Forum:T:NAVBOX

Opening Post
Alright, so over the past few years we've run into a few problems with navbox policies, or, really, the lack thereof. It's nothing particularly major, but I'd rather that we figure something out before massive problems are created, rather than after. I tried to look into other wikis to see if they had policies we could base our rules off of - my understanding is that much of our framework is derived from Memory Alpha's, iirc. All of the big wikis didn't seem to have any concrete policies, nor did the Mario wiki, Zelda, bulbapedia or tfwiki. (I'm just going to speculate here, but I think the reason other large wikis don't have the issue is the more simplified rights situations, combined with the relatively simple levels of fictionality each of them have to deal with in comparison to us.)

Wikipedia kinda does? They're essays, not official policies. I don't know if they're taken particularly seriously in the wiki editing sphere, but this is what I could find.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Navigation_template
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:A_navbox_on_every_page
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Not_everything_needs_a_navbox
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_template_creep

Now, obviously T:EVIL TWIN, even allowing for the fact that these aren't official policies, but this at least gives us a place to start. Before we do that, what precisely is the problem?

Some of the relevant history can be found at Talk:Scarlett Johansson and Template talk:Faction Paradox members, but the basic summary is that there has been disagreement as to whether an in universe connection is needed to place entities in the relevant navbox, such as Scarlett Johansson in the Marvel Comics navbox, given that the only story in which she's mentioned doesn't indicate her connection to Marvel. (This is true with Captain Marvel as well, lest you think it only applies to cast/crew.)

A related issue is that given that in DWU spinoffs, or even mainline BBC stories there's often thinly veiled versions of other characters. Do we put Astrolabus in ? If we create a navbox for The Master do we include Stream (The Hollows of Time) or The Man with the rosette? has a wild amount of speculation.

We don't have any clear precedent for this. And, let's be frank, I think there's good reason to argue either position.

So let's read through the essays and see if we can come to any sort of ground rules here.


 * 1) Choice selections from Essay 1.
 * 2) Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?
 * 3) They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value. For navigating among many articles, consider [splitting] them into multiple, smaller templates on each sub-topic.
 * 4) If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them.
 * 5) Essay 2.
 * 6) A navbox serves the function of a see also section, but does so more effectively by implying a one-for-one relationship with the other members of the set. More articles can be listed in a navbox. While a "see also" section cannot be practical in listing more than a handful of the most relevant articles, a navbox can list dozens of related articles that can be subdivided into their own sections.
 * 7) The typical navbox has and should have around 10–100 articles listed, though there is no blanket guideline on this number, and there are plenty of exceptions either above or below this range.
 * 8) [Don't create navboxes like] a listing of articles for which there is no reasonable theoretical limit to the numbers of articles that can be included. Some examples are a list of people who are notable for the same reason but otherwise have no connections.
 * 9) Essay 3
 * 10) A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the "rule of five": are there presently at least five articles (not counting the primary article) on which your navbox will be used?
 * 11) One indicator of usefulness is if an editor would otherwise be inclined to link many of these articles in the "See also" sections of the articles.
 * 12) Finally, keep overlap in mind. [If a potential navbox is a proper subset of another, just don't create it.]

Essay 4 is mainly just trying to explain how to reduce overcluttered navboxes, and we might need to discuss that, but, honestly, I don't think we do at this point. (If you want to, go off.)

I'm not sure that 1.3 is something we should adopt, but it's referenced as directly related to our discussion here. I think much of the rest is common sense, and is a set of standards we've largely informally adopted. Let's discuss the specific ways we could summarize these and formalize a policy for this wiki.

A: Treat navboxes as a "see also" (the specific context in which we interpret this is to be discussed in this thread). B: Require six other related articles (five + the article in question) in order to create a navbox. (Up for discussion as to the exact number, as we don't really use "see also" sections.) C: Make sure that there's some reasonable connection between the things in the navbox. It becomes a candidate for deletion if people think the criteria is too broad. D: Try to keep the number of entries in a single navbox below 100, splitting into smaller navboxes if it gets above that. E: Either don't create templates that are subsumed by others, or do what does, where the larger template will effectively link to the smaller template. (Obviously this can use work as I'm not sure this is optimal.) F: Maybe put a cap on the number of navboxes on a page if y'all want to do that.

