It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
Shortcuts
WP:NBFILL
WP:ANOEP
This page in a nutshell: Navbox templates can be useful as a tool for navigation.
This essay explains the benefits of navboxes (navigation boxes), and explains the goal of placing navboxes on all articles where they could be useful. The essay suggests strategies for achieving that goal.
Benefits of navboxesedit
On Wikipedia, a navbox is a template that lists at least several and sometimes hundreds of pages that are related. The relationship between all the articles in a single navbox is such that the reader of the current article will be readily referred to other related material with a single link.
While a navbox may appear redundant to a category or list, it is not the same as a single category, a group of categories under one parent category, or a list.
Each section of a navbox may seem to be a carbon copy of a category or list, but that is not always the case, and in many cases, the navbox "categories" do not reflect Wikipedia's custom for creating and organizing categories or for lists.
the navbox is not a mechanical grouping of all articles that fit within a single classification, as categories often are. rather it is a selective compilation of articles with actual signficiance to the main topic at hand.
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.
Navboxes also help provide more links to articles listed within. Wikipedia has numerous orphans (articles with few pages linking to them). The main drawback to an article being an orphan is that few people know it exists, and there are few ways for it to be found and therefore improved. When an article is added to a navbox, in most cases, it is instantly de-orphaned.
The success of navboxes can be seen in this (uncontrolled) study of this navbox, which has shown that in the month following its creation, readership of the articles contained within increased by 8.5% (an average of 406 views per article) and editing of these pages increased by 37% from the month prior to its creation.
The goaledit
The goal is to have a navbox in every article that the reader might find useful. This would apply generally to articles in main namespace. Navboxes can also be used to link certain types of project pages (including essays, policies, and guidelines). Disambiguation pages and lists are exempt, though they may be used on some of these pages when editors agree.
Navboxes should not be placed in user space, on talk pages, on category pages, or in redirects.
There was a proposal to place one or more navboxes in every article, but it did not succeed.
There is no deadline to achieve this goal.
How to achieve this goaledit
There are various ways you can work to achieve the goal of having a navbox in every page.
Before you startedit
Before you start, one rule you should know is that an article should only be placed in a navbox if it truly belongs there. No one should go out of their way to place an article in an existing navbox if it appears incongruous.
Likewise, no navbox should be created just to accommodate a single article. A navbox should only be built if there is an existing group of articles in which a person who reads one is likely to want to read the others.
Identifying articles in neededit
There are many ways you can find articles lacking navboxes. You may know of some already because you have created, edited, or just read them. You can search for articles by using the random article tab. Or you can search categories to your interest for possible articles that can be placed in an existing navbox covering that category, or one that you plan to create.
Creating navboxesedit
Before you create a new navbox, you should first try to determine if one covering that subject is really useful or needed. If you feel it is, you can go ahead.
Also, make sure that there is not a nearly identical navbox that already exists. In some cases, it may be more practical just to add more listings or even one or more new groups to an existing navbox. More likely, if you do not see one on any of the pages you plan to include in one, it is out there to be created.
Regardless, there are no blanket guidelines for when to create or expand a navbox. It is all a personal judgment call.
How to create a navboxedit
In order to create a navbox, you must be a logged in registered user, just as if you were creating an article. There is no minimum to the number of edits you must have, and you do not require any type of special status, though you must have knowledge in the wiki format. If you are editing an existing navbox, you do not need to be registered or logged in unless it is semi-protected.
For detailed instructions on creating a navbox, see Help:Template. Or you can just copy and paste the wiki text from an existing navbox, and then replace its unique information with that which you plan to add to your new navbox. But if you copy-paste, be sure to replace everything as necessary, including its categories, or else the new navbox will have some elements that do not make sense. Even if you do not copy-paste, just studying the wiki text can help you learn navbox construction.
Navboxes to createedit
Navboxes can be created to list groups of related articles. While categories can be used to help find these related articles, they do not have to be followed exactly. Please note that a navbox must be a listing of articles, and though a few red links that represent potential articles are acceptable, a navbox is not a directory of non-notable listings that have little or no potential to ever become articles.
Some examples of possible navbox topics can be:
A broad concept and all the articles in that concept
A group of jurisdictions contained within a larger geographic area
A listing of all of something within a jurisdiction, especially when that place is well known for that item
A company, listing all its key people, products, services, and other related articles
A band, listing all its members, albums, songs, and other related articles
A sports team, listing all its members and other related articles
Groups of living species within a larger group in which they are contained
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.
