Knowledge talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

4872:. Rule creep, trying to shoehorn every essay into policy, and one person's restrictions spread over the entire page all at once does nothing to improve Knowledge and confuses the intentions. If you must continue, please choose one change, spell it out simply, and discuss. It seems that you wish to restrict rather than enhance, and I'm not clear on where this pile of sticks ends up once it lands and what the editor wishes to do with them (if I understand this proposal they seem focused on size and on influencing and restricting already existing well-designed navboxes). Existing language has guided navbox construction for many years, and adding further "dos and don'ts" all at once does little more than provide restrictive tools for things which do not need further restrictions. 4103:

changes or to obtain consensus in advance." Also, WP:NAV-WITHIN explicitly states: " should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value. For navigating among many articles, consider... them into multiple, smaller templates on each sub-topic." I'm willing to have a discussion, and I don't mind ready through lengthy comments, but you have not provided any persuasive reasons why what I've added to the policy based on the reasoning of the WP:NENAN, WP:ATC, and WP:NAV explanatory essays should be removed. Their reasoning is perfectly defensible and consistent with the existing WP:NAVBOX policy and decidedly help explicate the policy. --

4631:

states: "There is no bright line between what the community chooses to call a 'policy' or a 'guideline' or an 'essay' or an 'information page'... some essays and supplemental pages are widely accepted as part of the Knowledge gestalt, and have a significant degree of influence during discussions." The proposal incorporates the principles of only 4 explanatory essays, and the essays provide more detailed explanations for the reasoning behind 5 of the 7 of the criteria and some of the language that is already included in the current revision of the guideline as of this writing. The differences from the current revision as of this writing are as follows:

3970:(2) I also recommend that the following language be included following the list of criteria for good navigation templates: "If a large navigation template can be split into smaller navigation templates that would still satisfy most or all of the criteria for good navigation templates, then that should probably be done." This is just an extension of the language that expresses a preference for smaller templates: "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use." 1365:, if you object to the inclusion of the major memorial to the signers of the Declaration of Independence then we should add a navbox cage which includes the navboxes of the signers who have navboxes, which would add many navboxes to the page which seems to be your concern. It's easier just listing the national memorial (as is done with the Jefferson Memorial being included on Jefferson's navbox) rather than adding all the navboxes to the memorial page - and recall, this is the national memorial to all of the signers of the Declaration and should be a major inclusion in their navboxes. 399: 381: 660:. A navbox is for navigating between articles on a particular subject. Taking the example in the previous section of a professor who spent their career at one university, the text of the article about the professor would of course include a link to the article about the university. That's sufficient, and no navbox is needed. But Option A should be reworded, because currently it seems to suggest adding links to a navbox rather than removing the navbox from the article. It should say something like 4039:

guidelines cannot cover all circumstances... difference between policies, guidelines, and some essays on Knowledge may be obscure." The previous quote links to the WP:PGE essay that states: "There is no bright line between what the community chooses to call a 'policy' or a 'guideline' or an 'essay' or an 'information page'... some essays and supplemental pages are widely accepted as part of the Knowledge gestalt, and have a significant degree of influence during discussions." The WP:ATC essay's

902: 871: 809: 210: 331: 313: 259: 241: 3862:

readability. Images that are decorative add to bloating and exacerbate the problem. Also, if we see a lead images that is similar or identical to a sidebar image (as is sometimes the case), these are a distraction - ie a detriment. Instructional creep is to add further (unnecessary) instruction to existing P&G. Existing P&G does not support the use of images in a way that serves no useful purpose and is ostensibly decorative.

