Wikipedia talk:Navigation template/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Merge vote: Series templates into Navigational templates

Cast your vote here in regard to the proposed merge. Vote "Merge" or "No Merge". Comments are encouraged. The page "Series templates" is already inactive, so perhaps the message should be removed.

  • Merge - I agree with whoever proposed it. The two pages cover the same type of navbox. This would simplify the organization and make it easier to find the desired navbox. Remove merge message. Wyeson 21:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Template and MediaWiki namespaces

List of items to update

Why does this page include a list of items to update, when there's already such a list (plus the examples etc) in Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom messages (and that one has seniority)? I.e. what's the purpose of the duplication? --Shallot 19:21, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh wait, I didn't notice that the latter was gutted. Never mind. --Shallot

Possible merge?

What is the difference between the list of elements on this page and the list on Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom messages? Furthermore, is there any substantive difference between the second and third kinds of items that are in the MediaWiki namespace? It seems as though the only real difference is one of use -- that the items listed on this page are navigational boxes, and those listed under custom messages are everything else?

Either way, the relationship between these two pages is confusing. It seems that, apart from the different list, there is no useful information on this page that isn't reiterated or expanded by Wikipedia:MediaWiki custom messages. Wouldn't it make more sense to merge the informational sections of these pages, and move the two lists to separate pages? — Adam Conover †

MediaWiki namespace becomes Template namespace

Now that these custom elements are found in the new "Template" namespace, do you think we should now call this article "List of templates"? Denelson83 16:05, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Classification of templates

Body

I have just discovered Templates via Template:IRB Unions it is neither a header or a footer. So is there any reason that this list can not be expanded to include a body section as well? Philip Baird Shearer 15:02, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

None Navigational templates

Perhaps this is not the page to ask but if it is not please tell me where I should make this request.

Now that I know about them, I can think of lots of things I can do with templates which are not primarily navigational. For example:

  • There are several pages which include information on the winners of the Rugby World cup.
  • Paragraphs on the origins of Rugby.

Is there any reason for not creating templates for them and is there a page containing a list of pages for such, none navigational, topic specific templates? Philip Baird Shearer 15:02, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

An overview of most templates (they are diverse) can be found here: Wikipedia:Template_messages. Wipe 12:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization of the navigational templates

I'm in the process of reorganizing this list. I suspect the classification into headers and footers (and even body) was created mistakenly. A concept of "MediaWiki headers" apparently existed before. Please correct me if I'm wrong - this is mere speculation. Anyways, I believe some restructuring is in order; there are two basic kinds of navigational templates as far as I can see: side boxes (not perhaps the correct term) and footer boxes. Wipe 12:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now that I've done some work on this, I've noticed that there's more types of navigational templates than I thought. There's side boxes, footers, headers and body templates. Additionally, the footers can be divided into collections of items and succession boxes. There may still be others. I've grouped the few headers together with the side boxes and the few body templates with the footers. I don't know how large portion of the navi templates on the English Wikipedia is actually here or how useful this page is (if at all :-). Still, I'll probably tinker some more in the future.

Wipe 00:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's a list of non-existent templates I've removed: Template:EUc - supposed to be for EU candidates, Template:Great Philosophers - greatness is a POV measure, Template:King of the Britons - another system already in use, Template:PPROC - don't know what this was supposed to be, Template:MicrostatesE - microstates of Europe (was deleted after my suggestion; unnecessary and unused).

These ones I removed just because I think this is supposed to be a list of existing templates, not a wishlist: Template:La Francophonie - La Francophonie, Template:LiteratureLaureates - Nobel Prize in literature winners, Template:Programming languages, Template:Table Moods - All the grammatical moods, Template:Table Sort Algorithms - Articles on Sort algorithms, Template:Turkish Prime Minister - Prime Minister of Turkey, Template:Turkish President - President of Turkey.

If you feel they should be created feel free to do so, but remember to use common sense and consult Categories, lists, and series boxes. Many templates prove to be useless and end up at Templates for deletion. It's always best to discuss possible new templates at the appropriate WikiProject page.

Wipe

Many navigational templates in violation of WP:CSL, what to do?

WP:CSL#Article series boxes curently says categories should be used in preference to navigational templates unless the articles in the template form a useful, linear, non-alphabetical series. At least dozens of the navigational templates listed on this page violate this guideline. Is the guideline wrong or should we delete the templates or is there another choice? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:35, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • IMO, the guideline is wrong. Article series boxes are one form of navigational template, but other forms are equally valid whether or not they are "redundant" with a category. I find geographic based navigational templates particularly useful. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:35, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, WP:CSL presently goes a bit too far in stating which kind of boxes should exist. You're right, many templates that break the "rules" are useful. Not to mention that they are much easier to use than categories. Many boxes that are needed simply cannot be arranged linearily, and even incomplete boxes are often valid. After all, not every page that relates to a subject can be included in an article series. Sometimes it's also useful to give some examples to create a context. This way the templates can be used as a sort of diagram or "textual image". Article series box probably shouldn't be a synonym for a navigational template.
On the other hand WP:CSL is not at the moment considered an "official" policy or guideline and should not be viewed as such. There is no {{policy}}, {{guideline}} or even {{semi-policy}} tags there. Wipe 22:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh no, I just realized that WP:CSL totally contradicts Wikipedia:Article series in terms of what is called an article series! Bad case of inconsistency. Wipe 23:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree the CSL article is just wrong. Navigational boxes are useful especially for tightly related articles. We should use these were it makes sense, and internet users are accustomed to having related things have links on them instead of having to click on the appropriate category and hope that it is done correctly. Trödel|talk 00:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the requirement for a canonical linear ordering; tighly related is all that is necessary. However I think we should not create navigation even before there is any content. No wonder we're almost up to 600k "articles". --MarSch 15:00, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree the policy is a bit strong, but we definitely have a problem with too many of these templates. What we really need are some more stringent rules on which articles should have navigational templates. A rule I would like to see is that no template should be larger than the majority of the articles in which it is found. - SimonP 03:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Items in template, request for comment

We are looking for expert advice on how to design a nice Template:Patentability. How should items be ordered? According to

  • how straightforward it is to grasp them, or
  • the sequence in which they are tackled during patent examination?

Please see here for a discussion about this template (and the related article). How would you order items? Thanks for your help. --Edcolins 20:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Any comment? --Edcolins 21:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll toss in 2 cents here. Order items by their use, their use from the point of view of a person who is active in the area and using the area the template covers. Parent things go first followed by those things under them. Example: cooking requires pots and other tools, food, and a heat source. those would be equal catagories. But cooking requires a cook which would be a parent catagory. Sometimes a single line of a template could show a parent catagory with several subs like this: Cook: food tools heat. good luck. Terryeo 16:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What should be the purpose of a navigation template?

I'm concerned that the purpose of having a navigational template is unclear, and many of them are being misused. In my opinion, a navigational template should be no more and no less than a navigational aid for users, a collection of some of the links which a user might reasonably want to visit from an article that might not otherwise contain the links. It should not be used as a place to advertise the existence of less-relevant articles. For example, IMHO, Template:Disney should contain links to articles about its high-level business units—not to non-Disney articles (Corporation, Board of Directors, Record label, or the like) and not to every individual company it owns. Throw in all this cruft, and the template becomes huge, unwieldy, overladen with information and redundant links, and serves the same exact purpose as a category already serves. - Brian Kendig 00:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Also templates should be misused as replacement for much more convenient categories. Those large colorful boxes only distract attention of readers. There is no excuse to make life of users harder just because one can quickly hack up something fancy what can be seen in a tabloid. Such misuse of templates should be discouraged and offending ones removed. Pavel Vozenilek 00:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a discussion anywhere on the desirability of navigational templates? I personally don't like to see them spread, but I'd like to see a summary of the pros and cons as other people see them. My main problem with navigation templates is that they create huge numbers of back links between articles which are only loosely related. I appreciate this is really a MediaWiki problem, but as long as it exists, navigation templates tend to make the 'What links here' much less useful than it could be. Also, sprawling navigation templates often dwarve the article itself - Crosbiesmith 20:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

assistance needed

please lend a hand @ Template:Platonism. Info can be found @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#I_need_help_creating_a_template. Sam Spade 18:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem seems to be related to the page you are putting it on. The same template looks fine on User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox2. --CBD ☎ ✉ 19:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I have made some changes to the template, and I think it looks way better now. Please see if you agree. --Fred Bradstadt 19:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Sam Spade 21:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Currently there is a bias towards the use of the vertical line as a separator - " | " - without any apparent discussion of this decision. On this talk page a preference for · - " ˑ " - has been expressed.

As is explained on the talk page above (of Template:Medicine) I have tried to standardise these nav boxes and due to the previous useage of " | " I continued to use this.

The questions are: What do people feel is the most appropriate? Is it important to have a standard syntax between different subject areas? Should this be specified on this page?

|→ Spaully°τ 15:12, 19 March 2006 (GMT)

  • I prefer · because, to quote from Template talk:Medicine, "it isn't as obtrusive (perhaps because it doesn't resemble one of the strokes used to form letters)". In other words, when glancing I find it easier to distinguish a (horizontal) list of names divided by ·s rather than vertical-line characters. I wonder how many other folk might do so too.
Meanwhile, however, I rooted about for more information and came by the Help:User style page on MetaWiki, which gave me the impression each user might be able to set the divider character a wiki is to use. Not being sure, I posted a query which to date awaits a reply.
Regards, David Kernow 18:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • My only hesitation for · (·) would be the distinct possibility of that character not being available in the current font for a particular user, and then the links would maybe run into each other, or the irritating square box would show up. Yes, 90%+ of the users would be able to see it, but…. I would think the vertical bar ( | ) would be present in more fonts than the ·. Also, it seems to be a common convention to uses the bar to separate links, but I also agree that could look like a character glyph: "|lI1" is a vertical bar, lower case "ell", Upper Case "eye", and numeral 1. MeekMark 20:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, MeekMark, with my apologies for not spotting and responding to it until now.
I suppose this reduces to a Bugzilla request to (a) review the "common convention" (I wonder if/when it received consensus) to use the bar; and (b) program an appropriate response if/when a font doesn't include ·. Furthermore, I'd suggest (c) making the separation character a user preference.
Unfortunately, however, it seems the unrelenting work necessary to maintain the MediaWiki software means that enhancements such as these remain wishful thinking. Thanks again, David Kernow 04:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Bug in template system?

I've posted this to the page it affects, but that one is little-used, and this might be something with more general import.

There seems to be something wrong with this template's application to other pages that contain it. You'll notice that in the template, the only person who doesn't have an article is Elizabeth of Lancaster. However, if you look at a few pages in the group, listed below, more links than that are red. The destination articles do exist, and are not mislinked, but apparently direct to the edit page of the article in question -- as if the article didn't exist yet.