If a navbox grows to be so large that it cannot be seen in full on a standard sized computer screen, it should be split into two or more navboxes with links to one another within. Until it is split, it should be autocollapsed so it can only be viewed when the "show" link is clicked.
Navboxes not to be creatededit
While it can be frustrating when you cannot think of a good navbox in which to fit an article, there are some navboxes that are not recommended or should absolutely not be created. These include:
A collection of targeted redirects or piped entries to portions of the same single article. While these may make up some of the listings on a navbox, and doing so is often beneficial, a navbox should not be redundant to the table of contents of a single page.
A collection of red links that will likely always remain as such. It is acceptable to include some red links in a navbox that may become future articles, and this is actually encouraged, since it lets others know what articles are yet to be created. But a navbox should not be a collection of titles that will probably never be notable enough to have articles or will not be for many years ahead given the pace of creation.
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, or companies within the world or a country providing the same products or services.
A collection of minimally related subjects. For example, people who are notable for having committed the same type of crime in unrelated incidents.
A very small collection of articles that can be counted on the fingers of one hand for which that is the limit. It is preferable, instead, to find a broader category to create a navbox about, or to add such a listing to one that already exists.
Multiple navboxes on a pageedit
There is theoretically no limit to the number of navboxes that can be placed in a single article. There are many articles that have several. This has advantages and disadvantages.
Some advantages to having two or more navboxes on a page are:
More links to the article from others
More pages that it is possible to navigate to from the one on which it is placed
Disadvantages to having two or more navboxes on a page are:
All navboxes will appear "autocollapsed," requiring them to be opened to read
If the navboxes were created or added by different users, edit warring can occur over whose navbox is more important and therefore should be listed first
The size of the navbox tends to increase, sometimes substantially.
See alsoedit
Wikipedia:Avoid template creep — An essay on navbox overuse.
Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections — When the end of an article is cluttered with navigation templates, it often amounts to little more than a "trivia section", which should be avoided.
Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox — One of the ways to fight template creep is to stop making so many templates.
Wikipedia:You don't have to be mad to work here, but#The chamber of frames — The possible motivation of navboxers
External linksedit
Automatic Navbox Generation by Interpretable Clustering over Linked Entities — Describing approaches to automatically construct Navboxes.
v
t
e
Wikipedia essays (?)
Essays on building, editing, and deleting content
Philosophy
Article content
Articles must be written
All Five Pillars are equally important
Avoid vague introductions
Be a reliable source
Civil POV pushing
Cohesion
Competence is required
Concede lost arguments
Dissent is not disloyalty
Don't lie
Don't search for objections
Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country
Editors will sometimes be wrong
Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia
Explanationism
External criticism of Wikipedia
Here to build an encyclopedia
Leave it to the experienced
Levels of competence
Most ideas are bad
Need
Neutrality of sources
Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction
The one question
Oversimplification
Paradoxes
Paraphrasing
POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
Process is important
Product, process, policy
Purpose
Reasonability rule
Systemic bias
There is no seniority
Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia
Tendentious editing
The role of policies in collaborative anarchy
The rules are principles
Trifecta
Wikipedia in brief
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
Wikipedia is a community
Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Article construction
100K featured articles
Abandoned stubs
Acronym overkill
Adding images improves the encyclopedia
Advanced article editing
Advanced text formatting
Akin's Laws of Article Writing
Alternatives to the "Expand" template
Amnesia test
A navbox on every page
An unfinished house is a real problem
Articles have a half-life
Autosizing images
Avoid mission statements
Be neutral in form
Beef up that first revision
Blind men and an elephant
BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
Build content to endure
Cherrypicking
Chesterton's fence
Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books
Citation overkill
Citation underkill
Common-style fallacy
Concept cloud
Creating controversial content
Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability
Deprecated sources
Dictionaries as sources
Don't demolish the house while it's still being built
Don't get hung up on minor details
Don't hope the house will build itself
Don't panic
Don't "teach the controversy"
Editing on mobile devices
Editors are not mindreaders
Encourage the newcomers
Endorsements (commercial)
Featured articles may have problems
Formatting bilateral relations articles
Formatting bilateral relations templates
Fruit of the poisonous tree
Give an article a chance
How to write a featured article
Identifying and using independent sources
History sources
Law sources
Primary sources
Science sources
Style guides
Tertiary sources
Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats
Inaccuracy
Introduction to structurism
Mine a source
Merge Test
Minors and persons judged incompetent
"Murder of" articles
Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography
Not everything needs a navbox