2597:. MOS:DECOR is about icons, and discusses the images of icons being used on navboxes. I agree with it that almost all icons are just clutter on a navbox, and when used in 'below' draw inappropriate amount of attention to the icon's topic. Existing language is fine as it stands, and images are fine on smaller and slightly-medium size navboxes (on large navboxes, where I agree with you, they take up too much horizontal template space). 171: 4259:

consolidation could be done quite easily and with no loss to navigability because all of the entries would be retained in the broader template. Instead, the example that you've cited is actually a good example of why having templates where the majority of the entries overlap does not enhance navigability and just creates clutter. But I say only "could be" because it's not a requirement that navigation templates satisfy

3890:. As you can see, the impact of the presence or absence of an image in the navbox is next to zero if we're talking about making it more or less bloated. And on the page, the size of the template is exactly the same, it's the exact same rectangle below. It expands to fill designated global parameters, and everything within (images, links, sections and whatnot) fits into that allocated space. 1564:, please just leave American independence navboxes alone. "A f*cking travesty of a navbox"? One of the best navboxes on the site? And maybe the best for its topic? What, in Wales' name, is wrong with you (a good faith rhetorical question). The image at the Declaration signers is appropriate per both the WP's you mention. And it is not an icon (I'm with you on not liking icons on navboxes). 1012:. The chief consequence of the status quo guideline isn't more parsimonious inclusion of sidebars ("this article wouldn't be due in the sidebar so I won't transclude it"), it's extreme overlinking of barely-relevant articles within sidebars ("the sidebar is relevant here", then someone else inevitably comes along and adds a link, bloating it), and I don't think that's a good outcome. 5005:

hiding templates are quick-fix, sweep-under-the-rug work-arounds to template clutter and oversized templates rather than something that actually addresses the problems. The only solution is to come up with enforceable policy and guideline language that makes it clear when templates should be split, merged, and deleted based upon the logical structure of navigation templates.

1269:'s opinion on this. The Memorial honors all the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and is their main honoring, as a group, in the United States. The "above" is fine for informational purposes (and for navigation for those who wish to familiarize themselves with the positions), and define the individual's life without having to place the navbox on all relevant pages. 959:, though we might want to provide a little guidance for when a navbox is appropriate in an article despite the article being undue for the navbox. The most obvious example, to me, are articles that were split into sub-article for length - the navbox is often still appropriate for the sub-articles, but listing them all there could be redundant and undue. -- 3428:, but there is the adage that a picture is worth a thousand words. There is a caveat to this that the picture must be relevant in both what it shows and where it is placed. However, we do not need a thousand words when a hand-full or less suffice. Images take up more space and can be a distraction or hindrance rather than a benefit - eg in the article on 3464:. The image is four glyphs that could be Chinese but could equally be Japanese for what most of us know and they have no apparent meaning. They might say "Joe Biden's mother wears army boots" for what most of us know and those that do know are enjoying the joke. It is the words that tell us the purpose of the sidebar, not the image. 3439:. The assertion is a bit thin since WP uses text based searches. We get to a subject through a text based search or by clicking a hyperlink not by telepathically imagining an image to arrive at an article. And when we get to an article on a person, we see their image (usually) in the infobox. It is the article on Elon Musk that 4723:

that links to WP:NAV-WITHIN ("Large navigation templates that can be split into smaller navigation templates that still satisfy most or all of the criteria should probably be split, and where this is not possible, autocollapsed child navboxes within the template should be created") were retained by User:Moxy

5157:

While no links were included, all of the shortcuts I cited above are policy-related and WP:PGCHANGE and WP:SUPPLEMENTAL are content policies. As such, all of my arguments content-related. Conversely, per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, you have cited no content policy that precludes what I've recommended in the

4612:

Essays are not guidelines, and it seems you are asking to endorse many essays into the present page. Can you please just clearly list one or two of the changes that you want to make which differ from the present language. The list that you include above is different than the present criteria, but you

4398:

You really are a piece of work, to coin a phrase. You've cast aspersions on me quite a few times in several different venues and I haven't complained, freedom of speech and all that. How about, as a way forward, this section be closed (it's wandered from the topic) and you open a new section with one

4137:

of the policy and the rationale behind it since the language of the policy only implicitly suggested what the explanatory essays make explicit. The changes to the policy also reflect what multiple other editors have explicitly expressed in the other discussions we've been engaged in other talk pages.