Isn't this odd? The template system isn't manual, after all; shouldn't it be identical everywhere? Or were the faulty pages generated some time ago and not updated? Most importantly, how is this fixed?

Edward III Edward, Prince of Wales Richard II Catherine of Lancaster Edward, Duke of York Henry the Young King Geoffrey, Duke of Brittany Joan of England, Queen of Sicily Alphonso, Earl of Chester Joan of England

The large group I noticed dropped was the 2nd through 5th sons of Edward III, but some drop as few as one, often Thomas, 1st Earl of Norfolk.

Pardon my inexperience if there's something I missed.

Minivet 22:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Minivet,
I've just visited the page it affects and all links are blue except the Elizabeth of Lancaster you mention. Are other redlinks still appearing at your end?
Regards, David Kernow 04:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That's the point. The template _itself_ is fine, but links are inexplicably red in some of the _pages that contain_ the template. Look at the template as used in Edward III, for example. -- Minivet 13:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean – sorry not to've read your original message sufficiently closely. Do you find it's always the same links that turn from blue in the template to red on a page?  Also puzzled, David Kernow 02:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Fixed - see below. But yes, it was generally the same group of links, with some variation -- see my original penultimate paragraph. -- Minivet 16:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds and looks like it could have been an odd caching problem. This would have been rectified a short time after any edit or null edit to the template as the job queue caught up with the affected pages and invalidated their caches. Rob Church (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Aha! I made a null edit, and the problem seems to be fixed now. Thanks! It is interesting, though, that there was a minor edit made a few days previously that didn't have the same effect. (Or perhaps the problem emerged after that.) -- Minivet 16:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that null edits are needed these days: if the job queue doesn't update it soon enough, I think adding "&action=purge" to the URL will work. Ardric47 01:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Latino template

Please help with the Latino template. --JuanMuslim 1m 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE: New Interwiki Navigation Templates

I've pretty much debugged and put up two classes of interwiki navigation templates See usage: {{Commonscat2}}, and the inadvertant 'missed-by that much' category name category:Wikipedia navigation templates to track which templates have been ported (modifications usually needed) for use within the commons, or (rarely) vice-versa.

I then 'changed the purpose' of the misnamed category (it was already created, so what the heck), since we can use the autotracking it provides... I'm open to a better name, but the templates most wanted to port and adapt there are NavigationAL templates, so I made the one a sub-category, and labeled it well with a purpose statement. The commons has the same setup, as can be seen by the interwiki tag.

The Commons converse set (5 total) is WikiPcat/2, WikiPcatM/2M, and WikiPNo, the later signifying categories out of adjustment in some way... a work list 'in progress' as it were.

The Others Autotag pages (primarily category pages) with cross-sister-Category links and Main Article links (both interwiki links ) as may be apropo. These are primarily being used for organizing the Maps in both sister projects in the same schema, at this time, but also affect other categories like Category:Middle Ages (Which just happens to be a good place to see the examples of usage with a little link clicking.), and other parent categories, though I don't forsee a lot of neccessary changes on WikiP.

See also (utilized)

I have to run. I'm open to ideas on a better category name or two and other suggestions. Best regards // FrankB 19:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Before or after references?

I've made a couple of footer navigation templates lately and found myself wondering whether to place them above or below references and similar sections (See also, Notes and whatever). Since my idea of using the navbox is to point the reader to related articles on the subject, I've been leaning towards placing them above references. Reference sections can get very long (exceeding a browser page) and some readers may simply not scroll down below them and miss important links. However, most existing footer navboxes are placed at the very bottom of the page. What do you think? Peter Znamenskiy 22:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say certainly after. Otherwise the notes and references get orphaned. If it’s important to have navigation immediately visible, it’s best not to make it a footer: you can use a sidebox, as in History of Italy. —Ian Spackman 23:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Consider 'customers' and especially default skins

{{Middle Ages Tall}}

I think with the overall expansion of good footnoting that the standard of placing such at the bottom has become very unworkable in the overall majority of cases in most any article with significant technical content. Perhaps they need placed in their own section 'Internal Links' which is located above the references.
One benefit of that would be to include categories, which are alledgedly for the readership (I say alledged, because there seems to be no tendancy to place them in See also sections, but a definite editor faction with the philosophy of mininimizing category inclusion (and another which minimizes 'category name length', leading to imprecision and vaugeries), which to me seems contrary to WP:Btw!). Assuming for a moment the Internal Links section at the end of the article text proper, and above the External Links section, these guideline satisfying (WP:Btw) cross-links would be where they would be the most visible as well as most useful to the 'customer' reader. (I sure hope we have many times more readers than editors, or we should all just go fishing, boating, climb a mountain, play cards, have sex, or whatnot!!!)
The Categories problem on the 'default skin'
But any and all categories are always well down off the bottom of the default skin ('and so nearly invisible'... iirc, it took me about nine months to finally see them as I progressed from 'customer'-'occ. anon. editing'-'registered editor'-'caught, hooked, and skinned junky') and so well off the 'radar screen' of the (to my mind, likely) 'typical' readers, which to me is a damn shame as they are one really important extra we offer over any dead-tree encyl. AND the other online encyl. that I've seen thus far. So in fact are navigation templates, even the simple {{succession}} and more flexible (but more complicated) {{succession box}} (e.g. see the later in expanded form in Charles_the_Fat; and this for an 'colorized example', albeit, 'not-quite-full-glory').
I have many a fond memory of youthful 'browsing' (five, eight, or ten volumes of dead tree encyclopedia's piled on the library table beside me) going from one article to another following see also references to other articles in my early intellectual awakening. Having Wikipedia allow that (with ease) without all the 'grunt work' carrying those tomes is high on my personal list of why am I donating time here... which even the spouse can't quite understand in her cold, WikiLonley bed. (Perhaps we're all a bit insane??? There are far too many of us working far to late locally to be otherwise!)
That would best be accomplished by developing a template that takes a string of cats, part of which parses the arguments to 'display' like {{see also}}, and part which takes each arguement and inserts the category back onto the page (visible only in effect, not to the readers). Explicit categorization would thus be inside the template CatDisplay, as it were. The better alternative would be for all the references to be in a sub-page, but I'm pretty sure the reference system wouldn't work that way at all—everything would be orphaned.
The proposed 'CatDisplay' template would be better even as a sidebox (Say left justified, 35% of width to avoid right hugging long templates, battle boxes, etcetera on the overused right side), or better yet, the default skin to add the categories under the search window in the current sidebar (Admittedly, THAT is beyond the scope of 'this venue', but... someone may be reading and then reference this section elsewhere.), but that wouldn't address the real problem of the many navigational templates becoming buried as footnoting progresses and matures.
user:Peter Znamenskiy raises a really good and large important issue going forward deeper into good referencing... and much of this CANNOT be implimented using the suggested sidebox template from Italy ({{History of Italy}}), nor the embedded example '{{Middle Ages Tall}}' I placed within above in shorter, and medium articles, in particular.
A secondary problem
All these things (Battleboxes, demographic boxes, etc. implimented as sideboxes) CONSTRAIN what else can be put into an article to make it more complete and interesting. At least including pertinent images seems to me to be a good thing when possible. In many articles, they inhabit (Hog) the whole right margin, and sometimes force things down and off the page away from the text entirely. I've spent the odd hour here and there dealing with some of these problem-articles; it can be frustrating, especially when checked against the other 'browser standard'— IE6 versus most everything else.
There have been several attempts by me to add some good Images or Maps to apropo articles from the commons, where because of such, and the guidelines 'over placing' templates to the right (embedded in their coding), either causes them to interfer with one another, or with some other included media, making the inclusion of other material 'dicey' and 'difficult'. I'd frankly like to see a switch code incorporated into some of the tall one's to left justify them or right by merely changing the (new) first perameter ('R' or 'L' to embrace the KISS principle!). But I'm only one editor with so much free time. I believe we're seeing the begining of a systemic problem that will only get worse as good reference lists grow and get incorporated, and that it will minimize wasted time by addressing it sooner rather than later. What say you all? Best regards // FrankB 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My 2¢, fwiw

This isn't really my bandwagon, but my buddy FrankB asked me to comment. I prefer to have boxes, categories, footers, etc. on the outer edges of the layout. Since references are part of a text-only section, and footer boxes can be considered a graphic (in a limited sense), my eye stops at the graphic, since it takes up (usually) the whole bottom of the page, and I might miss the references or anything else under the box.

As for categories...well, I'm kinda used to skipping to the end for those. In library records (my bailiwick), whether online, MARC, or cards, the subject headings always come last (they're the counterpart to our categories). So I don't have a problem scrolling down. I think that putting them anywhere else might cause difficulty for Joe User, because of the necessity to either scroll past them in order to read the article (which is why he showed up in the first place) or deal with a narrower chunk of text (as with a sidebar-type) layout. I don't think I'm much help to you, but that's my take on it. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