Not everything needs a template
Nothing is in stone
Obtain peer review comments
Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area
Permastub
Potential, not just current state
Presentism
Principle of Some Astonishment
The problem with elegant variation
Pro and con lists
Printability
Pruning article revisions
Publicists
Put a little effort into it
Restoring part of a reverted edit
Robotic editing
Sham consensus
Source your plot summaries
Specialized-style fallacy
Stub Makers
Run an edit-a-thon
Temporary versions of articles
Tertiary-source fallacy
There are no shortcuts to neutrality
There is no deadline
There is a deadline
The deadline is now
Try not to leave it a stub
Understanding Wikipedia's content standards
Walled garden
What an article should not include
Wikipedia is a work in progress
Wikipedia is not a reliable source
Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion
The world will not end tomorrow
Write the article first
Writing better articles
Writing article content
Avoid thread mode
Copyediting reception sections
Coup
Don't throw more litter onto the pile
Gender-neutral language
Myth vs fiction
Proseline
Use our own words
We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions
Write the article first
Writing about women
Writing better articles
Removing or deleting content
Adjectives in your recommendations
AfD is not a war zone
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews
Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions
Arguments to make in deletion discussions
Avoid repeated arguments
Before commenting in a deletion discussion
But there must be sources!
Confusing arguments mean nothing
Content removal
Counting and sorting are not original research
Delete or merge
Delete the junk
Deletion is not cleanup
Does deletion help?
Don't attack the nominator
Don't confuse stub status with non-notability
Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument
Follow the leader
How to save an article proposed for deletion
I just don't like it
Identifying blatant advertising
Identifying test edits
Immunity
Keep it concise
Liar liar pants on fire
Nothing
Nothing is clear
Overzealous deletion
Relisting can be abusive
Relist bias
The Heymann Standard
Unopposed AFD discussion
Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole
Why was the page I created deleted?
What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion
When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork
No Encyclopedic Use
Essays on civility
The basics
Accepting other users
Apology
Contributing to complicated discussions
Divisiveness
Don't retaliate
Edit at your own pace
Encouraging the newcomers
Enjoy yourself
Expect no thanks
High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors
How to be civil
Maintaining a friendly space
Negotiation
Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors
Please say please
Relationships with academic editors
Thank you
Too long; didn't read
Truce
Unblock perspectives
We are all Wikipedians here
You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy
A weak personal attack is still wrong
Advice for hotheads
An uncivil environment is a poor environment
Be the glue
Beware of the tigers!
Civility warnings
Deletion as revenge
Failure
Forgive and forget
It's not the end of the world
Nobody cares
Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals
Old-fashioned Wikipedian values
Profanity, civility, and discussions
Revert notification opt-out
Shadowless Fists of Death!
Staying cool when the editing gets hot
The grey zone
The last word
There is no Divine Right of Editors
Most ideas are bad
Nothing is clear
Reader
The rules of polite discourse
There is no common sense
Two wrongs don't make a right
Wikipedia clichés
Wikipedia is not about winning
Wikipedia should not be a monopoly
Writing for the opponent
Dos
Assume good faith
Assume the assumption of good faith
Assume no clue
Avoid personal remarks
Avoid the word "vandal"
Be excellent to one another
Beyond civility
Call a spade a spade
Candor
Deny recognition
Desist
Discussing cruft
Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
Encourage full discussions
Get over it
How to lose
Imagine others complexly
Just drop it
Keep it concise
Keep it down to earth
Mind your own business
Say "MOBY"
Mutual withdrawal
Read before commenting
Settle the process first
Don'ts
ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI
Civil POV pushing
Cyberbullying
Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack
Don't be a fanatic
Don't be a jerk
Don't be an ostrich
Don't be ashamed
Don't be a WikiBigot
Don't be high-maintenance
Don't be inconsiderate
Don't be obnoxious
Don't be prejudiced
Don't be rude
Don't be the Fun Police
Don't bludgeon the process
Don't call a spade a spade
Don't call people by their real name
Don't call the kettle black
Don't call things cruft
Don't come down like a ton of bricks
Don't cry COI
Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify
Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid
Don't eat the troll's food
Don't fight fire with fire
Don't give a fuck
Don't help too much
Don't ignore community consensus
Don't knit beside the guillotine
Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature
Don't remind others of past misdeeds
Don't shout
Don't spite your face
Don't take the bait
Don't template the regulars
Don't throw your toys out of the pram
Do not insult the vandals
Griefing
Nationalist editing
No angry mastodons
just madmen
No Nazis
No racists
No Confederates
No queerphobes
No, you can't have a pony
Passive aggression
POV railroad
Superhatting
There are no oracles
There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns
You can't squeeze blood from a turnip
UPPERCASE
WikiRelations
WikiBullying
WikiCrime
WikiHarassment
WikiHate
WikiLawyering
WikiLove
WikiPeace
Essays on notability
Advanced source searching
All high schools can be notable
Alternative outlets
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
Articles with a single source
Avoid template creep
Bare notability
Big events make key participants notable
Businesses with a single location
But it's true!
