This page is within the scope of WikiProject Templates, a group dedicated to improving the maintenance of Wikipedia's templates. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TemplatesWikipedia:WikiProject TemplatesTemplate:WikiProject TemplatesTemplates
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
Wanted to remind editors that this is an essay, and carries no weight in policy or guideline discussions aside from personal opinions. Since I have no idea what has been subtracted or added with the multitude of recent edits (tried to backtrack and gave up somewhere in the middle), instead of editing the page I'll just point out that, happily, this is an essay, more or less an editorial. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification on inclusion of images (WP:NAVIMAGES)
Hi all, the wording of WP:NAVIMAGES ("Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative" section) currently reads: Per MOS:DECOR, images are rarely appropriate in navboxes. Is the choice of the word "navboxes" here meant to exclude sidebars for some reason? Or does this apply to navigation templates in general? To me, the reasoning (MOS:DECOR) would seem to be as relevant, if not more so, to sidebars, but I've seen an editor claim otherwise. Some clarification here (and perhaps in the guideline itself) would be appreciated. R Prazeres (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't apply at all, this is an essay (as is WP:NAVIMAGES, while DECOR refers to icons and not navbox images) which some editors freely edit at will without much effort to debate the new additions. It is more or less an editorial. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that. Still, if it's possible to get some feedback from various editors on the general question of images in nav templates, it would provide a useful benchmark for discussion, in the absence of any official guideline.
After your clarification, it also seems clear that the reference to MOS:DECOR must have been intended to be a reference to MOS:PERTINENCE. Indeed, the images in nearly every navbox seem to be purely decorative in that sense and take up unnecessary additional space. R Prazeres (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A recent edit (diff) introduces (I think) the idea that a navigation template should not duplicate links in another template placed in the same section. That's more detail than procedural advice normally addresses, and I don't see how it would work. The whole point of a template is that it is (almost always) used in multiple articles. It's standard procedure that links in navigation templates are independent of links in the article. Is there an article where someone wants two templates in the same section with duplicate links? Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should a navigation template for a topic that collects all it's different segments in one template only include links to existing articles or should the non-existing articles be included as well? (eg. a singer nav list that includes all albums. Should only the articles for existing albums be included or every album by the singer regardless of the article exists or not. If so: Should the non existing article be included as (red) link or left unlinked? --D-Kuru (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, should include only albums which have articles unless the likelihood of someone creating an article is enhanced by a red link (and then only if the red link was added recently, older red links indicate that an article will probably not be quickly written although a red link for newer albums should be in place for enough time to assure that an article will or will not be provided by an interested editor). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tiny nav templates
I was considering taking Nav template {{Rural localities in Yakutsk City}} to Rfd, but I thought I'd stop by here first, and gauge opinion about templates like this one, which have only a handful of links. This one has six, and is also duplicated by Category:Rural localities in Yakutsk. If there are that few entries, especially if a category exists with the same list, do we need the Nav template? Or maybe just list them all in the article? Or a sidebar instead? What do others think? Mathglot (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of tangentially-related articles in navboxes
@Woodensuperman: In the edit summary to your last revert to the essay, you stated "You're missing point 1: 'All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.' Tangentially related articles would not come under this, and inclusion of tangentially related articles misses the entire point of a navbox." I am not missing WP:NAVBOX Criterion #1 for good navboxes; you are ignoring the implications of Criterion #5 and Advantages List Item #6, as well as conflating WP:NAVBOX's differing recommendations for navboxes and sidebars.
Criterion #1 only requires recommends that the articles included in navboxes be related to a single subject; it makes no recommendation for the degree of relatedness of the articles. Conversely, Criterion #5 states that "If not for [a] navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of [the] articles in the See also sections of the articles", while Advantages List Item #6 states that navigation templates "[mitigate] large 'See also' sections, potentially duplicated and out-of-sync among related articles." This implies that links articles that are related enough to be included in See also sections may also be included in navigation templates. However, MOS:SEEALSO states that "One purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics", and otherwise makes no specific recommendation for the degree of relatedness of the articles included and only recommends that they be related. What Criterion #5, Advantages List Item #6, and MOS:SEEALSO imply is that whatever the recommended degree of relatedness between articles for inclusion in navboxes is, it mustencompass be broad enough to include topics that are tangentially-related, and also that tangentially-related is not equivalent to unrelated given that related and tangentially-related are not defined in WP:NAVBOX, WP:CLNT, andWP:CLNT or MOS:SEEALSO.