(ditto bandwagon, but I've been meaning to look at these pages.)
Ditto Ian Spackman for Nav Boxes being at the very bottom of the page, or along the right-side if there is no other infobox (which would cause the float-stack problem, and potential page-length issues). eg I quite like Semiotics' navbox at the side. It's an efficient way of presenting a list of vocabulary keywords with basic context for a subject overview. It's a reductionist cross between a portal-page and a list-of page.
Ditto Pegship for categories. Partially because i'm used to them being at the bottom. (relatedly, i've hidden the gfdl/wikimedia sitewide footerbar using usercss, so the categories actually stand out quite clearly at the bottom of my screen). Partially because then the navboxes and categories are next to each other, which reinforces a user's location-memory and browsing-efficiency, and reduces the redundancy potential of navboxes with them.
More once i've read/thought more. -Quiddity 22:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you two, mired as you are in acedemia (<g>), miss the point that references are a big turn off (save to those few and seldom researching the same topic in contrast to one just reading it.), and assume that readers are going to scan down to them and not past them, or are you just saying tough on them, if they aren't clever enough to have you're training or discover something hidden away. My assumption is most readers will get to References and 'say to self', OK, what do I read next... which is a logical place for them to disconnect via the links of categories and navigation boxes. Then there's the fact that a great majority of people are still on dial-up, not broadband, so things are painfully slow, though one hopes their system buffers stuff up faster than they can read.
The references are great for Wikipedia credibility. The External links for getting people to leave and browse other sites (Not the best outcome, after all, we want them to stay here!), but are now defacto requirements herein. I'm not gonna complain if that's your take, but I find it hard to believe or think of references 'as part of the article'; they're just so much 'text noise' like ads on a commericial site (to me), save when adding them as an editor, then they're usually something to swear at or about.
As a reader, they're just plain annoying. And those are the shoes I'm considering presentation from within. Well... different strokes for different folks, as we used to say in my vanished youth.
And 'Quiddity', I'm not talking about uncongested pages where a navbox fits at the side with room to spare like Semiotics, but in general, long articles with a lot of references, or which will someday have a long list of references if we keep at it. You know, my history and science interests. How about the many 'History of' countries articles, or scads of biographies, especially royal biographies where there sometimes just isn't enough space because of all the templates, sometimes fighting with images. Want to see a bad template: try paging to modern times from Hugh Capet up through Louis_VII_of_France and beyond and watch the page bottom. The poor succession template never has a chance to be prominent! That yuck-ugly navigation template is because someone was trying to conform too closely to a style guideline, I'd guess and 'editorial judgment' allowed for in the guideline (to apply common-sense) went out the door. Things get worse in some ways the more modern you get because there is far more media available that should be included in many articles. Unfortunately, many of those also have to many battle boxes and maps, et. al. monopolizing the right margins.
OTOH, after taking a good look at FDR, Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, there are so many nav templates on the bottom of those articles, there is no simple solution, save I'm still concerned about our default skin all but hiding categories. I can see where such a gaggle would 'Block Her Pegship' from her beloved reference list readings were they moved up. So I confess I probably acted a bit more in haste since I mentally link the two types of navigation. I suspect the lesson is to leave things more up to the editor's judgment involved in a project and less on 'strict' adherence to rigidly applied 'guidelines' when a different arrangement would work better. Alas, the templates are about as rigid as things get in their placement demands. // FrankB 02:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I totally understand where you're coming from (especially with that hilarious example Churchill! yow). One of the many limitations of the computer medium, is the "standard" tiny screens we're all used to; Such a small canvas to fit all the potential data into... *sigh*
Personally, i figure situations like this need to go past the problem point before they'll get effectively dealt with. Partially because then the overworked but hardworking devs/beaurocrats will weigh in with insights. Partially because that lets the patterns/possibilities develop further, giving a better dataset to work from in fixing the structure. By which i mean, the nav templates are currently in a healthy state of growth and flux, and something greater than them is likely to emerge in the future. (ditto categories). Thats my opinion today anyway ;) -Quiddity 03:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What the policy for including navigational templates on pages. Recently I've tried to include the green politics and also the christian democracy templates in pages that are mentioned on it, like non-violence for the greens or Abraham Kuyper for the christian democrats. In some cases (non violence, but also sustainability) this was very quickly reverted and people reacted very hostile to the inclusion, (like I was claiming the page for a particular partisan position) and seemed unwilling to discuss the issue, acting like it was logical and that my actions even violated simple policies like NPOV.

I put the templates up under the impression that articles that if an article is mentioned on a template, it should be included on the page. So if I put up the -hypothetical- nazism template up on anti-semitism I'm not pushing a particular point of view but merely pointing out that there is a link between the template and the page. No one seems receptive to that. Is there policy/general rule/rule of thumb to use in these cases? --C mon 18:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Multiple navigational templates design

Hi!
Can anybody provide information on how I can merge navigational templates in an article? Lots of boxes look very bad, indeed (e.g. here: New Zealand). In the German Wikipedia it is easy to merge such boxes to one single block (de:Neuseeland) by using this code:

{{NaviBlock
|...
|...
}}

I'm sure this is described somewhere here, but I was unable to find out where. Thanks for your assistance! -- Henning Blatt 10:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I took a look at those pages you point to and changing to that format for all those pages will be a big job. As far as I know there is no manual in how to code such templates. But there are manuals for the "#if" commands etc one use in them and one can study other such templates and experiment... I too like to put templates together inside the same frame like you say since it looks much better. I coded such a system for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography#Navigational templates so I now know how to code such stuff. So may I offer my assistance to you?
There are several aproaches that comes to mind:
  1. The simplest solution is to edit the existing boxes so they all have the same width (100%) and has no outer top and bottom margins. Then they stack up nicely against each other. Although this doesn't look as good as the the other aproaches.
  2. The German Wikipedia aproach that is very advanced and as I see it a bit overkill and also makes it confusing to editors that want to use and edit those templates.
  3. The Wikipedia:Babel aproach where you use a template that really just is an empty frame that can take as parameters the names of other navbox templates. Those navbox templates should then have some magic so they don't get an inner frame when inside the generic empty frame. That generic empty frame is used like the "Naviblock" you mentioned. Like in babel: {{Babel | someboxname | anotherboxname }}
  4. The similar Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography#Navigational templates aproach that I designed myself and I have so far not seen any where else. There we have one small main crypto navbox for all crypto articles but on some articles we also want one or more "specialised" navboxes like a navbox for stream ciphers or block ciphers. So I made it so the main navbox as parameter can take the names of one or more specialised navboxes and then inserts them inside the same frame into itself. This looks as we want it (all boxes in the same frame) and makes a very neat syntax for our editors. When you see the template name on a page it is fairly clear what that template does. Like this: {{Crypto navbox | stream }} where "crypto navbox" is the main template and "stream" means the "crypto stream" template. See for instance the bottom of this page: Avalanche effect.
So, lets talk a bit more about this stuff. We should perhaps move this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries? Unless of course we first go for the most generic aproach which is number 3 above where we use an empty "Navblock" frame. Then that one should probably first be developed and tested here. And I suggest the name "Navblock" or "Navframe" as name for that empty frame template.
--David Göthberg 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Compressed templates

I've "compressed" a couple of fairly large navigational templates using a technique that I suspect could be used fairly generally. The two templates I've done are Template:Places in Bedfordshire (compare this version with new version in an article) and Template:Footer Olympic Champions 4x400 m Men (similarly, compare this version with the new version in an article).

The basic idea is to make these large, exhaustively enumerative templates show a virtually scrollable window of articles (scrollable by traversing to other articles using the same template).

Generating the source for such templates by hand is distinctly a pain, but doing it with a script is really not too bad. I've posted the script I used to generate the Olympic 4x400 relay one. I don't think it's currently possible to write these as "native" templates (even using parser functions). If anyone has any comments about this technique (pro or con), please let me know. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A clever idea, but it has at least one rather glaring flaw: anybody on a slow connection (or "scrolling" through large articles) will be hammered by the cost of loading X-2 separate pages to scroll X positions in the list. I don't really think that the drawbacks of larger templates are so significant as to force everybody to do that. Kirill Lokshin 22:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
But, in general, there's a "list of" article, linked from each of the articles. So if you really know where you're going and don't want to look at each one you can traverse to the list, and then from there (i.e. 2 pages, not X-2). I think making everyone look at a template that doubles the size of most articles it's on to make it a little bit easier for folks on slow connections is not a good tradeoff. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
In many cases, people have avoided creating standalone lists on the basis that they're adequately represented by the templates themselves, so that option won't be available. (Unless you mean to say that this new format would be followed only where a list exists?) Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I mean to say 30-line templates are almost always absurd and we should do something to make them considerably smaller. If this technique is only useful in cases where there is some existing list (or category?), I'm OK with that. If in addition we say "to use this technique, create a list if one does not already exist" I'm OK with that, too. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
At first I thought it looked like a nice idea. But when I tried it out it was confusing for me to navigate among those pages. And of course VERY hard for me to edit. I think I would prefer something inbetween. That is that you split the big template up into say 5-6 smaller ones. Something like this:
                Towns and Villages in Bedfordshire
            A-C  |  D-H  |  I-L  |  M-R  |  S-S  |  T-Z
Ampthill | Arlesey | Aspley Guise | Astwick | Barton le Clay |
Battlesden | Beadlow | Bedford | Beeston | Biddenham | Biggleswade |
Billington | Bletsoe | Blunham | Bolnhurst | Bromham | Broom |
Caddington | Campton | Cardington | Carlton | Chalgrave | Chellington |
Chicksands | Clapham | Clifton | Clophill | Cockayne Hatley |
Colmworth | Colworth | Cople | Cranfield
And if you click "D-H" it would send you to the first article on D and so on. That would mean just 6 regular templates that wold be small enough to not clutter the page, and easy to edit and administer without using any extra tools. And I think such templates would be easier to navigate for the users. --David Göthberg 04:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about something like the following (based on template:panorama)? I don't know if this will render properly in all browsers (looks OK in Mozilla on Windows XP). This has two disadvantages that I can think of. 1) it doesn't position at the article you're currently on 2) for someone on a slow link, the entire list is downloaded (although Wikipedia's raw HTML is so bulky I'm not sure this is an actual issue). The MAJOR advantage is that it's just a plain list with some funky CSS styling wrapped around it, so is very easily editable. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Crap. Doesn't work in IE. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Revised version, below, seems to work in IE. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Ampthill | Arlesey | Aspley Guise | Astwick | Barton le Clay | Battlesden | Beadlow | Bedford | Beeston | Biddenham | Biggleswade | Billington | Bletsoe | Blunham | Bolnhurst | Bromham | Broom | Caddington | Campton | Cardington | Carlton | Chalgrave | Chellington | Chicksands | Clapham | Clifton | Clophill | Cockayne Hatley | Colmworth | Colworth | Cople | Cranfield | ...
List of places in Bedfordshire

And, a template version:

Ampthill | Arlesey | Aspley Guise | Astwick | Barton le Clay | Battlesden | Beadlow | Bedford | Beeston | Biddenham | Biggleswade | Billington | Bletsoe | Blunham | Bolnhurst | Bromham | Broom | Caddington | Campton | Cardington | Carlton | Chalgrave | Chellington | Chicksands | Clapham | Clifton | Clophill | Cockayne Hatley | Colmworth | Colworth | Cople | Cranfield | ...