3904:

Umm, if one had read what I have written, one would realise that I was specifically referring to sidebars. As to navboxes any effect will depend on the text it is populated with and whether the reduced space is sufficient to force a new line in one or more of the categories/subsections of the navbox.

3047:

No, it isn't. UNDUE is about turning a text that says "Musk said X, and his critics said Y" into "the great Musk said X, which is right, and his critics said Y, which is nonsense". As pointed, irrelevant for this discussion. The names and shortcuts to policies and guidelines are not placeholders that

2191:

Those would be exceptions (do you understand that all guidelines use common sense and exceptions?). A navbox is a map to articles on Knowledge which pertain to the subject. As for the Memorial to the 56 page, if you are going to delete that from navboxes (really going overboard don't you think?) then

1153:

We discussed awards navboxes above. They are fine, long term, and show the achievements of an actor or a sportsperson who, having chosen their profession, achieve its top and either win an event on their own or are awarded by selection by their peers or the profession's main observers. If a person is

1129:

This is the ongoing issue with awards navboxes and similar causing clutter. When you have this many navboxes on a page, it defeats the point. People treat navboxes as a substitute for articles sometimes, this is not what they are for. They need to be restricted to clearly defined smaller sets, and be

1029:

gives the community a chance to detail an entire story only if, and that is important, only if the exceptions are done well and reasonably communicate to the reader. My own contributions to navboxes rarely include such exceptions, except in the case of the navboxes I've created for many of the United

5078:

Nope. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY requires that decision-making on Knowledge should not be made through voting. While WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS does say that common sense should be used to form consensus but only in concert with existing policy and sources, and WP:PGCHANGE does permit best practices to be included in

4995:

The current criteria of WP:NAVBOX does not establish sufficient basic standards for navigation templates to follow because two of the criteria are simply too subjective to enforce and the other three criteria do not directly address the non-hypothetical and pervasive problems of template clutter and

4722:

Criteria 6 and 7 in the current revision of the guideline ("6. Excluding the article about the subject, there should usually be at least five articles included"; "7. The majority of the articles included are not also included in a single, separate template") and the template splitting recommendation

4676:

and are not included where if articles were created from the red links, it would lead to Knowledge would becoming become a dictionary, a directory, a repository, a newspaper, a crystal ball, a manual or guidebook, a publisher of original thought, a soapbox or means of promotion, an official journal,

4640:

Criterion 2 is changed to includes a piped link to the WP:NAV essay section "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles" since the section explains the reasoning of why the subject of the template should be mentioned in every article included in the template, and the wording of

4258:

because when a team sports organization wins multiple championships during a specified period of time they are conventionally referred to as such, and this usually owes to the nucleus of players on the team roster as well as the team's coaching staff that largely overlaps from season to season. Such

4102:

I'm not playing a game; I'm just following existing content policy and guidelines that follows already-existing community consensus per WP:NOTBUREAU. As I already noted, WP:PGCHANGE explicitly states: "Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other page. It is not strictly necessary to discuss

3409:

is also an argumentive fallacy which presumes that what has always been done is correct, that it is done for correct reasons and that the rationale for why it is correct remain true. Is there any rationale evidenced for why this was done and why it was correct. No. It would seem it just appeared and

2728:

Which, as has been repeated, are about icons, not photographs or other images. Icons are those very tiny things which represent flags, links to sister projects, and other things which draw the eye. Flags are iffy, and many editors apparently like them and they do define by country, so I wouldn't ban

1164:

to his career in "above" and participation in some of the Founding events which don't have everyone's navbox on the page, such as the signing of the Declaration of Independence) but am concerned that you, in particular, will look for and find loopholes in the language of any one of these to continue

4170:

In our context, there is no distinction between "maintaining" and "ownership" because you are determined to "maintain" particular revisions to the extent where you call for reverting the contributions of editors that are consistent with existing content policy simply because you do not prefer them.