This is further implied by WP:NAVBOX's recommendation that articles in sidebars but not navboxes be "tightly related", and by the relative prominence of placement sidebars, See also sections, andnavboxes, and categories are recommended to have in WP:NAVBOX, MOS:ORDER, and MOS:LEADELEMENTS, where: sidebars are recommended to be included before article content but not generally in lead sections, that See also sections are to be included second among appendices, and thatnavboxes are to be included at the end of articles but before categories. Thus, if an editor may include tangentially-related articles in a See also section, they must be allowed to include tangentially-related articles in a navbox. In turn, all WP:NAVBOX's suggestion that articles included in navboxes be more than loosely-related must imply is that the recommended degree of relatedness for articles included in navboxes is greater than categories or and lists, but and that tangentially-related is a stricter of an intermediate degree of relatednessthan to in between tightly-related and loosely-related given that tightly-related and loosely-related are also not defined in WP:CLNT either.
The Content section of WP:P&G requires that "Policy and guideline pages should…[b]e clear...as concise as possible–but no more concise... [and] [n]ot contradict each other… [because] [t]he community's view cannot simultaneously be 'A' and 'not A'.", while Accordingly, WP:POLCON requires that "If policy and/or guideline pages conflict, one or more pages need to be revised to resolve the conflict so all the conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice. As a temporary measure, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence." However, since WP:NAV is an explanatory essay under WP:SUPPLEMENTAL while WP:NAVBOX and WP:MOSis a are guidelines under WP:POLICIES, what WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, WP:POLCON, and WP:POLICIES imply is that WP:NAVBOX and WP:MOS take precedence over WP:NAV and that WP:NAV must be revised to be along the lines of WP:NAVBOX, WP:MOS, and other content policies and guidelines under WP:POLICIES where inconsistencies and ambiguities arise. So, per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and WP:DETCON, unless you can identify some other policy or guideline that suggests otherwise, it occurs to me that content you removed should be restored since your revert does not have a clear basis in policy. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. Firstly, item 1 states that All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject. the fact the text says "single" and "coherent" clearly implies the links should NOT be tangential, as tangential entries are not within the scope of links to a single and coherent subject.
You're misinterpreting the points regarding the see also sections. Navboxes should not be seen as replacements for see also sections, but complementary. Whilst it may be appropriate to include some of the links from a see also section, tangential links would only be appropriate on certain pages per WP:OVERLINK. We do not have to add everything from a see also section to a navbox. The introduction of tangential links to navboxes can mean that links from an article become further and further removed from the subject and irrelevant to a large number of pages that the navbox would be transcluded on.
This is an explanatory essay about how we apply guidelines in practice, and in practice tangential links are routinely removed. You are mistaken if you think this essay is at odds with the guideline, it is merely your personal interpretation that is at odds.
the fact the text says "single" and "coherent" clearly implies the links should NOT be tangential, as tangential entries are not within the scope of links to a single and coherent subject. You're misinterpreting the points regarding the see also sections. Nope. This is not an interpretation since understanding the language does not require some complicated textual analysis and only an understanding of basic grammar. Criterion #1 uses single and coherent as modifiers for subject rather than relate. What modifiers are used with respect to related in WP:NAVBOX and MOS:SEEALSO are tightly, tangentially, and loosely. Along with the reasons provided in my previous comment, this more strongly indicates that the links included in navboxes may be tangentially-related to the subject.
Navboxes should not be seen as replacements for see also sections, but complementary. ... We do not have to add everything from a see also section to a navbox. This concern would not justify removing the content I added, but rather making a minor modification to its wording where it said "one of the advantages of navigation templates is that they mitigate the size and need for See also sections".
Whilst it may be appropriate to include some of the links from a see also section, tangential links would only be appropriate on certain pages per WP:OVERLINK. After reviewing MOS:OVERLINK, the guideline only clearly provides recommendations for linking in the lead and body sections of articles rather than navboxes in light of its statement that "The purpose of linking is to clarify and to provide reasonable navigation opportunities, not to emphasize a particular word." Since it offers no guidance for the enhanced navigation provided by navboxes part of the end matter of articles, it does not appear to be relevant to the explanatory essay or this discussion. While MOS:UNDERLINK states "If you feel that a link is relevant to the topic of the article but does not belong in the body of an article, consider moving it to a 'See also' section", this language only further indicates that uses of tangentially-related and unrelated in the guidelines are not equivalent and does not clearly preclude the inclusion of tangentially-related topics in navboxes.
