Template talk:Navboxseasonalevents

From GodWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Massive structure

I... would argue against this, TBH.

It's important to remember the point of a navbox, which is stated most succinctly and directly at WP:NAVBOX:

Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia.

The important point to this is implicit: A navbox should be transcluded on every single page it links to, in order that it may serve its purpose. Any linked article that doesn't also transclude the navbox that linked to it is, effectively, a broken navigational link, a dead-ending that breaks the function of the navbox.

That aspect is often lost sight of by creators of overly-inclusive navboxes, which strive to pull in too many articles — they end up not getting placed on all of those pages they link to. (This has come up as an issue on Wikipedia itself, too.)

So, long story short, I would argue for three separate navboxes, one for each category, with only the relevant one(s) placed on the articles linked to. There's no reason all three of those categories need to exist as a single meganavbox. If we want, an overarching "Seasonal events" article can cover all three types, and transclude all three navboxes at the end. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(Categories are also excellent for navigation between large collections of more loosely-related articles, and all of the seasonal event related articles could certainly be added to a Category:Seasonal events. That would serve to relate them better, and less obtrusively, than MegaNavboxOfDoom.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Having had a read of the wp:navbox link there I definitely see what you mean. I've an idea to break it into better chunks. Thanks for the advice :) -- Djonni (talk) 14:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Entry classifications

I'm also going to argue even more strongly against the article-classifications, and especially their links, in the navbox.

  • Nobody is really served by (game feature) links to a category as massive and inclusive as Category:Gameplay. It can just read (game feature), if it needs to be included at all. (I would argue it doesn't need to be, tho.)
  • Aura of Confusion (aura) is just silly and redundant. "Yes, they know it's an aura!"[1] –Bruce Willis in The Fifth Element


  1. (It was actually a Multipass)

-- FeRDNYC (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Great reference ;)
Yeah, the classifications were in the original {{Navboxhalloween2012}} and I continued them, but I agree. I was teetering on removing them already. I'll explode them. -- Djonni (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
The slightly more Wikipedish (it's a word now!) way to do that kind of classification thing, if not using separate rows with sub- or sub-subheads per grouping, would be entries like (for Halloween 2018)
...and so on.
But even that's only generally done when the "container" is a linked article that's related to the navbox, not merely a classification, and the articles contained in the parens are all articles related not only to the navbox, but to their container-article.
See e.g. some of the entries in Template:Avengers, like the Film entry "Marvel's The Avengers (accolades • soundtrack)" — there, Marvel's The Avengers links to The Avengers (2012 film), "accolades" links to List of accolades received by The Avengers (2012 film), and "soundtrack" links to The Avengers (soundtrack).
Outside of those sort of cases, typically unless there are enough articles of a particular type to warrant separating them into their own row with a sub- or sub-subhead (Like "TV", "Film", and "Video games" under "In other media"), the article names are just allowed to stand on their own, and are assumed to provide enough information to at least let readers decide whether they want to click and read more about their subjects. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)