I prefer this new version of the template and it would certainly help to stop people on slow conections having to download lots of pages. To make it automatically go to the current article it might be possible to use some weird anchor trick like in references. Lcarsdata (Talk) 07:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I've put the template version at template:NavigationBar and converted template:Places in Bedfordshire to use this template. I'll solicit input about this template at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Please refrain from proliferating its use pending comments from this request. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, this is only the "initial discussion". I'm answering at WP:VP/T. -- DLL .. T 20:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Video Game Template Discussion

There is currently a debate at the CVG project (which can be found here) concerning the video game templates. A user wants to standardize the templates by following the {{NavigationBox}} design, remove all sections, trim it down to "notable/important" games and make it English-centric, among other things. However, there is a significant number of people who wish to have the navboxes remain the way they are, or come under {{Navbox generic}} design, which isn't that different from the norm. The conversation was getting long winded, and it was decided that it would be better discussed here. JQF 18:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not an accurate summary of that debate. There are many issues that nav boxes need to have addressed, and rather than looking at individual issues we have two "sides" that are forming. There are no sides, do not form sides, that defeats the whole purpose of the conversation, which is to improve these horrible nav templates. It was not decided to move this discussion here, and Navbox generic is not a standard. JQF's attempts to make this into a two sided fight are very counter productive. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ned Scott. To bring it here would be counter-productive: the CVG project wants to standarize its own navigational boxes, and thus it should be a CVG debate, similar to how all dicussion about {{Infobox VG}} takes place on there. Hbdragon88 23:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I do think that after some good discussion that we should come back and share what we have on this talk page. It's good to share ideas and to include lots of people, but it's also good to reasonably avoid group think. Of course anyone is welcome to participate in the discussion on WT:CVG if they wish, though. -- Ned Scott 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Templates should never be standardized by Wikiproject. Nor should CVG discussions always be restricted to CVG project related pages, especially if the issue—albeit indirectly—deals with all navigational templates. After all, similar perspectives eventually led to the downfall of Esperanza, a currently defunct organization that set non-Esperanza members apart through their activities, often alienating them in the process.--TBCΦtalk? 10:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
we're not saying the template should be standarized by the prject, we're saying that the project is the best place for it's discussion as editors who make most of their contributions to CVG-related articles are most likely to see it there. "Membership" in a project is not what you seem to perceive it as, it is merely listing oneself as a person who would like to make significant contributions to the proect's scope. And it is common practice to bring issues regarding a particular project's scope to that projects talk page. Many AFD's are brought up regarding Pokémon related articles and notification is posted the project, but that doesn't mean only PCP members may discuss it. In ALL discussions on wikipedia, it is not one's affiliation that counts but their arguments. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 07:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Navigation templates have their uses, but many of them have a serious drawback: where they link to an article, the 'What links here' page then contains an entry for every instance of the template. A recent example I have commented on is Template:FTSE 100 Index constituents. If one now looks at the What links here? page for Aviva, one now sees over one-hundred entries, one for each instance member of the index where the template has been used. This makes the 'What links here?' pages almost useless. I appreciate not everyone makes use of the 'What links here' feature. Similarly however, not everyone makes use of navigational templates. The important difference is that the 'What links here' functionality is impossible to access in any other way. Once there are a hundred extra entries in a list, it becomes very laborious indeed to work out which are the directly relevant articles, and which are just results of a transclusion. On the other hand, were the navigation template absent, a user could simply click on the FTSE 100 page itself to get the necessary list. My point is, many of these templates provide a slight navigational convenience, whilst nearly wrecking another useful feature.

I propose that navigational templates should only link to navigation pages. Given the current state of Wikipedia, I appreciate this is a rather radical suggestion. I am not suggesting this be enforced overnight. However, I would like to see this adopted into Wikipedia policy so that, at least, no new such templates are created. At present I am finding every few weeks that previously useful lists are being crammed with the results of some new template.

As to what should take their place: many templates do not cause problems of this sort. This is because they link to other navigation aids, not articles themselves. An example I have alluded to before is Template:British legislation lists, Acts. This provides a useful navigation aid, but does not crowd out the 'What links here' lists of content articles. I have also been contributing to a discussion on Template_talk:History_of_economic_thought, where I make similar points. In this case, User:Anthon.Eff, has modified the template to remove its impact on the 'What links here' lists. For this I am most grateful and relieved. I believe the template Template:History of economic thought now provides another good example of the way things could be done, assuming this proves useful.

To reiterate: navigational templates are useful, but they provide a convenience rather than a new essential feature. Many template designs render 'What links here lists' unusable. To prevent this, I propose a Wikipedia policy that navigational templates should not have links to content article. Crosbiesmith 12:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another solution would be to change the "what links here" listing so that links due to transclusion show up indented, under the template name, similar to how redirect links are listed. I agree this is an issue, but highly doubt a "no links to content articles" rule is a realistic solution. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that would be a good solution. This would require changes to the MediaWiki software however. I did find a bug report regarding this sometime ago, but now I don't know how to find it. Having looked at the code, I would regard this change as time-consuming and painful. As no-one is undertaking to fix this problem technically, let alone provide a timeline, I think it is necessary to solve the problem via policy for the forseeable future.
Perhaps my proposal is a little simplistic. The problem comes where there are large number of template instances, completely dwarfing the other items in the list. Where the instances appear on closely related articles, there isn't any problem. For instance, a template called 'Countries in the British Isles', which linked to Scotland, England, Ireland, Wales would not cause any problems as the articles would already be linked.
Perhaps a policy could be implemented that a template shall not link to an excessive number of articles? That would discourage these 'grand scheme' templates where people create a template with a hundred entries, then paste it into each and every article. I would suggest excessive to mean 'around 20', but such wording would allow wiggle room for unusual cases where a large number of articles are closely related and referenced by a template.
So, to summarise: how about a policy that templates should not link to an excessive number of articles? - Crosbiesmith 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The pertinent bug report would seem to be 3421 (and also unlinked side-effect 8506). Found by searching MediaZilla for "transclusion". --Goldfndr 15:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where to have this discussion, but let's start here. The number of navigational footer templates has become truly staggering. They have a variety of styles, ranging from succession boxes to exhaustive lists of every member of some category. Many are derived from Template:Navbox generic and use its show/hide functionality. A few (very few) are derived from Template:Navigation bar and use a horizontally scrolling approach. It seems to me we should have one or more site-wide styles for these templates, and if more than one then guidelines for when which style might be most approriate. Before getting into specifics, is anyone interested in this topic? Please sign below if you're interested and if you have a suggestion for a place to have this conversation please list it. At this point, I'd rather not have comments on specific approaches, just an indication of interest in such a discussion. Thanks -- Rick Block (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am definitely interested, and this discussion section should be nav box revolution. The mere existence of {{Navigational templates}} shows how bad the situation is. Currently there are two contending scripts that handle collapsing and expanding a box. The reason that "collapsible table" cannot handle nesting is not because it's collapsible table, but because {{Navbox generic}} was implemented with wiki mark-up table at some point in history. Now that {{Navbox generic}} is implemented with raw HTML. So it does support nesting. So I think collapsible table should replace NavFrame.
Out of the 3 templates that use collapsible, {{Navbox generic}} is better in everyway. So we don't even need to bother to convert {{Dynamic navigation box}} and {{Navbox generic with image}} to raw HTML mark up. We just need to convert the intermediate template that transclude {{Dynamic navigation box}} and {{Navbox generic with image}} to transclude {{Navbox generic}} instead.
The same rationale applies to other templates too. Basically, {{Navbox generic}} can handle everything the others can handle, except {{Navigation with columns}}.
Here is a count of main space and template space consumers of these "root" templates
intermediate template main space
{{Navigation}} 1801 41504
{{Navigation with image}} 114 2832
{{Navigation with columns}} 13 77
{{Dynamic navigation box}} 188 6449
{{Dynamic navigation box with image}} 419 5488
{{Navbox generic}} 405 13913
{{Navbox generic with image}} 48 1829
{{NavigationBox}} 1542 21044
{{Navigation bar}} 4 201
What I'm proposing is a huge effort.
Open questions: what about meta? What about Wikipedia of other languages?
Another issue is the succession box and the vertical "series" template, like {{Politics of Hong Kong}}. IMHO, the series templates are also navigational templates. And the vertical format sometimes causes layout trouble. I believe they should be converted to horizontal format too. I don't see a problem with the existing succession boxes. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Vertically-oriented templates are useful at the beginning of a page, especially where you have a set of articles that evolved from following WP:SUMMARY guidelines. When done right (ie. per Wikipedia:Article series), it serves as a sort of "table of contents" for a single large topic. Navigation templates, on the other hand, tend to be used link multiple, related topics that don't have a parent/child/sibling relationship. For example, the navigational template for {{Apple}} includes links to articles on the corporate directors, as well as a number of hardware and software products. Clearly these disparate topics could not be covered in a single article, since they are distinct physical things.
The real problem here is when an article series template spirals out of control, as is the case with the Politics of Hong Kong template. That one should be significantly reduced in length. -/- Warren 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I can leave the series templates alone. But my proposal on the nav boxes still holds. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If all the templates are to be standardized into one, I prefer {{Navbox generic}} overall as well. Just use the top parameter to do what other templates do without groups, right? In addition to {{Navigation with columns}} which has its own issues, {{Navbox generic}} can't do {{Navigation bar}} either, which is probably a good thing. –Pomte 14:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Or you can use {{Navbox generic}} with list1 but not group1. {{Navbox generic}} can kind of do what {{Navigation bar}} does. Just list everything and have the initial state set to collapsed... =) --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Does everybody agree that {{Navbox generic}} is the new standard? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I know the discussion has been idle for a while. I apologize for bring up big proposal and not actually implement it. I'm just busy lately in real life. That being said, I'd like to take this opportunity to recognize the effort Zyxw has done to convert all {{Navbox generic with image}} to {{Navbox generic}}. Now that 931 intermediate template transcludes {{Navbox generic}}. And about 30,000 articles uses it indirectly. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Effort applauded. Anyone here may be interested in a discussion for standardizing all band templates. –Pomte 00:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit puzzled by all the love for {{Navbox generic}}. I don't have any experience working on navbox code, but I find the standard {{Navbox generic}} box, with the group titles shoved to the side and the subpages floating haphazardly in a sea of white, to be confusing and visually unappealing. Alternating color backgrounds for the groups may help somewhat, and I'm sure there are all sorts of tricks to making it look better for those with experience, but I do think people should be careful before launching a crusade to convert perfectly functional custom boxes to {{navbox generic}} without consulting those who have worked on those boxes previously and may not know how to work with this new format (see my recent issues with {{pathology}}). -RustavoTalk/Contribs 19:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's the white space you're worried about (in case you have a wide screen), see [1]. The difference is style = width: auto;. How do you propose that we notify everyone who had worked on navigational templates? Have a bot to post messages on thousands of the template talk pages? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Collapsible wrapper

While looking at David Kernow's user page, I found out about {{Hidden begin}}. While it's handy, it uses NavFrame. I did something similar to wrap the never-ending succession boxes of Yugoslav dinar with 

{| class="navbox collapsible autocollapse"
! Succession boxes
|-
|style="font-size: 111.11%"|
...content...
|}

Shall we also migrate {{Hidden begin}} as well? One problem I see with either NavFrame and collapsible implementation is the ability to customize font size and other styles of the content. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Styling and collapsing functionallity atr properly seperated for collapsible tables (unlike NavFrame.) Simple don't use the navbox class (this is only used for syling, not collapsing.) —Ruud 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign here if you're interested in participating in such a and participate in the discussion below:

  1. Pomte (talk · contribs)
  2. ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Consistency and customizability! —Ruud 11:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe we should reduce the number of templates to one (a well designed and thought out one) and write a Manual of Style on how (and when not) to design a navigational box.
    • I'm also the author of the collapsible tables script, so if anything needs to be modified on that side I can probably do that.
  4. David Kernow (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC). My involvement has mostly been with regard to templates grouped together at the ends of articles on countries, territories, etc, from which (at least) three issues have arisen:
    a. Use templates based on {{Navigation}} or {{Navbox generic}}, but not both...?
    b. Consider what default titlebar background to set, remembering that these (collapsed) templates can sit immediately above or below each other; perhaps, then, the "gentler" #eee or the like rather than #ccf...?
    c. Render {{NavigationBox}} obselete as any images it uses cuts across its titlebar...?
    Comment Regarding point A, are you talking about the name of the new unified root template?
    • Not the name, just which format ("Navigation" or "Navbox generic") should form the basis of a single new standard. Acknowledge your preference for "Navbox generic"; I'm not so sure, though, as the "Navigation" format seems more flexible....
    I don't think color is a big issue. As long as we have a unified default color, instead of 2 contending default color, then I'm happy.
    • Not as fundamental as which format to use, but worth considering, I believe, when multiple collapsed templates sit above/below each other;
    Everything that is not {{Navbox generic}} should be rendered obsolete. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    I believe that {{Navbox generic}} is near completely or completely mature. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. --Quiddity
  6. Kind of. I endorse the idea but am less interested in what the result should look like. If you've agreed upon a standard I'd be happy to aid in converting to that standard. >Radiant< 12:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Andeggs. I think this discussion is very important and would love to take part. The problem is partly technical (more than one generic template in use etc.) and partly policy (template deisgners have undue power to ruin many pages). Vertical nav templates are my particular bugbear. So many articles spoiled! Andeggs 17:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal (Discussion)

  1. Per ChoChoPK, {{Navbox generic}}-based templates seem to have the edge on {{Navigation}}-based templates as their un/auto/collapsed states may be specified. I can convert the {{Navigation with columns}} temnplates to {{Navbox generic with columns}} by hand and update say {{Navbox generic with image}} to Navbox generic using AWB, but it looks like a bot request will be needed for the more numerous Navigation-based instances. If I post such a request, would folk here add their support to it...?  The request would also be an opportunity to have a bot replace Navbox generic's legacy parameter names (e.g. templateName) with their current equivalents (e.g. name).
  2. Flagicons in Navbox titlebars (e.g. {{European Union elections}}, {{Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA)}}, etc).
    Some folk prefer no flagicons in titlebars, others like to add them. Rather than try to find a (likely non-existent) consensus either way, perhaps they might be accommodated more elegantly than at present, where a stack of two or more collapsed templates using them can look untidy (cf country articles). First suggestion: Code Navbox generic so that it can handle a given flagicon along the lines of (e.g.) {{Regional capitals of Italy}} with the displaced v·d·e links moved to the top righthand corner of the template body (i.e. below the [show/hide] link). Any support...?  Thanks for reading this far!  David Kernow (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think v·d·e should be below the titlebar, as there can be spacing issues with list1, or it can increase unnecessary height by bumping a right-aligned image down. To keep consistency between vertically stacked templates, v·d·e and [show/hide] can remain where they are, with the optional flag placed to the right of v·d·e. Or else move v·d·e to the right-hand side for both cases, as people reading left-to-right don't need to be first confronted by unintuitive initials. –Pomte 04:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think I like the idea of flagicon (NavPic) on lefthand side (otherwise v·d·e) with v·d·e just before [show/hide] on the right. If no-one objects and/or has other suggestions, I'll aim to start implementing it in a few days. Thanks for your feedback, David (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reckon you've answered your own question above ("Perhaps it would be nicer...") otherwise one or more of these templates with flagicons prefixed to center-aligned titles can look untidy beside other collapsed templates. Regards, David (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

OMG, I just found {{Navbox Television}}. And there are a handful that begins with "Navbox". I bet some of those qualifies as TFD. But I got to go now. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Joining this discussion a little late, but from what appears above, the argument for standardization doesn't seem to have been definitely made. While a huge variation is clearly undesirable and some control over overly-aggressive or dominating versions sensible, the case for homogeneity is not obvious. The navigation templates are there to assist user browsing experience, so the arguments should be couched in those terms. It strikes me that a homogeneous standard in some ways actively undermines browsing functionality, insofar as it reduces its range of information to the purely linguistic, whereas some variety in visual signals - colour, image, shape, text size and arrangement - allows a far greater range of information and may function iconographically to assist easy recognition and discernment between articles. Homologous, rather than homogeneous. DionysosProteus 18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes editors seem to approach template design as if they were works of art. See [2] for an example of a navbox that used pointlessly "creative" layout that made the template very hard to use when one's used to the standard. I've been on a major navbox formatting kick for a few months now, ironing out situations like this, but occasionally I run into templates were established editors have dug in their heels over purely aesthetic choices and it can be hard to budge them. Bryan Derksen 22:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Subheadings and title alignment

Templates such as {{Smashing Pumpkins}} and {{Xenaverse}} have subheadings. They resemble {{navbox generic}}, but there is no simple way to convert them to use navbox generic. The easiest solution of course is to just leave them alone, but it would be nice to have an idea of how to approach them for the purposes of standardization described above.

I have two ways of manually displaying subheadings inside {{navbox generic}} without adding parameters: see the code used to create the top table here.

  1. Subheading 1 uses a <div> within a list# that has no corresponding group#. Padding is imposed by the table cell, so I had to set padding:-1px; to make it look right.
  2. Subheading 2 closes the table row from inside a list# to create a new table row for the subheading.

The problem with both of these that they are tricky/messy/unconventional. Notice how the title in the top table is a bit off-center to the left. On the other hand, templates that use NavFrame have their titles strictly centered: see the bottom navbox here, which uses {{Navigation}}. In this case, the subheadings are inside a NavHead div, and the subsections are inside a NavContent div. To eliminate the padding, I had to set the style parameter as "margin:0;"

Please let me know how feasible it is to implement the above using actual parameters, or whether it is unnecessary and would complicate the code too much. –Pomte 03:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Or alternatively, you can avoid writing any new code like this. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
So many (useless) vde and hides detract from the more essential links. For alignment, left column width has to be fixed among the separately nested {{navbox generic}}s. But thanks for alerting me to the fact that these can be nested - very useful in other cases. –Pomte 17:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Suppressing vde has been raised before. But the idea probably dies because of lack of need. Now we have a reason. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I like having the 'hide' option within the navbox for subheadings - but I'd like to suggest that there should be a 'sub1', 'sub2'... parameter option for those subheadings - the main reason is because I personally think the subheadings should be coloured differently than the main heading, and automating it to sub1 is a lot cleaner than implimenting an entirely new subnavbox. I understand it complicates the code a little, but you could just say that "subx" is the subheading that appears above groupx/listx - so if you want a subheading at the top, and after the second list, you'd use sub1 and sub3. I know this would make 'hiding' more difficult (you'd have to check if there are any heads after sub1, and if so (sub3), hide list1-list2 - and if not hide everything else (list3-end). This could be done with if statements, but I think it's more important to get subheadings in there than to have the sections hideable. Surpressing VDE SHOULD be no harder than adding a parameter and putting an if statement checking for that parameter. TheHYPO 20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying to copy the navigation templates features

Hi there! I was trying to understand how the 'show' and 'hide' things work in the navigation templates. Unfortunely, they all seem to be a bunch of nested templates. Is there some especific template for doing only that? I needed it for another wiki (a very small one), so I can't use any templates from this one. Thank you! algumacoisaqq 21:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, that was it, thank you very much! It didn't worked afterall, but I believe this is because of the wiki engine, not the code (I mean, we would probably need to install soem kind of feature to the site - but I'm just a user). Anyway, I'll take a better look at the MediaWiki links. Thanks! algumacoisaqq 20:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone point me to some discussion on navbox clutter? For example, see the bottom of the Rick Pitino article. I'm not sure what needs to be done here, but should articles really look that? --W.marsh 13:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • All of those templates use {{NBA navbox}}, so collapsibility can easily be added. About the colors, I would suggest consulting with the WikiProjects WP:NBA or WP:SPORTS, as most of their templates seem to use team colors as the color scheme (how the hex values are determined, I do not know). –Pomte 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists vs categories

Are the lists here and the subpages really useful? They are under-maintained and redundant to the categories. Can add hatnotes that lead to the associated subcategories of Category:Navigational templates, but it seems cleaner to just redirect these so people don't have to look in two places. There are also pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, which gets incorrectly categorized due to transclusions (untransclude, or add the nocat option to the templates?). –Pomte 04:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested two bold proposals that readers of this page might find interesting.

--ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A Query

Hi,

This is quite possibly the wrong place to ask, but I've been working on a navigation template, namely template:records, which is included as hidden by default, however someone has suggested that on at least one page it should default to expanded. Is there anyone to change the appearance on an individual page?

Many Thanks

Neo 21:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've made it so you can set {{records|state=expand}} to expand, and {{records}} will still collapse by default. Documentation for this is at Template:Navbox generic#Other. –Pomte 22:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of military and naval templates

Recently Dual Freq (talk · contribs), Mike Peel (talk · contribs), and others started the long and tedious process of categorizing the military and naval templates into Category:Military navigational boxes and Category:Naval navigational boxes. Continuing the process to the next step, I have begun sorting the templates into country and topic-based sub-categories (thank Flying Spaghetti Monster for WP:AWB). Please give me a shout if you see me screw something up. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Avoid template creep

I thought this would be a good place to mention a little essay I just posted, because it is mainly about navigation boxes. Wikipedia:Avoid template creep. Check it out and direct any love/hate my way. heqs ·:. 22:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeking advanced editors

Please see User:Tbmorgan74/honorverse_books. I am try to achive a navbox that will capture the flow a series of novels, in which there are defined sub series, but overall there is a chronological flow. I am trying to use :: and ::: to create indentations. But the template itself seems to make their interpertations unreliable if they appear in the first line after |listx= . Any ideas or just improvements to my sandbox would be appreciated. --Tbmorgan74 16:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • You could add some div html containers around the list text, as illustrated here:
{{Navbox
|title=test
|state = uncollapsed
|name = test
|group1 = group1
|list1 = <div>
:a
b
:c
::d</div>
}}

--Hope that helps, --CapitalR 16:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That was perfect! You can see the results implemented. Note for future would be users, the final /div works better on a line by itself, assuming you have only 1 line in a group.--Tbmorgan74 19:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made a template and some CSS code that prevents word wraps (line breaks) inside links and only allows word wraps between the links and in normal text. This is useful for instance for long link lists, such as the link lists we usually have in navigational templates. The {{nowraplinks}} template has now been fully deployed and the CSS code added to MediaWiki:Common.css. I and other editors have tested it in several ways in several browsers. I recommend that any one that make a navigational template take a look at the "Advanced usage" section of the documentation at {{nowraplinks}}.