The introduction of tangential links to navboxes can mean that links from an article become further and further removed from the subject and irrelevant to a large number of pages that the navbox would be transcluded on. This is only really a concern when the subjects of navigation templates are so broad that they allow for such bloat and are not organized in such a way that they cannot be split into smaller templates. If tangentially-related articles are still related to an article, then the links are not irrelevant but should be given the lower prominence of placement in the article—which is what navboxes provide to a greater degree than See also sections per MOS:ORDER.
This is an explanatory essay about how we apply guidelines in practice, and in practice tangential links are routinely removed. If removal of tangential links is a routine community practice with support of a community consensus, it would be reflected explicitly in WP:NAVBOX and MOS:SEEALSO per the Content section of WP:P&G, WP:PGCHANGE, WP:CONLEVEL, and WP:NOTBURO rather than including ambiguous language that suggests that there are overlapping degrees of relatedness for article inclusion between See also sections and navboxes.
You are mistaken if you think this essay is at odds with the guideline, it is merely your personal interpretation that is at odds. ... I would suggest you seek consensus before trying to re-add your own misinterpretation of the guideline again. I believe that the content of your edit summaries and tone of your comment falls within the scope of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:NPA. Coupled with your edit summaries making no reference to a specific policy or guideline related to the content of explanatory essays, the language you are using is less focused on content on and more on me, and your suggestion for seeking consensus sounds more like a polite rephrasing of "Please do not make any more changes without...our approval" rather than following the actual process described in WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and WP:DETCON. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reviewing the edits you have been making over the last few months and I have serious concerns over how you seem to be misrepresenting how navboxes are used and implemented. I have asked for wider input at a couple of locations, hopefully others will chime in. --woodensuperman20:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Woodensuperman:I have been reviewing the edits you have been making over the last few months and I have serious concerns over how you seem to be misrepresenting how navboxes are used and implemented. … I see that issues with your unilateral rewrite have also been brought up before at Wikipedia talk:Navigation template/Archive 4#Large changes to the essay. … Perhaps these changes should be discussed one by one and consensus sought. I suggest we go back to the last good version and discuss here BEFORE making these changes.
Given the language of WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, my previous comments, and what was actually said in the previous discussion, it is unclear to me that your suggestion is actually necessary. With respect to the previous discussion, at least one of the other editors there acknowledged the validity of the WP:POLCON rationale I articulated for my edits to the essay. Also, in light of the decision to exclude navboxes from Wikipedia's mobile version per Phabricator Ticket T124168, there must be a community consensus disapproving of how navboxes are used and constructed in practice, so how they are used in practice under WP:EDITCON should not given great weight in the essay per WP:CONLEVEL if the Wikimedia Foundation had to intervene in community decision-making and took a content policy decision out of the community's purview.
More importantly, WP:SUPPLEMENTAL explicitly states that: "Informative and instructional pages are… not policies or guidelines themselves, [but] they are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms. Where essay pages offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, information pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia impartially." What this implies is that if the content of explanatory essays exist not strictly as a clarification but as a supplement (i.e. an addendum) to a policy or guideline, the content must still conform to the requirements of WP:P&G's Content section, WP:POLCON, and WP:POLICIES since the explanatory essay would be articulating additional required standards or recommended best practices beyond what the policy or guideline it seeks to supplement explicitly states or implies given the requirement of WP:P&G's Content section that policies and guidelines not contradict each other.
However, considering the language of WP:POLICIES and WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, my guess is that explanatory essays probably only exist for the purpose of clarification and not as a supplemental addendum for additional required standards and recommended best practices. If that is the case, then part of the purpose of an explanatory essay must be to articulate the relationship between the policy or guideline it seeks to clarify and all other policies and guidelines with which it could potentially come into conflict since, considering the requirement of WP:P&G's Content section for concision in policy and guideline language, there may be no explicit language articulating those relationships in the policy or guideline itself that providing provides direction to editors to avoid creating policy-violating or guideline-inconsistent guideline-conflicting content. While explanatory essays may provide advice, the content still needs to be consistent with current policies and guidelines.
Following WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, all of the changes I have made to the explanatory essay link to specific policies and guidelines and have only been an attempt to articulate the relationships between WP:NAVBOX and other policies and guidelines. Thus, you have still not articulated a clear policy-based rationale for your reversion or proposed removal of the content I added to the essay per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:DETCON, or WP:CONBUILD, while my edits and arguments here have been entirely policy-based. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting that the essay should match the advice given in the guidelines, the spirit of the guidelines, common practice and common sense. However I don't believe what you are doing achieves this, but actually causing more inconsistency and contradiction. Your distillation of points 1, 5 and 6 (ignoring point 3) to suggest that we all of a sudden now allow tangential links is misguided and is merely your own interpretation, not the interpretation, or implementation of the guidelines by the rest of the community.