I think the clear places where there's room for discussion and improvement are A, B, and E. B and E are self explanatory, but A gets to the heart of the disagreements that have previously existed. Do we interpret "see also" based on the context of an out of universe observer coming across the page, or someone who is interacting with page as it describes the in universe character? If the former, it seems we need them to be a relatively well informed observer in order for them to be aware of all the various navbox that could apply. EG: Marvel Comics on the Fourth Doctor's page. Alternatively, we could think of how a well observer would react to finding the linked pages on the navbox, and think of the navboxes as related bundles of concepts first and foremost. (As an example of the distinction, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that Jim Sheldrake is an Alan Moore expy when you read stories about him. However, nobody looking at a "DC comics" navbox would understand this, whereas the Fourth Doctor's connection to Marvel Comics is non obvious both from a cursory glance through his page (though a very detailed one will show this) as well as being on, say, Iron Man.)

If it's instead about in-universe connections between these things, is this specifically using our standards for writing articles? Or are we allowing "speculation", such as conflating Astrolabus/Auteur, etc. What's the standard here?

I'm not sure. Currently we seem to be applying an "in universe with speculation" standard, which, hey, we might want to continue. But at the very least it's best to make sure that we've written this up somewhere that new users aren't confused when they start trying to write navboxes. And I think there's a real possibility that we might decide that there's a better path forward.

Finally, and by no means least importantly, do we apply these rules to navigational sidebars as well? Do we modify them in any way? Najawin ☎  01:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Very good post Najawin. I, for one, agree with most of these rules but certainly not 1.3.

So I've been wanting to make a forum post kind of discussing this, but I have the personal opinion that our first job when it comes to writing articles and directing people around the website is making something that is most befitting to our readers. Creating something that will be helpful to people trying to navigate. And I feel we've instead developed a kind of ideological priority in sticking to rules we have on paper, even to the extent which makes the website not good. My main example is that some readings of T:NO RW involve refusing to make basic connections, such as that Paperback Writer is a song by the Beatles or that Spider sense is a reference to Spider-Man.

Functionally, something like Template:Marvel Comics exists for one reason. Marvel Comics fans are likely to end up on our website, where they'll become interested in what Marvel comics and franchises exist inside the Doctor's universe. If that's the case, they'll want to be directed to Scarlett Johansson to learn about who she is in-universe. Removing her from the navigation table doesn't really serve anyone in a positive way, it merely technically is accurate under a very slanted reading of our rules.

This is also why Captain Britain and Death's Head should be in the navbox, even though (as far as I know) we have sources about them being real people but no sources about them being "characters" in-universe.

Essentially, I think rule 1.3 actually is a direct contradiction of Rule 1.1. The highest priority should be "would a reader go between these two topics?" Not "Is this confirmed by a source?" A reader would indeed go from Stan Lee to Scarlett Johansson, so they should go together. (also keeping in mind that a "source" to wikipedia and a "source" to us are not the same thing, as measuring facts in reality is much more scientific and legitimate than measuring what concepts exist inside a fictional universe)

When it comes to characters and concepts which are implied but not confirmed, I think a "narratively ambiguous" variable is a good idea. Something that tells people "this isn't confirmed in-story, but was the implied intention." Thus this would be a good place to place Stream (The Hollows of Time) on a Master nav box.

I'm also worried about the concept of having an official rule of Navboxes being below 100, simply because I worry there will be cases where more than 100 is helpful. I think it makes more sense for us to say that there should be a practical amount and let users sort that out, because around here once a rule is written down it is followed even when there are situations where an exception is clearly justified.

The other rules seem very acceptable at a brief glance. OS25🤙☎️ 21:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Re: your concerns about D and deletion when it's passed 100, we can always do what I proposed with C as well, simply that it becomes a candidate for deletion at that time. Not that it's instantly dead.


 * As for "would a reader go between these two topics", the immediate question is "in which direction"? The issues with the Fourth Doctor and his relation to Marvel are illustrative here, as is the point about Sheldrake. We also have to ask about what the reader is valuing, since I can think of many readers that might be interested in Astrolabus if they're also interested in Auteur, and vice versa, but somewhat less so with Kelsey Hooper/Ceol. I think the question is just a bit too ambiguous to give us a clear line. Najawin ☎  22:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Well firstly, I think we should likely have a section of that template which directs to some page about the history of Doctor Who and Marvel being connected.


 * Secondly... I don't know why we can't just debate these in a case-by-case basis? Why do we need to have a rule written down, right now, which clarifies every single potential argument we could have? A rule as vague as "Will the reader naturally want to read article B after reading article A?" does sort this out. And in this case, I think most users reading about Spider-Man will not think "I need to read about the other famous Marvel character, the Fifth Doctor."