--David Göthberg 20:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We have added the nowraplinks CSS class to the {{navbox/core}} so any navigational template built on {{navbox}} etc. will automatically have the nowraplinks feature. So if you use {{navbox}} or any navigational template derived from it then you don't need to think about this, its already taken care of for you.

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Football in Northern Ireland

If anyone can convert this to a collapsible navbox I'd be grateful. It is dwarfing a lot of short NI football team articles. Had a go, but can't quite get it to work. The {{fb start}} and {{fb end}} templates are confusing me. Stu ’Bout ye! 12:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The football templates {{fb start}}, {{fb end}}, and all templates that use them are on my list of templates to be converted to use {{Navbox}} soon (as in a week or so). They will all look basically the exact same, just with the collapsible feature added (and the VDE links and flag images moved about). I'd do it this weekend, but I'm going on a short vacation and will get to this by the middle of next week. Since you requested it, I'll place this one at the top of the queue. --CapitalR 14:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for that. Stu ’Bout ye! 14:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this template is quite a bit harder to convert than I thought, because each individual page that uses it will need to be edited manually. I'll get around to it soon, but just not this week like promised. Sorry for the delay. --CapitalR 23:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I had similar problems with templates using Template:Football squad2 start and Template:Cycling team start. I found that the best way to deal with it was to create a new template that took the contents of the old template as a parameter (Template:Football squad and Template:Cycling team), allowing relatively easy conversion from the old to the new. Then comes the long hard slog of editing each and every template using the old one over to the new one. :) Bryan Derksen 21:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

{{Navbox}} is the new standard

All of the other navigational templates have been deprecated, include {{NavigationBox}}, {{Navigation}}, {{Navigation with image}}, {{Dynamic navigation box}}, {{Dynamic navigation box with image}}, {{NavigationBar}}, {{Navbox generic}}, and {{Navbox generic with image}}. All instances of those templates in the Main and Template space have been upgraded. Please use {{Navbox}} instead. It is currently undergoing a major upgrade that will significantly increase its features, including applying the title text color to the VDE buttons, individual group/list styles, nested Navboxes, and correcting IE display bugs. --CapitalR 19:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, all those templates should just be redirected to {{Navbox}}, since people still tend to use them even though they're deprecated. —TigerK 69 06:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure if that's possible, since the old templates all use different parameter names than the new one. The old ones are still extensively used by talk page archives, and other non-mainspace pages, so I don't think redirecting them would be such a great idea, as it would break all those pages. If someone wants to convert all those pages, that would work. --CapitalR 06:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if we can add probably a section about template links inside templates. There is a dispute on Template:Roads of Quebec (and the three provincial highway templates) in which an editor had removed the links to the related templates mentioning that templates should not be linked. Looking at this page, I don't see any indications that they are prohibited or not encouraged and I don't see a whole lot of details in regards of template links inside templates - though I do see that links to articles are good ( and I did it in for several templates in the past). I've often found that template links inside the master template are useful because being much easier to navigated instead of doing several additional clicks via articles.--JForget 20:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Bit of Help

Could someone give me a bit of help with my Navbox-in-progress, here, which i've put together to replace this, but in the top of the box the links for view/talk/edit are all messed up. Will that go away when i copy this over the current box? Thanks.--Jac16888 17:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. You had a wikilink in the name parameter; you don't want that. Simple fix, seen here. Regards.--Old Hoss 19:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, instead of using just a "·", try using {{·}}. This will keep the bullet from wrapping. To use, do not put a space before it, but be sure to put a space after it. Ex:
[[First item]]{{·}} [[Second item]]
Regards.--Old Hoss 20:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, have changed is now, pretty much ready for me to put up now.--Jac16888 10:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Portal tempaltes?

I was asked a question regarding portal navigational templates - and thought that this would be the logical place - but there's no listing of them on the main page. Should they be added? Or at least something pointing to the correct place for discussion of them? SkierRMH 00:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Opera navigation boxes

Greetings from the Opera Project! We have a series of 40 opera composer navigation boxes. (Each box lists the composer's operas in chronological order). The long thin boxes are designed to go in the top right corner of the page, for example Janacek operas displayed in The Cunning Little Vixen.

My question is this: would it be possible to add the usual 'v.d.e' and 'hide' buttons to a bar at the bottom of the box? (Obviously there is no space at the top.) Thanks in advance for any help on this. -- Kleinzach (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've edited Template:Janacek operas to include v-d-e and hide. Show/hide has to be on the first line. The v-d-e can be anywhere, but if hide's going to be on the first line it seems like v-d-e might as well be also. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help. Nevertheless we have some boxes, for example Template:Halévy operas where there is little spare space on the title bar. (Basically the size of the box depends on the width of the name of the composer or the widest of the works.) Also people people may be confused by seeing the buttons as superscript? Would it be possible to have show/hide alongside the title with v-d-e on a separate bar - or is there another possible solution? Regards. -- Kleinzach (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
What I've done basically makes the title line two lines (v-d-e is not superscript, but small font on a separate line). I've changed Template:Halévy operas similarly, just to show the effect (feel free to revert if you don't like it). As I say, "hide" pretty much has to be on the first line (not exactly true, but it would be much more difficult to relocate it). If you don't want the "Operas by xxxx" line to have line breaks (which I assume you don't), then either "hide" gets added on the end (which seems to be difficult) or "hide" increases the height. It's possible to increase the width sufficiently to make the "hide" on the same line. Doing it this way, the title bar for Halévy would look like this (this seems to be the minimum width):
Operas by Fromental Halévy


Overall, I think the 2-line approach looks better. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a typographical thing. Maybe the way to go is to break "Operas by xxxx" - normally "Operas by
xxxx" if that allows the buttons on either side to look balanced? Also maybe if the [hide] was as small a type size as v-d-e that would help? (The two line approach with the top ranged both left and right still looks a bit odd to me.)
The other possibility would be to forget about it being collapsible, and just have a well-spaced v-d-e bar (matching the top one) on the bottom? Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


Since I wrote the above, someone on the Infobox Project has given me code for putting the v-d-e on a bottom bar, see Template:Adams operas. It looks good - maybe we should give up on collapsibility? -- Kleinzach (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me. You might try the non "mini=1" version as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Includeonly as a categorization tool

Is there a guideline on the use of <includeonly></includeonly> categorization in navigational templates? I have seen it used on a few templates as a method of quickly categorizing any article that the template is placed in, but I'm less than pleased with the results, given the loss of control over sorting, and the presence, of say, director names in film categories. — WiseKwai 07:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting ... this is the first I have heard it used this way. Do you have a couple of links so we can see it in action? To answer your question, I am not aware of any documentation other than Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern, which does not directly address your issue. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, and sorry to take so long in checking back here. {{Jack Neo}} is one and {{Danny Boyle}} is another. The former I believe is misusing the includeonly option, while the latter looks to be okay. — WiseKwai 17:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the examples, I presume you are referring to the way that {{Jack Neo}} adds every page the template is on to Category:Singaporean films, Category:Jack Neo films, and Category:Comedy films? While I am not aware of any guideline that specifies when or how to use the <includeonly> tags, I agree that this seems like an inappropriate usage. If, for example, the template's creator were to add it to a "I made the following templates" page, that user page will also become members of the three includeonly categories. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
...unless there's an optional parameter to turn off categorizing, which makes it less convenient than intended. <includeonly> categorization is useful for finding a certain subset of transcluding articles for testing, for user categories, and for quickly populating a category for whatever reason, but seems to be less than ideal for articles in the long-term. –Pomte 04:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody advise me?

I am trying to make the Template:Chabad sidebar into one where the sections are collapsible, but I can't work out how to do this. Is it possible, and if so how is it done? Thanks very much. Lobojo (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Collapsible tables or WP:NAVFRAME. –Pomte 04:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Help! Third opinion needed

I have been trying in vain since yesterday to get a third opinion at the Ancient History project, meanwhile edit wars are continuing over a template, Template:Notable Rulers of Sumer. The problem is a stalemate between myself and User:Sumerophile, over whether the template serves better on the articles in question as he thinks, resembling an "infobox" in the upper right hand corner, or as I think, centered, and toward the bottom of the article near "see also", more like a "navbox". The purpose of the template is to help users reading an article about a Sumerian king, to find other Wikipedia articles that have been written about Sumerian kings. I have argued that this is "see also" type material and not suited to an "infobox" that needs to be at the upper right corner. Furthermore, while most of these articles are stubs, positioning the templates as he wishes instead of the way they were before all this, results in a long stream of templates running down the right margin, several times longer than the article text itself. If someone who is knowledgeable about templates can come up with any solutions, they are urgently needed. If I knew how to put a "hide / show" bar on it, I would do that and solve the whole problem. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, as it is more or less landscape-format (i.e. wider than tall) it lends itself to use as a navbox at the bottom. I'd suggest using it as such, as this also leaves space for any more important infoboxes that connect several subtopics relating to Sumer. Just my 2 cents, of course. --Madcynic (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nowrap how-to guide

The how-to guide Wikipedia:Line break handling is done. Its a how-to guide about how to handle word wraps (line breaks) in Wikipedia. Which very much applies to the link lists we use in most navigational templates. Take a look and discuss this new how-to guide on its talk page.

