This template is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles
What WP:BIDIRECTIONAL says, basically, is "every article linked in the navbox should have the template transcluded." As this navbox is not on those article's pages, Robsinden has removed them from this navbox.
However, obviously, there's an alternative approach, which is to add this navbox to those articles. In some cases, it would seem to me more sensible to do that. In particular, I feel that the close connection between GPS and Asia (GPS being a continuation under a new name of Asia by 3 out of 4 members) means it would be sensible to include it here and this navbox there. The connection between GPS and Asia is of a similar magnitude to that between Asia and Qango (evolved from a failed Asia reunion project, with 3 out of 4 members having previously been in Asia), which is included.
Looking at similar navboxes in Category:Progressive rock group navigational boxes, I note that most of them include lists of related bands similar to the inclusion here of acts like Yes and GTR. Template:Yes (band) includes Asia in its list of related bands, for example, as does Template:ELP.
Robsinden also argues, "It's really not appropriate to include artists, so I've removed the template from Matthews' page" and s/he's removed Rodney Matthews from the navbox. I don't see why it is "not appropriate" to include Matthews and Dean, both artists with long-standing close relationships with Asia. I note, as a comparison, that Template:King Crimson includes artist P. J. Crook and Template:Rush includes Hugh Syme, although Template:Yes (band)doesn't include Dean.
(edit conflict)The problem is if you start including everything remotely connected to the band you end up with navbox bloat here and "candystriping" of navboxes on the articles. Articles should only be included if they are intrinsically linked to / inseparable from the topic of the navbox. So yeah, you're probably right to include GPS / Qango, but not Yes or ELP, as they are of a different magnitude. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that navbox bloat is a problem. I personally feel that there is that intrinsic link with GPS/Qango and Asia, and with Roger Dean and Yes (but maybe, maybe not Asia). I also agree that the ELP/Asia link is of a lesser degree and I'm content to see ELP out of the Asia template, and vice versa. However, there's clearly an element of subjectivity here, so I hope others will chime in with their views.
I understand the logic behind WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, but it also occurs to me that there is a certain non-transitivity (if that's the right word) about these relationships that argues against a strict adherence to it. It seems to me that, in some cases, act A is intrinsically linked to act B, but that act A is of minor significance to act B. So, to put it another way, you can't tell the story of Asia, I suggest, without the context of the story of Yes, but you can tell the story of Yes without much mention of Asia. One is more important to the other than vice versa. Ergo, might one not want to have Yes in the Asia navbox without having the Asia navbox on the Yes article? Bondegezou (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I get the point, but as I understand the mechanics and intentions behind navboxes, you should expect to see the same navbox at the destination - i.e. it shouldn't leave you stranded without a means of getting back home. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