For this reason, we need to revert to the status quo, and discuss the merits of your proposed changes on a case by case basis. This way, we can all have some input, rather than you unilaterally interpreting the guiudelines in your own way. As pointed out by others, this diff makes no sense at all.
It would be useful if you created a section for each proposed change, so that the responses do not get too long-winded or off-topic, and keep the discussion concise.
I tend to agree with editor Woodensuperman that this edit (a revert) by editor Randy Kryn was warranted and should be upheld. We've seen many articles with four and more navbars that each show the article's title in bold. That means there will be other links in those navbars that are duplicates of links in associated navbars and probably of article links as well. So that paragraph should be reverted as impractical, indeed impossible, to enforce. I've not closely analyzed your other edits, so I won't speak to those; however, this particular entry is not feasible. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 09:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Woodensuperman: In light of your maintained position throughout this discussion, I don't see why there is a need to discuss this further. Clearly, nothing I've said has changed your mind and nothing else I say probably will. Like many long-time editors who hold inflexible opinions about how Wikipedia should work and collectively assert ownership over this project, the only really change to how the project works would have to be imposed on it from the outside—which isn't going to happen since the Foundation presumably won't do so. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not always easy to tell the difference between ownership and stewardship. And there are better ways to deal with disputes than cutting off communication or making ownership accusations. I sincerely hope you will pursue those resolutions if you want to and for the sake of the WP project. Sometimes the biggest arguments result in the best improvements!P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 20:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not always easy to tell the difference between ownership and stewardship. If Woodensuperman's actual aim is stewardship and that the explanatory essay be consistent with the language and spirit of WP:NAVBOX and other content policies and guidelines (P&Gs), it is unclear how they could also believe that what I added to the essay caused greater inconsistency and contradiction with WP:NAVBOX and other P&Gs and instead only reflected my personal interpretation of the P&Gs considering that the content that I added to the explanatory essay followed the language of WP:NAVBOX and other P&Gs as closely as possible and also included links to those P&Gs so that it was clear where the language that was added originated from.
Coupled with what I have already said in this thread about how WP:SUPPLEMENTAL recommends that explanatory essays not articulate additional required standards or recommended best practices, it is likewise unclear to me that if stewardship was Woodensuperman's aim why they would continue to insist that the explanatory essay continue to reflect existing community practices not clearly articulated by WP:NAVBOX or other guidelines. As I noted before with respect to common community practices and the inclusion of tangentially-related links in navboxes specifically, If [something] is a routine community practice with support of a community consensus, it would [already] be reflected explicitly in [policies and guidelines] per the Content section of WP:P&G, WP:PGCHANGE, WP:CONLEVEL, and WP:NOTBURO.
If stewardship was Woodensuperman's actual aim, they would only be taking issue with the wording of the content rather than its substance (which is what the actual objection appears to be). As such, I do not believe that their opposition to the inclusion of the content I added to the explanatory essay can be understood as stewardship but as ownership, and that their request that every contribution I made be reviewed on a case-by case basis is being tendered so that the WP:CON policy can be abused like the filibuster to reject each individually. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm taking issue with is your unilateral decision to change an essay that has been stable for some time without any discussion. I disagree with your interpretation, as do others (see the edit summary of this diff for example, and an earlier discussion regarding your changes). It is clear from this that you do not have community consensus for these changes, since they keep being reverted. Therefore it would be best if you proposed any change here, rather periodically trying to make the changes that fit your personal view. --woodensuperman13:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm taking issue with is your unilateral decision to change an essay that has been stable for some time without any discussion. Per WP:PGCHANGE, this is not a policy-based complaint.
I disagree with your interpretation, as do others (see the edit summary of this diff for example, and an earlier discussion regarding your changes). It is clear from this that you do not have community consensus for these changes, since they keep being reverted. The only other editor you are referring to that has raised objections and has been reverting is Randy Kryn. Only one other editor in the previous discussion actually took some issue with the content that I added but only with the wording of what was added and not the substance. Perhaps you should actually read what was said in the previous discussion.
Therefore it would be best if you proposed any change here, rather periodically trying to make the changes that fit your personal view. Again, the ownership attitude. As a counterexample, consider the following change: "Avoiding repeating links to the same article within a template" to "As navigation templates include embedded lists, duplicate links within a template are permissible where it aids the reader" following the explicit text of MOS:REPEATLINK ("Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader") and MOS:EMBED's designation of navigation templates as embedded lists ("Embedded lists are lists used within articles that supplement the article's prose content. They are included in the text itself or appended, and may be in table format. Wikipedia uses several standard appendices, usually in list format, as well as navigational templates.")