Oh, and some of you might have noticed that sometimes the link lists in navboxes misbehave, such as wrapping in the wrong place or expanding outside their cell. The how-to guide explains when and why that happens, and how to fix it. (Actually, the wrapping problems with the link lists in navboxes is one of the main reasons I wrote that guide.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Buffy/Angel templates

There was a recent decision to split Template:Buffyversenav into separate templates for Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. These are the work-in-progress versions, but I want to make the Buffy one shades of red rather than blue and I'm not entirely sure how to do it because it's a set template. The colour of the Angel one is fine, but if the coding needs changed drastically, I'd rather they matched. I was hoping someone with better knowledge of computer coding could help me so I came here. Thanks.  Paul  730 21:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Basically, if you want to change the color of the title bar to be something besides the blue that it currently is, you need to do one of two things. First, you can edit the entry for Buffy in {{Television colour}} to change the color code to whatever you want. This however, will effect more than just this template (everything using that code will be updated, including the Buffy infoboxes, etc.). The second option is to just replace the line "|titlestyle = background:{{Television colour|Buff the Vampire Slayer}}" with "|titlestyle = background:#XXXXXX" (and fill in the Xs with the color code you want). Let me know if you need more help on this. --CapitalR (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Template colours

Not sure if this is the best place to raise this issue but a certain user has been going around changing [3]all the navboxes to a new style he created apart from putting the wrong images into some of the navboxes he has also changed the main links to black see this template this makes wiki linked pages show as standard text meaning users will not think to click on this, what do other users think of this new style --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugly Betty

I feel I should point out Template:Ugly Betty, which is in need of standardisation. If anyone familiar with them is willing to do so. Rehevkor (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Right-side templates

What are the recommendations for "right-side" templates? If any meta-template similar to {{navbox}} exists, it should be mentioned on this page. (I see a {{helpbox}}, which might be good, but it is not very heavily used.) After reviewing about ten recent featured articles (FAs) I found zero right-side navigational templates (as opposed to the footer boxes). Are they deprecated? --Kubanczyk (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This page currently is about navigational templates for article use. And yes, the discussions I have seen in different places the last few years all concluded that right-side nav templates should not be used in articles. Thus the {{History of China}} template that is currently used as a right-side example on this page should be converted to use {{navbox}} making it a footer box. (The problems with right-side navboxes are that they steal much of the screen area when viewing pages in low resolutions, like old computers with 800x600 resolution, and all of the screen area when viewed in hand held units, and that the right-side navboxes get read before the article when using screen readers (what blind people use).)
The {{helpbox}} template is for "Help:" and "Wikipedia:" pages and there we often use right-side "navboxes" like that. We could perhaps add a section to this page about nav template usage in other namespaces than articles, such as "Help:" and "Wikipedia:" pages.
Kubanczyk: Oh, and I saw today that you are going around doing lots of good clean-up and fixes to template related "Wikipedia:" pages. Thanks a lot! It is very much needed!
--David Göthberg (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I would gladly see some actual discussions that led to such consensus, I think deprecation of right-side nav boxes (even if deprecation is limited only to new articles) might be quite controversial. Maybe narrowing the deprecation to creating new boxes (allowing adding existing side boxes on newly created pages) will bring us to more "de facto" situation? This could be included in Wikipedia:Article series, which once used to be a guideline about it. --Kubanczyk (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Socket template

I created the Intel equivalent to the AMD CPU sockets template. Here:

It's my first template, so somebody make sure I did it right. vlad§inger tlk 21:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Presumably you refer to the {{Amdsock}} template. You might want to document your template on a subpage, per WP:DOC. For example, see {{Peak oil}} and Template:Peak oil/doc. You should categorize your template somewhere appropriate. You can add your category to the documentation subpage. Some users like to use the {{·}} template as an item separator rather than the "•" character. I'm not saying you should change yours, just be aware that someone else might change your template. --Teratornis (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Table?

Are (should) all sidebar-style navigation templates based on an HTML table? Can anyone point to any exceptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On Template talk:Bits is a debate about whether to navigate only to articles, or also to topics that (as yet) lack their own articles and are discussed within overview articles. Opinions? --Una Smith (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the proposal to deliberately include red links in a navigation box? I think that's a very bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
No, just the opposite. The proposal is to link to sections within other articles or, better, link to redirects that link to sections within other articles. --Una Smith (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It seems like it might be useful on occasion. In the instant case, I wouldn't want to comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Whatam. There is a much bigger issue here. Wise not to answer out of context. See Template_talk:Bits if you wish to understand the whole issue. Montanabw(talk) 04:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Make a guideline?

Since this page is referred to by WP:CLN, and because I don't think there is any dispute over the content of this page, I propose changing it from an essay to a guideline. Any comments? UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You might like to see WP:POLICY#Proposing_guidelines_and_policies. As this would most likely be a style guideline, you might also want to chat with the folks at WP:MOSCO. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I should have clarified: I know the process from WP:POLICY, I just wanted to give a heads up here that shortly I am going to kick that process off. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Fishery templates

The fishery articles use a number of fishery templates to form a somewhat hierarchical network across the articles. Since these have been installed, the traffic for fishery articles has much increased, particularly for the lower level articles. However, every now and then, someone comes along, and wants, usually without discussion, to introduce their own idea of layout, or simply removes templates or pushes them out of the way. Sometimes editors come along who seem malicious. Is there some forum where I can get these issues properly considered by capable editors without axes to grind? Would this be such a forum? --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate items on Navigation templates

Should the use of duplicate items (i.e. multiple separate names that link to the same article) be discouraged on navigation templates?

I am referring to where multiple distinct terms in a navigation template are links (redirects or piped) to the same article. For instance, this version of template:phobias, which encourages use of multiple names for the same item. (see the comment at the top, for instance AEROPHOBIA AND AVIATOPHOBIA BOTH REDIRECT TO "fear of flying"). I am not referring to cases like Template:Birth control methods, where the item links sometimes use alternative names, either as part of the name (Norplant/Jadelle) or as additional explanatory text. (The multiple names are part of or adjacent to the article link.)

My feeling is that it might be beneficial to discourage the use of duplicate article names in cases like the phobias template. This would help to keep the template small, it would help provide clear navigation (the goal is to indicate what articles are there - not confuse the reader into thinking that each item has its own article by providing several different routes to the same article).

If one is looking for an article by a particular name or term, it seems like search would be a better tool than using a navigation template like the phobias template.

This matter doesn't seem to be covered by this essay, but seems appropriate for possible inclusion. Thoughts/discussion? Thanks. Zodon (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of Navbox in articles not in the Navbox

I know that many users believe that a Navbox such as Template:Batman should be used for all articles dealing with that topic even ones that aren't included in the Navbox such as Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. Some people however have a problem with this. Since this issue is not clearly addressed in Wikipedia:NAV, I would like a consensus on the topic to be reached and if possible have this consensus added to Wikipedia:NAV.--Marcus Brute (talk) 06:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the issue that you think needs clarification? Perhaps you could post an example of what sort of consensus or position you think would be desirable. (Just as a starting point - a bit easier to say one agrees with this, or suggest refinements to that when there is a specific proposal to deal with, rather than a general topic.))
I don't think it should be mandated that articles on a topic covered by a navbox, but not listed in the navbox, must include the navbox. However it seems reasonable to give editorial leeway to include particularly apropos navboxes in an article, even if the article isn't listed in the navbox. (i.e. such usage should not be mandated, but it should not be prohibited). Zodon (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Example: Many Batman series such as Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and characters such as Killer Moth or Anarky are not included in Template:Batman. When adding this template such articles, it is often removed. After adding the template to Anarky specifically, I was contacted by another user saying that adding a navbox to an article not in the navbox is not allowed. The user also posted a hidden comment in the article stating "Please DO NOT add the "Template:Batman" footer to this article. As Anarky is not included within the template, its inclusion here is inappropriate. See WP:NAV. Note: "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles."
I believe that though Anarky is not in the template, it is still appropriate for the article. I do not seek to make the such additions of navboxes mandatory, I just do not think it should be prohibited. I wish for Wikipedia:NAV to reflect that this practice is allowed.--Marcus Brute (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything in the section cited that indicates that navigation templates have to link to the articles they are transcluded in (or that precludes transcluding them in articles they don't link to). Just that the articles on the template have to establish the relation between the items on the template. But people interpret things differently, perhaps the other editor should be invited to take part in this discussion, if they haven't been already.
The criterion for including the template in an article should probably be similar to the criterion for including the links as see alsos. If many of the links in the template would be appropriate as see also links from the article in question, then it may be reasonable to include the navigation template. Certainly such usage would be consistent with the part of this essay about advantages of navigation template over including the links separately in See also section. If only one or two of the links would be particularly apropos see alsos, then perhaps the links might be better included individually.
Certainly it is not infrequently done to include navigation templates in articles that are not linked to by the template. (See for instance {{Birth control methods}}, which is used on several pages about more specific methods, pages relating to contraception, etc.).
Seems not unreasonable to document the practice as acceptable. Zodon (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, as the referenced editor who removed the Batman template, and posted the hidden message, I should explain. I added the Batman template to the Anarky article several months ago, prior to nominating it for FA status. I was then informed that it was considered improper and, concerned that it could hinder an FA nomination, removed it and posted the hidden comment quoted above. I have since kept it off, citing what I believed to be the precluding statement on WP:NAV. I hadn't started a similar discussion then, and didn't think to now. Seeing that there is little actual opposition to it, I retract my objections and will gladly add the template myself. To avoid similar confusion in the future, I encourage that a statement be made that such issues are not mandated, and left to user discretion. --Cast (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like it might be worth checking the style guide or documentation relating to featured article nomination. Perhaps there is something there about this? (I haven't read much around there, but would be well to check to try to avoid conflicting documentation.) Zodon (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Navigation template problem also. There is a similar situation arising elsewhere as well wherein navboxes are not being directly used... see M of S for categories and lists. I have sought out a second opinion at Administrators' noticeboard Incidents and was referred here. There is one template Education by subject that is being extensively placed on any school any student union or any article that has "Education" in the title such as Education in Saskatchewan. It doesn't seem to help the article out. Template:Canada topics, Template:Canadian history, Template:New France have also been placed on a huge quantity of articles. Even small museums are getting the Canada topics template, and the museum will never be a topic of Canada....and is it worthwhile to substitute the template on each every article about Canada subjects with the Canada topics template? Many many many articles have been affected by the navbox placement in this case. SriMesh | talk 00:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Navboxes are supposed to provide navigation between related articles. To do that, the article where the navbox is transcluded must also be linked from the navigation box. In the example you give, the navbox is used as a pointer to Portal:Education, which should be done with {{Portal|Education}}. So basically, I'm in total agreement with Tombstone's comment at ANI: "my rule of thumb is if it is not in the navbox, then the navbox is not on the article (however there are a few reasonable exceptions)." --Amalthea 01:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    This is my point of view as well. An invitation for comment has also been extended to the original editor who placed nav boxes on many and several articles. SriMesh | talk 01:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
There has been no real guideline addressing the appropriateness (or inappropriateness) of certain navigational footer templates added to an article. The real dispute that needs to be spelled out would be:
1) when is it appropriate to add a template to an article when the article is not on the template; and
2) when is it inappropriate to add a template to an article when that article is on the template.
I don't have anything formally written up for the 2 exceptions, but I think that is where we should start and then develop a formal guideline from there. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I recently added infoboxes to a series of educational, organizational and museum profiles on wikipedia. In some cases, I added portals and references as well. Many of the original profiles were orphans with few or no links. There was a note on many of the profiles asking for help in adding material to the profiles. I added the template information with a view to standardizing the profiles and making them more useful. No offense was meant. Feel free to revise and or/or create guidelines as required. I recall that I earned a barnstar for adding infoboxes, references etc. to a series of Canadian university and college profiles at one point. Regards original editor

