 05:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are putting non-en.Wikipedia links in a navbox, you're probably failing to use a navbox for its expected purpose. I see little reason why the numbers should be listed, or for that matter the images, in this navbox, and the county isn't relevant to a topic of "largest cities". Suggest stubbing it down to the simple links. --Izno (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The template is used broadly as a means of listing largest cities and providing a non-en.wikipedia source reference. As I see it, the numbers quickly give a relative difference between populations and help avoid disputes or edits that might otherwise result in incorrect reordering of the list (even more likely if a source reference is disallowed). —ADavidB 05:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What you are describing is an

infobox, not a navbox. A navbox is designed to facilitate navigation between closely related articles. Nothing more. Graphics and sources do not belong in navboxes but may be appropriate for infoboxes. Adding a reference to a navbox that is placed at the end of an article is awkward because it creates a new reference section below the navbox separated from all the rest of the references. I still think the best solution is to add support to {{Largest cities}} for a |class=info(box)/nav(box) parameter that would control whether the template behaves like a navbox (displaying only links) or as an infobox (displaying links + graphics + sources). Boghog (talk

) 06:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the solution you describe. I believe the template is more often used/intended as an infobox. —ADavidB 06:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The {{Largest cities}} template is much more often used as a navbox (positioned at the bottom of the article collapsed) than as a infobox (in the body of the article uncollapsed). For example, the {{Largest cities of Maryland}} is used only once as an infobox in Maryland and in the remainder of the articles, as a navbox. Hence I think the default |class)= should be set to navbox. Boghog (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Adavidb: Suggested the above change here. Boghog (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I propose that, due to the prominence of navboxes and sidebars, criterion numero 5 in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates § Navigation templates be reinforced with:

5. The subject of a navigation template should be of a defining nature to the articles that the navigation template is placed in.

Rationale

• Navigation templates, and navboxes in particular, are often placed in articles they're peripherally relevant. One recent example would be {{
  WP:UNDUE
  violation.
• Non-defining navboxes
  clutter the footer of articles. Take, for instance, the international organisation country membership navboxes, which are themselves contained in navbox containers, in China or Japan
  .

• Oppose based on structure; neutral pending discussion on concept. The rationale below clarifies your intent, which I think is, basically, "don't put navboxes into articles where they aren't relevant (though the bidirectionality standard we are debating above also requires this, as a general rule) but the phrasing above is pretty vague and fuzzy. I think that this is a new criterion based on when navboxes are added to an article (and how many, and if they are collapsed, etc.). The wording "of a defining nature" is kind of meaningless and should be rephrased or clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)
  • The bidirectionality standard does not require this. If anything,
    talk
    ) 11:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose,
  WP:DEFINING is a difficult to handle concept, even in the context where it's used currently (categorization). Also it doesn't prevent articles to be flooded with dozens and dozens of categories. So not a good idea to use this concept as an instrument to limit the number of navboxes (we'd get hopelessly trivial navboxes e.g. tenthousands of people born in the same year, doubling the existing category). The "Defining" concept is on a root level incompatible with navboxes. "Re-interpreting" the concept for use with navboxes would even give more mess in the categories departement (where the concept is regularly disputed, giving new ammunition to the disputants). --Francis Schonken (talk
  ) 13:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles". The guideline applies as a whole; a
    talk
    ) 13:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Really,
      WP:DEFINING is not the place where to look for help for addressing this navbox issue. --Francis Schonken (talk
      ) 16:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• What does "defining nature" mean? I think those are the words your suggestion focuses on. To me defining nature would be anything which defines a subject further, a subject which is related closely enough so that a reader may find the template educational and useful. Randy Kryn 14:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that's probably too open-ended. I'd define it as a core theme or attribute, or a distinctive characteristic; it would be something you might expect to find in the lead of the article. See the rules of thumb at
    talk
    ) 18:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
• The current criterion #5 says, "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." I think you are actually discussing a different concept—the inclusion of the navbox in an article, not the contents of the navbox. Also, navboxes are not categories; a navbox might encompass topics in multiple categories and a category might encompass many things not in a particular navbox ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs)