Common sourcing mistakes
Clones
Coatrack
Discriminate vs indiscriminate information
Don't cite GNG
Drafts are not checked for notability or sanity
Every snowflake is unique
Existence ≠ Notability
Existence does not prove notability
Extracting the meaning of significant coverage
Google searches and numbers
High Schools
Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
Independent sources
Inherent notability
Insignificant
Masking the lack of notability
Make stubs
Minimum coverage
News coverage does not decrease notability
No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability
No big loss
No one cares about your garage band
No one really cares
Notability/Historical/Arguments
Notability cannot be purchased
Notability comparison test
Notability is not a level playing field
Notability is not a matter of opinion
Notability is not relevance or reliability
Notability means impact
Notability points
Notability sub-pages
Notabilitymandering
Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article
Obscurity ≠ Lack of notability
Offline sources
One hundred words
One sentence does not an article make
Other stuff exists
Overreliance upon Google
Perennial websites
Pokémon test
Read the source
Reducing consensus to an algorithm
Run-of-the-mill
Solutions are mixtures and nothing else
Subjective importance
Third-party sources
Trivial mentions
Video links
Vanispamcruftisement
What BLP1E is not
What is and is not routine coverage
What notability is not
What to include
Wikipedia is not Crunchbase
Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause
Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé
Two prongs of merit
Humorous essays
Adminitis
Akin's Laws of Article Writing
Alternatives to edit warring
ANI flu
Anti-Wikipedian
Anti-Wikipedianism
Articlecountitis
Asshole John rule
Assume bad faith
Assume faith
Assume good wraith
Assume stupidity
Assume that everyone's assuming good faith, assuming that you are assuming good faith
Avoid using preview button
Avoid using wikilinks
Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense
Barnstaritis
Before they were notable
BOLD, revert, revert, revert
Boston Tea Party
Butterfly effect
CaPiTaLiZaTiOn MuCh?
Complete bollocks
Counting forks
Counting juntas
Crap
Don't stuff beans up your nose
Don't-give-a-fuckism
Don't abbreviate "Wikipedia" as "Wiki"!
Don't delete the main page
Editcountitis
Edits Per Day
Editsummarisis
Editing Under the Influence
Embrace Stop Signs
Emerson
Fart
Five Fs of Wikipedia
Seven Ages of Editor, by Will E. Spear-Shake
Go ahead, vandalize
How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
How to get away with UPE
How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle
How to vandalize correctly
How to win a citation war
Ignore all essays
Ignore every single rule
Is that even an essay?
Mess with the templates
My local pond
Newcomers are delicious, so go ahead and bite them
Legal vandalism
List of jokes about Wikipedia
LTTAUTMAOK
No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man
No one cares about your garage band
No one really cares
No, really
No sorcery threats
Notability is not eternal
Oops Defense
Play the game
Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you
Please bite the newbies
Please do not murder the newcomers
Pledge of Tranquility
R-e-s-p-e-c-t
Requests for medication
Requirements for adminship
Rouge admin
Rouge editor
Sarcasm is really helpful
Sausages for tasting
The Night Before Wikimas
The first rule of Wikipedia
The Five Pillars of Untruth
Things that should not be surprising
The WikiBible
Watchlistitis
Wikipedia is an MMORPG
WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!
What Wikipedia is not/Outtakes
Why not create an account?
Yes legal threats
You don't have to be mad to work here, but
You should not write meaningless lists
About essays
About essays
Essay guide
Value of essays
Difference between policies, guidelines and essays