 * Or, hell, we can just qualify that the Fourth Doctor was never owned by Marvel? And that's enough to make the situation a non-issue? OS25🤙☎️ 22:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * As an example of my issue with the "100 topics" rule... Is Template:DWTV not a navigation template? And not only that, but one of the most important ones we have? Are you suggesting we instantly delete DWTV? OS25🤙☎️ 22:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * "Candidate for deletion" as opposed to "instantly dead" solves that issue, no? And I'm not quite sure you understand the issue with the Fourth Doctor. He's not merely a character published by Marvel, he also worked for Marvel in the DWU. So he's both analogous to Spiderman and to Stan Lee.


 * Which brings us to the next issue, why are you assuming that the people are seeing the template on Spiderman as opposed to on the Fourth Doctor? If people are interested in his relationship with Marvel and want to "see more", does there exist a template to help with this? Directionality matters. Are you proposing that those items in navboxes be only those that make sense for a hypothetical reader to associate with each other in any particular direction? Because this is precisely what this thread is trying to figure out, and why the vague rule you're suggesting doesn't work! Najawin ☎  22:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


 * But you have yet to answer my question: why is this debate relevant? Why does a rule need to be qualified which fixes this discussion and also every discussion to ever happen? This feels like a case-by-case thing where having a rule that fixes one or two arguments will really come back to bite us when we have a slightly different set of variables which cause a disagreement. OS25🤙☎️ 01:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't really understand the question. I've pointed to examples of issues that have existed, yes? They tend to fall along the same lines, so having a discussion about how to deal with the issues and finding a consensus is a good idea. Suggesting that we don't need rules pinned down and it should be a case by case thing is sort of like saying there should be no rules for categorization, or for what sources we consider valid, since by and large editors get the idea and we're not going to step on each other's feet. Like, sure, yeah, in general. But at the margin there's the potential for some pretty substantial disagreement and it can cause some massive headaches.

The argument you're making is just wildly overly broad, because it applies to any rule ever; you can always insist that things should be decided on a case by case basis, and while that's a wonderfully optimistic notion, the history of the wiki has shown that this isn't helpful. Just try it out with whether or not sources should be valid. It works precisely the same. And it's just as flawed an argument there as it is here. Najawin ☎  02:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I just don't understand what rule we could possibly write about Fourth Doctor /maybe/ belonging on a template about Marvel that could possibly have relevancy in any other debate. I'm not even sure what you're arguing in favor of? If it's in-favor of only allowing connections established within stories themselves, I think that's not a good idea. What rule are you pitching? OS25🤙☎️ 03:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I did write this up in my first response to you but deleted it because I thought I had misread you. The M.N's, where M, N are integers are summaries of the various essays. They are not things I am proposing. The X's, where X is a letter, are something I'm proposing as topics of discussion for this thread.


 * I specifically mentioned points A, B, and E as ones that could use discussion and workshopping, though you've also noted a point to tweak on D as well. I then go on to discuss all of the ways in which disagreements over A have caused disagreements prior. (I note here that the Sheldrake / Moore analogy is very similar to Stream / Master, so while you're pointing to one example you think doesn't work, let me point to another to show why this thread does have relevance. Also, to note, the Fourth Doctor is in, and he has been for years. So if you reject that he should be there then clearly this thread has relevance to your interests, since you want to revisit precisely the subject you think there's no need to have standardized rules for.) Najawin ☎  06:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the premise of this thread, that is that we should "create policies before the problems arise". In my view, we should create policies in light of issues so that we can be accurate about what issues there are - otherwise we're just speculating. Cousin Ettolrahc ☎  16:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * But problems have existed Etty. I've linked to a few. I created this to head them off at the pass before they balloon into massive issues. Najawin ☎  19:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that we need a policy on navboxes. I agree with A, specifically that "see also" should be based on the "context of an out of universe observer coming across the page". I also think that this should be a theoretically infinetly well informed observer: after all, we want to present new information to our readers; there's no point only highlighting connections they're likely to already know about. I also agree with B, and I think this is in practise already: I can't think of any navboxes anywhere near this size. C is another that I agree with and that I already feel is in practise. I strongly disagree with D. With sufficient categorisation within the navbox, large navboxes can be very beneficial for quickly moving between and enumerating related articles and I see very little reason to limit this. Movin on, the second option for E seems very reasonable. I disagree with F for similar reasons to D: I see very little reason to limit the potential for discovering related articles. Bongo50   ☎  19:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with Bongo. I agree with A, that we should treat navboxes as "see also". As Bongo says above, B and C are pretty much already followed. I strongly disagree with D too. It can be very hard to limit navboxes, otherwise you have to start creating new sets of rules as to what should/shouldn't be in each navbox, which could end up leading to more problems than the one we're attempting to solve. It can also be very hard to split things up into smaller topics when we only have the limited in-universe information available to us. Also agree with Bongo regarding E and F.