Do we have any specific guideline or prior consensus regarding the use of images in navboxes? The issue is not dealt with here at all. Personally, I'm dead against them, as they provide no navigational value, they bloat the navboxes making them less compact, they give

You are correct very small images are discouraged ..this is covered at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size "Images should be large enough to reveal relevant details" ...images in footer navboxs are simply to small to be of value to most readers (like mini icons) and generally say nothing about the image (no caption)....let alone how many of these images cause people to have to side scroll. This type of problem usually gets fixed during GA and FA reviews. In the case mentioned above the image in question is of very very low quality and should not even be used in an article let alone as a mini image. -- Moxy (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the usual conflict between a raw technical view and a graphic design and layout view. Similar to use of color, an image in a navbox can draw the reader's eye to the navbox and thelinks it contains. This is particularly useful for non-sophisticated readers who are not familiar with the usefulness of navboxes and also useful to catch the eyes of people with slight vision problems (yours truly included). What image to include is often a debate that is needed, but, to give the example of {{

Tibetan Buddhism}}, use of icons and imagery (as well as color) helps a navbox do what it is supposed to do - draw the reader to other articles on the topic. Montanabw^(talk)

00:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Above are great points.... but not what we're supposed to be doing in my opinion. All templates should have the same prominence on a page in an ideal situation. if links within a template are that Important that should be in the see also section or better yet incorporated into the article itself. just my opinion--Moxy (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I can see the point in a sidebar, which can function like an infobox and help identify the topic, and there's only likely to be one on the page. But in the footer navboxes, I think they're unnecessary, clumsy, and can actually draw focus from other "equal" navboxes, hence my mention of

talk

) 07:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Images in templates are fine. They draw the eye to the template itself, and one of the purposes of an image, if done appropriately (and the image at Ken Kesey is very good and fits the subject well, any of you guys know the history of the 1960s?), is to give the reader a look at the template so they can familiarize themselves with what Wikipedia has to offer. Too many people I know are ignorant of both the existence of footer templates and the treasures they have in terms of an information map. Images work well for that purpose. This seems, once again, a clash of cultures in terms of "What a template/navbox is", and so is a wider question. In the last two months or so Robsinden has tried to get rid of long-time established sister-project links in the below section, red links in the template, long-time established dates in the title, and now the long-time established use of accenting images. All of which, in the opinion of some other editors, enhance the templates and the information flow. Literally two views of template-nclusion, but the problem is that all of the items in a limited templates are included in the slightly-expanded templates, and so these discussions always center on removing data which other people like but keeping all of the data the exclusionists like, thus missing a sense of balance in a final consensus. Randy Kryn 9:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

If all the navboxes weren't all collapsed, the image of the bus in the {{

talk

) 10:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And as far as your other points go, this is not the forum for it, but adding sister project links is editing against the guidelines, so they are not "long-time established", quite the opposite in fact, same with adding redlinks until very recently. Please keep to the point in hand Randy, rather than trying to drag separate issues into the mix. Your posts have a tendency to drift off-topic and muddle the argument anyway.

talk

) 10:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As for the manual of style, the full statement is "Images should be large enough to reveal relevant details without overwhelming the surrounding article text". The images under discussion are fine and not overwhelming. Randy Kryn 9:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"Article text" Randy. A template is not an article. There is no provision for images in navboxes in the guidelines as far as I can see, this seems to be a practice that has snuck in. And people creating new templates often copy similar ones, warts and all. --

talk

) 10:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Snuck in? Probably been present since the inception, although I have no proof of that. The text means the same thing, the reason the images in templates are smaller is that they are not there to overwhelm the text, but to accent the subject just enough to draw attention to the template. We all realize that templates, especially footers, are not well-known by the average general reader (the same with sister-projects), and each reader has to have the "ah ha" template moment where they find these gems. Not every template needs an image, but some are small enough or important enough so that the image fits perfectly and accents the "template experience". I'd suggest that if one or a few editors are in favor of a particular image staying, and can point out in a coherent and reasonable way why it should remain, that should carry the weight of reason and allow for their continued inclusion. Randy Kryn 10:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