Putting more links in an article is not necessarily beneficial. Appropriate links to closely related material helps build the web, but there are also cautions about overlinking and overuse of templates. Adding a navigational template to an orphan doesn't improve the article in terms of it's orphan status (adding the orphan article to an appropriate navigation template would.)
The discussion above Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates#Use of Navbox in articles not in the Navbox also centers on the same question. Zodon (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a problem also for Template:Equine, formerly Template:Equidae, which was used on about 350 horse breed articles, horse tack articles, and miscellaneous other articles having something to do with horses. --Una Smith (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested guideline: "Navboxes may be placed on articles that are not included in the navbox, as long as all the links in the navbox could reasonably be included in a "see also" section. All articles which are listed in the navbox should transclude the navbox." These two sentences address Tombstone's two questions. If no one has a problem with the wording, I will add it to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. » Swpbτ • ¢ 18:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Template naming conventions

I've suggested standardizing template naming, at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#Template naming conventions. If you're frustrated with typing template names and constantly guessing at the right capitalization and spacing, please chime in. —Michael Z. 2009-01-10 17:50 z

Template:Equine

Formerly named Template:Equidae but recently moved to its current page name, Template:Equine has been used on hundreds of articles about horse breeds. The appropriate use of this navbox is the subject of a discussion on Template talk:Equine. More opinions have been requested. --Una Smith (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Politician's Navboxes

I would stongly suggest allowing the top bar on the navboxes on politician and gov't officials to have their flags and insignia or seal or coat of arms on them like the US Cabinet and the politicians of Canada and Israel! I want to establish concensus be for I do any further work b.c it is rather time consuming task to do. Bluedogtn (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fashion model templates

See discussions on fashion model templates at Talk:Sports_Illustrated_Swimsuit_Issue#End_the_sexism_now_-_Swimsuit_Issue and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion#End_the_sexism_now_-_Magazine_templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

To collapse or not to collapse

Here is an idea: To change the initial appearance of navboxes so by default, when anyone (on a desktop or laptop) visits a page containing two or more navboxes, they will all appear uncollapsed. However, anyone can change their personal settings so multiple navboxes will appear collapsed (as they do today). On mobile devices, all navboxes would appear collapsed by default, but could easily be opened. Sebwite (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not think this is such a good idea, since some navboxes are big, so arbitrarily saying that 2 or less will be uncollapsed is not helpful. Thanks for the idea though! Nasa-verve (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

New Navbox Standard Debate!

I think the Canadian and Israeli political office, the Champions Sports Teams, and major tournaments navboxes are being implemented with differing standards to the wiki navbox, and yet they all say it is because group consensus to their project but not to the wikipedia community as a whole. We need to set this in firm footing and not on quick sand where groups can arbitrairly userp the whole for the few. EX Stephen Harper, Tzipi Livni, Tiger Woods, Andre Agassi & Boston Celtics. I am not just picking on these but all of them because it is pervasive. USAAuthorityDC 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential merge if info

There is a discussion at Template talk:Smallville#Actors regarding the merging of all of the actors from this recently deleted template into the general Smallville nav box. Opinions are requested to arrive at a more sound consensus.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Linking to a section of an article

Is there any guideline for or against linking to a section of an article in a navigation template? For example, {{Leona Lewis}} currently contains a link to Run (Snow Patrol song)#Leona Lewis version and A Moment Like This#Leona Lewis version, but when the template is viewed on those pages, the links appear as normal rather than the bold, unclickable text that you should get when you view a template on a page that's linked within that template. I personally think it's better when it's bold and therefore links to sections should be avoided, but can anyone advise? Thanks. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Outlines navbox

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Infobox_outlines may interest some regular editors here. {{Infobox outlines}}, despite its name, is a large navbox used on a small number of pages developed as WP:OUTLINEs. One of the questions is whether navboxes, which serve (in part) the same function as ==See also== sections, are permitted to link to portals (like a ==See also== section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue that has to be worked out. I have recently created several navboxes linking various baseball articles together. My initial intention was to create a single large navbox listing all the baseball articles, but when I saw how many there were, I found it impractical to include them all in a single box. So I ended up creating several.

Th next problem was, I have been providing links between these navboxes within one another via a line (labeled as a "group") listing all the other baseball-related navboxes (on the "list" line). I see no guideline that prohibits this, and I actually feel this is important to do. The purpose of a navbox is to link together a group of articles in which the reader of one may be interested in reading the others. And the reader of an article found within one of these navboxes will almost surely want to read one or more articles found in some of the others. Hellno2 (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"A navigation template, navbox or topicbox is a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles." Navboxes link articles, not templates. A template is not an article. See also further down:
They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value. For navigating among many articles, consider:
  • Split them into multiple, smaller templates on each sub-topic. For example, {{EMD diesels}} lists all models of diesel locomotives built by one manufacturer, but is too large to be transcluded on each of their articles. Instead, the individual sections of {{EMD diesels}} were split out into their own templates: {{EMD GPs}}, {{EMD SDs}}, etc.
If you believe there should be a "parent template", for lack of a better term, for these topics, which are only tangentially related (they are all baseball topics but otherwise unrelated), then discuss it at the WikiProject's talk page. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I would also agree that templates should not be linked in this fashion. The format you created adds complete irrelevancies to articles, unless you can actually explain how a link to {{MLB awards}} is of any use or relevance to an article like Catcher. Templates exist to link like articles together. Linking to completely unrelated templates does not add value. Resolute Lest We Forget 22:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Resolutes reason is the exact reason why I dont think they should be there.--Yankees10 22:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, resolute also sums up why I don't think they should be there either. -DJSasso (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I also think that linking to navboxes is undesirable. Readers will expect the links to take them to content, and will be unpleasantly surprised if they end up in another navbox. Worse, poorly maintained navboxes could then have circular 'traps', which would be a nightmare for the reader.
I assume that the editor has a positive goal in mind; if that goal were better understood, I'm sure that someone could suggest a more appropriate system for meeting that goal. Perhaps, e.g., a link to a portal or a list could be considered. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
In response to all your comments:
1.) Obviously, I do have a positive goal. I want to make all the baseball-related articles easy to find and navigation between them to be user-friendly. Anyone who opposes this extra 1-line group being added to them should do so in the best interest of improving Wikipedia and not with the mentality of "I'm right, you're wrong."
2.) As stated above, they should be kept small in size, and if they get too large, should be split. That I agree with. That is exactly why I made several different baseball navboxes and not a single one. Earlier in the year, I made a similar football navbox, but it remained reasonably small enough that only one was needed (though this could change). But I found when I tried to do the same with baseball that several were needed.
3.) The guideline does state that navboxes are for the purpose of linking articles. But this still does not say that links to other navboxes should be excluded. Also, Please not that the word "articles" in the quote above is only bold-printed and italicized here in an attempt to influence people to comment against this way. This overemphasis runs afoul of WP:TPNO, which states "Be precise in quoting others."

Hellno2 (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And your implication that I am trying to sway people's votes is not appreciated and uncivil. I am merely pointing out that navboxes are for linking articles. Not other templates. Not other navboxes. Articles. Your comments above also insinuate that editors commenting on this discussion do not have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind while doing so. Improper. You seem to be the only one holding the view that this is an appropriate use of navboxes. Your presentation here of the guidelines at WP:TPNO is irrelevant. I have not quoted anyone; I have quoted a guideline. Emphasis can be added, though perhaps in hindsight I should have noted that the emphasis was mine. Regardless, your insinuation is again unfounded. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Cute little choice of words on your first argument. I might turn the question on you and ask if you are continuing to fight for this line on the same "I'm right, you're wrong" basis? While I have no doubt that you did this in the hopes of improving navigation, you have yet to show that this is an improvement to navigation over either the category structure, or a simple search. There are already expressed concerns that doing it this way actually hinders navigation, and could confuse readers. More simply, the changes you attempted also represented a significantly American viewpoint, as articles that focus on the generalities of baseball are intended to be global, but linking to the MLB templates only gives the North American major leagues undue focus here. Resolute Lest We Forget 03:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
A section labeled "Other baseball navboxes"[4] is definitely not a normal way of handling this. Additionally, I don't think that a link to a template actually makes the articles easy to find.
Hellno2, Is there any particular reason why simply stacking all of the (appropriate) navboxes at the end of the article isn't sufficient? Have you considered improving and linking to Portal:Baseball as an alternative? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

How do you make a new one?

Hm? Vidor (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

 

Index: pl ar de en es fr it arz nl ja pt ceb sv uk vi war zh ru af ast az bg zh-min-nan bn be ca cs cy da et el eo eu fa gl ko hi hr id he ka la lv lt hu mk ms min no nn ce uz kk ro simple sk sl sr sh fi ta tt th tg azb tr ur zh-yue hy my ace als am an hyw ban bjn map-bms ba be-tarask bcl bpy bar bs br cv nv eml hif fo fy ga gd gu hak ha hsb io ig ilo ia ie os is jv kn ht ku ckb ky mrj lb lij li lmo mai mg ml zh-classical mr xmf mzn cdo mn nap new ne frr oc mhr or as pa pnb ps pms nds crh qu sa sah sco sq scn si sd szl su sw tl shn te bug vec vo wa wuu yi yo diq bat-smg zu lad kbd ang smn ab roa-rup frp arc gn av ay bh bi bo bxr cbk-zam co za dag ary se pdc dv dsb myv ext fur gv gag inh ki glk gan guw xal haw rw kbp pam csb kw km kv koi kg gom ks gcr lo lbe ltg lez nia ln jbo lg mt mi tw mwl mdf mnw nqo fj nah na nds-nl nrm nov om pi pag pap pfl pcd krc kaa ksh rm rue sm sat sc trv stq nso sn cu so srn kab roa-tara tet tpi to chr tum tk tyv udm ug vep fiu-vro vls wo xh zea ty ak bm ch ny ee ff got iu ik kl mad cr pih ami pwn pnt dz rmy rn sg st tn ss ti din chy ts kcg ve
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Portal : Agama
Agama
Portal : Bahasa
Bahasa
Portal : Biografi
Biografi
Portal : Budaya
Budaya
Portal : Ekonomi
Ekonomi
Portal : Elektronika
Elektronika
Portal : Film
Film
Portal : Filsafat
Filsafat
Portal : Geografi
Geografi
Portal : Indonesia
Indonesia
Portal : Ilmu
Ilmu
Portal : Lingkungan
Lingkungan
Portal : Masyarakat
Masyarakat
Portal : Matematika
Matematika
Portal : Militer
Militer
Portal : Mitologi
Mitologi
Portal : Musik
Musik
Portal : Olahraga
Olahraga
Portal : Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Portal : Politik
Politik
Portal : Sastra
Sastra
Portal : Sejarah
Sejarah
Portal : Seni
Seni
Portal : Teknologi
Teknologi