 * Regarding the whole in-universe/speculation side of things - I stated that we should treat navboxes as "see also". Could we not just use colour/categorisation to denote which information comes from in-universe and which comes from out-of-universe. I put together Template:Greater London. Note that This still needs some clean-up, as some locations have already been listed in the Category:London districts without specific DWU confirmation that such places are in London. The template includes the category "Real world locations unconfirmed in the DWU" which I coloured orange to denote that this relies on real world information, similar to how we place non-valid stories in a yellow category on Template:Master stories for example. This allows us to have all information present, while maintaining an in-universe perspective. I've currently suggested on Template:Greater London that users don't add the template to unconfirmed locations, but if we're going by a "see also" perspective (A), then it probably should be added to these unconfirmed pages. 66 Seconds ☎  08:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion
Right! (Sorry about the slight delays in this and other closing posts this week, I've been exceedingly busy.) Despite some friction, I think this was on the whole a fairly effective and straightforward thread.

I think discussion got a bit scattered, but at heart, the main contentious point with regards to navboxes on the Wiki is how they relate to T:NO RW. And I do think we have consensus to enshrine that they are not bound by it in terms of what they can or cannot include. Navboxes are placed in BTS sections; they very much act as "See also" sections from the perspective of an "infinitely well-informed out-of-universe observer". So, for example, Marvel Multiverse characters belong on even if they've never been depicted as appearing in the in-universe Marvel Comics.

As regards thinly-veiled stand-ins, I think that is best discussed on a somewhat more case-by-case basis. I can imagine cases where a thinly-veiled real-world counterpart should be included on a navbox including the real articles; people may be interested in seeing how we handled such a situation on the Jenny Everywhere Wiki, including thinly-veiled counterparts as parentheticals to the "real article". However, such cases should exclusively be used for analogues whose status is irrelevant to T:VS. Sheldrake/Moore is one thing; Auteur/Astrolabus is another entirely. Implied in-universe connections between DWU concepts which we refus to recognise for licensing-related reasons should never be included on navboxes. Stories starring Stream or the War King absolutely should not find themselves at (so long as we acknowledge neither as the Master elsewhere). This would be misleading to readers, as it would give the impression that we consider these stories to be appearances by the character to any degree.

User:66 Seconds's proposal to separate "unconfirmed" inclusions to their own section as tested at is interesting but at the end of the day, I just don't think it's more useful to readers than allowing these elements to be sorted with more precision based on other criteria: the likes of Captain Marvel, on the Marvel template is more informatively placed in the "Heroic characters" box, not in some "Not directly confirmed as Marvel characters in DWU" section at the opposite end of the navbox. In any case, 66 Seconds's proposal came too late in the thread to get sufficient discussion for me to even begin to feel comfortable proposing its implementation. On the flipside however, I don't believe it got a fair shake. Hence it is not here ruled against, as such: the demo on will be permitted to stay up, though not replicated on any other templates, until such a time as 66 Seconds decides to start a specific Panopticon thread proposing this change, if desired.

As regards the other proposed rules, I don't think there is much use in any official maximum or minimum cap. Due to our lack of "See also" sections it seems to me that even very small navboxes with three or four links might sometimes be justified; and "becomes a candidate for deletion" seems pointlessly strong a penalty for overgrown ones — I don't think there is ever a scenario where we'd benefit from outright deleting a navbox that's gotten too big. A navbox blowing past 100 links should just make us think about whether there are any obvious ways to disengorge it, whether it be by narrowing down its scope or by splitting off parts of it to their own interlinked navboxes, as done with vs. . Some 100+ navboxes like the Doctor Who TV stories one will always remain, And That's Okay.

The proposal to limit the number of navboxes on a given page is, I think pretty uncontroversially, rejected. Nobody seemed to actually want this.

As always, thank you to all who participated! Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 09:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)