What should be asked in this case is does a very small out of focus image help our readers or make them wonder what the image about or who is cut off in the image...is it Ken Kesey? The image is simply not of value and posses more questions then it solves....let alone the other reasons for its exclusion. . -- Moxy (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Or, "Why is there a picture of a bus on the bottom of the

talk

) 13:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've just removed the image from {{
  talk
  ) 15:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  Good removal, in my opinion as well. The King navbox, which I've worked on quite a bit, does look better without the image - I didn't put it there and never even looked at it with all text. It's a large template, folded up, so it's a good call. On smaller templates a picture does the opposite, it often adds to the experience (check out the fine picture on the {{Nikola Tesla}} template). On the Kesey expanded template on the Cuckoo's Nest film, it shouldn't be expanded there, so I'll swing by and collapse it if it is (EDIT: It wasn't, in fact all of the templates are locked up and hidden in one of those template-limiting "Links to other articles" cages). Randy Kryn 2:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That Tesla image is exactly my point. By removing the image, we can reduce the size of the navbox by about 50%... --

talk

) 11:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I imply I like something and you run over to remove it. The template is not reduced in size by 50 percent if the fine image is removed, you must be viewing your screen at some percentage that stretches the template very wide, maybe that's your problem with images. I put it back and reduced the size of the picture a little. Randy Kryn 13:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Small resolutions are decreasing in usage; I see the same size as Rob. That said, I'm okay with a little whitespace in the groups myself. I think he removed it as an example (and I certainly would not have expected the edit to stick ;). --Izno (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Case-by-case basis, as always. I don't see a reason to include the notion of images in the guideline (above and beyond "hi this is a thing that you can do", if that).

  Images have been present in navboxes since at least 2007, so saying they've creeped in is a mischaracterization of fact.

  On the general, my feeling is that one image, properly representing the topic of a navbox, is acceptable. For example, this edit of T:MLK I would disagree with under this principle. Another such item might be Template:Half-Life series, which uses the Half-Life logo. --Izno (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree. I don't see any reason (nor a demonstrated consensus) for a rule either way, other than the default "it isn't forbidden". postdlf (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • There is no hard and fast guideline on images in navigation templates. Obviously, there's nothing to say they must use images, but there is also nothing to say they can't or shouldn't use images. Common sense would seem to be the mandate here. Removing the image from {{
      WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bertaut (talk
      ) 02:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree, they have their place and disputes are best handled on a case-by-case basis. I am quite concerned with this overall "movement" that Randy Kryn noted and share his concerns - it would be counterproductive to somehow make all navboxes some sort of rigid, uniform, rather dull, obscure boring things... They have multiple uses, and making things too narrow and too rules-focused isn't helpful. Montanabw^(talk) 03:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Navboxes are for navigation not decoration. Graphics have no place in navboxes. Boghog (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
        • People differ in what they find most satisfactory. Personally I think it is a plus if navboxes are not purely functional devices for navigation, but also are good to look at and, if possible, have a well-chosen graphic capturing something central about the navigation topic. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • The problem with some of the smaller templates having images, is that they expand the navboxes unnecessarily. What could be a single line navbox becomes 4-5 times larger if an image is included. Yes, there are arguments that they have their place if appropriate (like the {{
        talk
        ) 10:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Many here are confusing navboxes with infoboxes. Navboxes do not have multiple uses, they have one use, navigation. An exception might be navigational sidebars at the top of an article that look and function somewhat like infoboxes. Cramming distracting items like graphics into a navbox that is at the bottom of an article interferes with its primary purpose by unnecessarily increasing its size and therefore is not helpful. It is better that the navbox focus on its primary function (navigation) so that it performs that job optimally rather than several jobs poorly. Boghog (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• There's a comment floating around in my head regarding size of templates which "best suit images". Generally, templates with less than N groups with M links/group and an image look bad on large screens (vertical spacing in the groups); templates with more than I groups and J links/group look bad on both large and small screens (whitespace through the image cell).