As such, how could "As navigation templates include embedded lists, duplicate links within a template are permissible where it aids the reader" possibly be my personal view? That's what MOS:REPEATLINK and MOS:EMBED explicitly say and clearly imply. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, you clearly didn't read the diff did you, where Drdpw reverted you with the edit summary "You should not just change things to fit your views/wishes".
And if you want to discuss a proposed change, I really think it would be better if you kept it concise and in its own section, as it will just get lost in this massive wall of text here. --woodensuperman15:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, you clearly didn't read the diff did you, where Drdpw reverted you with the edit summary Yeah, I didn't bother looking at the diff since I assumed to you were just reiterating Randy Kryn's complaint. As for Drdpw's, considering that he didn't cite any content policy or guideline for his revert's edit summary (just like he typically doesn't), I simply restored the content.
And if you want to discuss a proposed change, I really think it would be better if you kept it concise and in its own section I didn't mention the example before as a proposal; I cited it to show that your argument that the changes I made are based upon a personal interpretation of policy and guideline text is not actually based on what the content of the policies and guidelines say (regardless of how many other editors may share your view). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's some irony in your accusing woodensuperman of filibustering here: you have contributed about two thirds of the text in this discussion and made three times as many edits to this section as everybody else put together without, so far as I can see, managing to persuade anybody to your point of view. You would do well to be a lot more concise and use a lot less random italics – it's really hard to even follow what points you are trying to make in places!
FWIW, I also agree with woodensuperman that we shouldn't be encouraging the inclusion of tangentially-related articles in navboxes: personally I suspect that more navboxes would be improved by having links taken out of them than by having more tangentially-related links put in. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I also agree with woodensuperman that we shouldn't be encouraging the inclusion of tangentially-related articles in navboxes: personally I suspect that more navboxes would be improved by having links taken out of them than by having more tangentially-related links put in. Per WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, that is not for the explanatory essay to say. If you both feel that excluding tangentially-related articles from navboxes is a best practice, then WP:NAVBOX itself is what needs to be amended to say that explicitly since WP:NAVBOX's Criterion #5 for good navboxes, Advantages List Item #6, and MOS:SEEALSO clearly imply that it is not a completely discouraged practice despite what Disadvantages List Item #7 says. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like WP:LAWYER and WP:TEXTWALL, WP:BLUDGEON is only an essay. Nevertheless, violating all of them is unlikely to do much to persuade anybody to your side.
Per WP:SUPPLEMENTAL, that is not for the explanatory essay to say I never suggested otherwise.
WP:NAVBOX's Criterion #5 for good navboxes and Advantages List Item #6 clearly imply I do not read either of those points as encouraging the inclusion of tangentially-related links, and apparently nor does anybody else in this discussion other than you. Even if they do clearly imply something, I don't see why this particular implication is one which is important to include here (as opposed to, say, the clear implication of WP:NAVBOX§Disadvantages #7 that including tangential links in navboxes is undesirable). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested otherwise. Then there was no reason for you to say I also agree with woodensuperman that we shouldn't be encouraging the inclusion of tangentially-related articles in navboxes on the talk page for the explanatory essay per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC.
I do not read either of those points as encouraging the inclusion of tangentially-related links, and apparently nor does anybody else in this discussion other than you. Even if they do clearly imply something, I don't see why this particular implication is one which is important to include here (as opposed to, say, the clear implication of WP:NAVBOX§Disadvantages #7 that including tangential links in navboxes is undesirable). Well, it's hardly my fault that the other editors willfully interpret ambiguous language differently than I do, but that just reiterates the issue with the language in WP:NAVBOX saying that good navboxes include links that would otherwise be included in See also sections per Good Navbox Criterion #5, and encouraging the use of navboxes for the purpose of mitigating large See also sections per Advantages List Item #6, as well as MOS:SEEALSO explicitly stating that "One purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". Also, what Disadvantages List Item #7 actually says is that navigation templates "Can take up too much space for information that is only tangentially related", which only clearly implies that including tangentially-related links becomes a problem when a navigation template becomes too large (which I've already noted in this discussion). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SEEALSO might say that, but that does not mean that we extend this to navboxes. A tangential link might be appropriate on a "see also" section on one specific page, but that does not mean that this irrelevant link should then be included on every page the navbox is transcluded on. You're the one that is wilfully (mis)interpreting ambiguous language to make two and two equal five. --woodensuperman11:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