  There's another comment floating around my head that the inclusion of these pictures bloats the total page size for small articles (for large articles, it's "just another image", maybe) which I can be fairly certain a large number of users (especially the writers) have issues with. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• If you examine a number of navboxes with and without images you will find the addition of the image generally adds little to the size of the navbox, and often adds no increase. Some of us are visually oriented and appreciate how an appropriate image can evoke a navigation topic and add to the visual aesthetics. Others are less visually oriented and simply don't care for the images. It's perhaps more a matter of accepting that different genes are involved than trying to change the genetic makeup of our opponents by arguing. That said, if we must argue we should stick at least to logical argument. There is no logic in Boghog's view above that adding an image mysteriously causes the navbox to then perform poorly for the purposes of navigation. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• The logic is dead simple. Navboxes become harder to use the larger they become and graphics do increase the size of navboxes. Boghog (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• If they are sectioned off, properly and/or well, then templates don't become harder to use the larger they become. If done well they provide a better map, yet if they become harder the larger they are then it might be a result of poor template construction and language. The images do increase the size horizontally, so very large ones may not be suitable for an image, but on smaller and medium size templates adding an image doesn't hinder the template but provides a visual to attract the many readers who don't yet know what a template is (or those who have a better experience with an image sitting there, like comfort food with a face). Maybe all of us should bring that defect a little more into focus, that it's probable a small percentage of people coming here don't yet know to look at the templates to obtain a map to the subject. Images help and do not hinder that aspect of template awareness. Randy Kryn 18:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

As numerous people have stated, there are no guidelines against navigation templates utilising images. Mr. Sindon's personal distaste for them is precisely and exclusively that, his personal distaste. All the rhetoric in the world will not change the fact that this is the definition of

WP:IDONTLIKEIT and there are no grounds for removing images from templates which use them. Obviously, this is to be managed on a case by case basis, with reasonable employment of, as Mr. Bertaut says, common sense (a picture of Joyce on a Woolf template would be ridiculous, for example). Not sure what else needs to be said really. Five Antonios (talk

) 19:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact that there are currently no guidelines on the use of graphics in navboxes does not mean that we should not develop one. Furthermore Rob's distaste for graphics in navboxes is neither exclusive (I and several other editors share his concern) nor is it simply

WP:IDONTLIKEIT [the issues of (1) bloat, (2) undue, and (3) redundancy are legitimate grounds for removal of graphics from templates]. Finally as with any guideline, there are exceptions and common sense should always be applied. Boghog (talk

) 01:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sigh...that's not a remotely accurate way to characterise the pro camp Rob. Again, if you must keep arguing, please stick to facts and don't set up

straw men. It has already been established that, apart from small navboxes, the inclusion of an image generally adds little or nothing to the size of the box. Images that are only "tangentially related" or are already included in the articles may not be appropriate images, and no one here has argued that the images should be inappropriate. --Epipelagic (talk

) 08:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Your claim simply isn't true. The {{

talk

) 09:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That is not a remotely accurate way to characterize Rob's response. He was merely pointing out there was considerably more to his argument than

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Furthermore you are directly contradicting yourself when you write there are no grounds for removing images from templates which use them and Images that are only "tangentially related" or are already included in the articles may not be appropriate images. Finally it has not been established that image generally adds little or nothing to the size of the box. To reiterate, navboxes become harder to use the larger they become and graphics do increase the size of navboxes. Boghog (talk

) 09:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Rob that a sectioned navbox like {{

Martin Luther King}} shouldn't have an image. On the other hand {{Commercial fish topics}} has three images that do not increase the size much at all. In general images don't seem a good idea on small or sectioned navboxes, but generally have much less effect, or even no effect on the size of navboxes which are grouped. Boghog, in your rush to find a counter-argument you claim that I wrote there are no grounds for removing images from templates which use them. I said nothing of the sort... that's another straw man. Of course discrimination is needed. Some navboxes should not have images, and even if a navbox is a suitable candidate for an image then the image needs to be appropriate. --Epipelagic (talk

) 10:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, in {{

talk

) 11:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Epipelagic, Not another strawman, but rather Five Antonios who wrote that. Sorry. At the same time, I think you owe Rob an apology. Five Antonios wrote there are no grounds for removing images from templates which use them, to which Rob responded you're not actually giving a reason for them to remain, to to which you wrote that's not a remotely accurate way to characterise the pro camp. Rob was specifically replying to Five Antonios and not to the entire pro camp, hence your characterization of his response is unfair. In addition you still have not established that adding graphics does not increase the size of the template. In a narrow window for example that might be displayed on a mobile device, {{Commercial fish topics}} becomes almost twice as long with the graphics as compared to without. Boghog (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

To give Epipelagic the benefit of the doubt, I did amend my earlier post moments after writing it, which had claimed that all we were seeing from the pro camp was

talk

) 13:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Size matters. I've removed quite a few images off larger templates. But since templates are maps to the subject (navbox is almost literally the definition of "map"), many maps have illustrations. They enhance or identify the subject even further for the casual reader, many of whom are tuned-into graphics and relate to the world through images. To correctly answer an objection above, there is actually a whole template for "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest", and it does not have an image on it. The image is on "Ken Kesey", where the topic focuses on the author's complete works and life and not on an individual work. Readers can tell that the bus image, which as in icon defines Kesey, does not specifically refer to 'Cuckoo's Nest' (although what do you think the boat trip stylized?). Randy Kryn 1:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Even as this is being discussed Rob is going around removing images from templates. I asked him to please stop this but he's continuing. Please see the current discussion at the {{Émile Durkheim}} template, which I've worked on recently. Randy Kryn 13:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

talk

) 13:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

How do we feel about linking to categories in navboxes? I'm finding a lot of writer templates that link [[:Category:Novels by Xxxxxx Xxxxxx|Novels]] as a group heading. Per

This discussion has been had before, has been had before, and can be found in more than one page's archives. The consensus has uniformly been to not do this, for the reasons you outlined, among others. I don't remember every one of these discussions and surely missed some, but I don't recall there being a total condemnation of including a category link. As you point out, it doesn't do anything useful for the reader. The whole point of a navigation box is to provide an alternative "window" on a category (or some subset of it that is relevant to narrower purposes of the specific navbox), so using the category in the navbox is kind of "logic loop".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

People browse differently, and that's one of the points of this guideline. In the context of the headers, I think egg/surprise is the dominant guideline/policy. In the context of the footer, where it is now common to include links to categories, books, and a handful of other on-wiki non-mainspace links, I see little issue. Someone may actually be interested in scanning alphabetically rather than by grouped or temporal sorting. --Izno (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Concur.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems to work better to explicitly link categories at the bottom of a navbox without the EGG element. In that context, they can be helpful if someone wants to browse categories. Montanabw^(talk) 09:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

One other thing that seems related: I've seen a handful of "more..." showing up at the end of a set of items in a particular group, which disturbs me somewhat more. I have the same issue here. --Izno (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the same

talk

) 08:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Montanabw, Izno, Robsinden.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Rob asks "Is there any benefit to including them (categories) in the first place". Of course there is. If a writer doesn't have a bibliography page then a link in the section title "Novels" to "Category:Novels by Joe Smole" expands the navigation within Wikipedia (Categories are within Wikipedia space). It seems beneficial to the project to include categories in this way. Randy Kryn 13:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Randy, you've answered part two of my question with an answer for part one. As you can see, per

talk

) 13:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)