4138:

Knowledge community decision-making is decidedly decentralized and uncoordinated. I don't know why you cannot give up on your vision for how Knowledge ought to be, but you do not own the project and have routinely engaged ownership behavior (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR)—which would include your last comment. --

4132:

What I wish to achieve is changing the letter of the WP:NAVBOX policy so that it provides more objective guidance to editors based on the reasoning of the explanatory essays for the policy so that the policy can be used to end pointless disputes where editors have to write multiple lengthy comments

3721:

This talk page is about the guideline concerning the coexistence of three overlapping navigation systems, and is therefore not the appropriate forum for this discussion. Images in navigation footers has nothing to do with deleting lists in favor of categories, which this guideline tries to prevent.

3170:

It is disrupting, because it's controversial and we are currently in the midst of a discussion. It would be equally inappropriate to remove the one of Musk while we are mid-discussion. Musk isn't the specific issue, just one example of how images can be problematic. And it's not a "missing" image

2653:

and Elon Musk were married (not once, but twice!) and linking a subject's wives or husbands have appeared on navboxes since they began. UNDUE is about a neutral point of view, and does not pertain to photographs on navboxes. The use of non-icon images on navboxes is fine, and has been used to great

2415:

It is usually preferable not to use redirected links in navigational templates. When a template is placed on an article and contains a direct link to the same article (rather than a redirect), the direct link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of

1009:

As commonly interpreted, it encourages sidebar bloat, with excessive articles added to sidebars to avoid their removal from those articles. The flaw in that logic is that while, say, Islamophobia might be a major element of an article (making the sidebar due), the article may be too minor to belong

4020:

Please understand that essays are not guidelines or policy, they are opinions of one or more editors. To move essay language into the actual guideline/policy page needs full discussion and consensus. The edit war attitude of attempting to shoehorn the language into the page by repeatedly adding it

3151:

only applies if there is an actual disruption going on, and adding a relevant image to a navbox that was lacking one is clearly not the case. And which was my point, anyway? That instead of making big discussions over the navbox of Musk having an image and the Bezos one lacking one, you can simply

1500:

is a f*cking travesty of a navbox. I don't know where to begin with that one. If you're calling it "one of the best navboxes on the site", you might need to have a rethink about what makes a good navbox. A navbox that size with multiple sections that repeat the same links over and over again is

4654:

Criterion 4 is changed to include a piped link to the WP:NENAT essay since the essay explains both why there should be a Knowledge article about the subject of the template but also why having a Knowledge article on the subject template is not a sufficient justification alone for a template to be

4383:

I don't disagree, and I've followed the WP:1RR rule contrary to what User:Randy Kryn may say. In my discussions with him, he routinely makes false statements about and characterizations of my editing and comments while he has typically engaged in ownership behavior per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I have done

4117:

Apparently this has to be explained simply. You changed a guideline. It was reverted. The next step is to discuss the major change, explain in with examples, and obtain consensus. You've taken another route, one I followed for awhile but can't anymore because of 3RR. You now are throwing unlinked

1744:

Just pointing out how you came upon those navboxes in order to edit them, through this discussion because I mentioned them. Would like to point out for readers here that Wooden and I have a combative history, and if I like something he has had in the past a tendency to dig in and change it. Not

560:

apply to them just as well as anywhere else. This means that sometimes it makes sense for niche topics to have navboxes that don't link back. For instance, for a professor or administrator who spent their entire career at a university, it might make sense to have the navbox for the university at

5004:

The explanatory essays have a lot of good recommendations that should be made into explicit policy. Other than WP:NENAT, the essays have been on Knowledge for more than 10 years and many editors have made contributions to them other than the creators of the pages. Collapsable child navboxes and

4630:

WP:ESSAY states: "Although essays are not policies or guidelines, many are worthy of consideration. Policies and guidelines cannot cover all circumstances... difference between policies, guidelines, and some essays on Knowledge may be obscure." The previous quote links to the WP:PGE essay that

1668:

Thanks, appreciate the welcome and the acknowledgement that editors can edit. If I were the ANI kind of editor I'd put you up, for discussion at least, for going on an American independence navbox run just because I happened to mention one in this discussion (hounding?). Given your bias towards

5045:

User:Randy Kryn has stated this multiple times, so your restatement of it is hardly news to me. There is a need to add additional criteria because navbox quality would improve if there was enforceable policy language that followed standards and best practices based on the logical structure of

5008:

Additionally, this discussion would not be a muddle or even be occurring if User:Randy Kryn did not demand that I spell out every last change to codify best practices articulated by the explanatory essays into explicit policy (as well as relatively minor changes to clarify existing language).

4038:

Nope. WP:PGCHANGE explicitly states: "Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other page. It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain consensus in advance." WP:ESSAY states: "Although essays are not policies or guidelines, many are worthy of consideration. Policies and

3861:

Bloated sidebars and infoboxes will impinge on the body of the article. Potentially, this will displace images at the start of the body such that they are no longer positioned relative to the text they are intended to support or they will result in sandwiching of text, which is a detriment to

3967:. The criterion is as follows: "The majority of the articles included are not included in a different template." This is a simple and defensible heuristic for identifying navigation templates that mostly overlap and should probably be merged following the recommendations of the WP:ATC essay. 3331:

What policy? Images have been used in sidebars and footer navboxes since they began. Sidebar navbox images are placed at the top and purposely define the topic, footer navbox images are placed on the right. Wikipedians should maintain Knowledge information, not reduce it (yes, images contain

5000:

would better for WP:NAVBOX to do so because navigation template quality would broadly improve if there were enforceable rules for them and would have the collateral benefit of reducing the frequency of editing conflicts. More importantly, the additional criteria that I have proposed are not

4701:

Possibly eliminate Criteria 3 and 5 because they are not clearly objective criteria, and if they are eliminated, increase the ratio of satisfied criteria necessary to be considered a good navigation template to two-thirds and change "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small,

4152:

Ah, ownership accusation, the last refuge. Try replacing "maintaining" with "ownership" for a better descriptor. Please revert your changes won in an edit war and then discuss the wording and get consensus, and please do so simply and with less words. "A" changed to "B" because..., thanks.

4748:, please don't rush these revisions, editors need plenty of time to come upon this sectiono and analyze and comment on the many major changes you've suggested. Haven't gotten to this as yet myself, as it will take quite a bit of time and I've been doing other edits when online. Thanks. 5239:

It's clear all the above is going nowhere....you best course of action is suggesting one change and see if that garners any traction. Clearly the current approach isn't working...... I suggest your next proposal gives examples as in why a change is warranted or should be implemented.

4451:

Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of related articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good navboxes generally follow three-fourths or all of these guidelines:

4281:

That's why this doesn't work. The 1927 Yankees and 1928 Yankees are two different teams, but have overlapping entries. Your idea of 'Sports dynasties' also doesn't work, because its, well, unworkable and would, in the case of the Yankees, have to include teams from over many decades.

2192:

will have to put up a collapsed hidden navbox (the navbox cage) to include the six or so navboxes which include the page. As I said earlier, this is the only public honor for Richard Henry Lee in Washington D.C., the capitol city of the country that he had such an impact in forming.

1030:

States Founding Fathers. These include an above portion which gives a biographical timeline that actually saves what some editors call 'navbox creep'. If these above sections were not allowed, then a separate navbox cage would have to be created, for example, for delegates to the

4384:

what I can in this dispute to not violate any conduct policies, and if User:Randy Kryn's behavior has effectively required me to violate the letter of one, it has been to enforce the letter or principles an existing content policy—which I believe is authorized under WP:5P5. --

4413:

That would be fine with me, but in order to move forward, you need to stop making accusations that I'm violating policies where I'm not, actually take the time to read my comments, and to not ghost the discussion so that we can actually create a consensus about this. --

1354:

I've seen some really ridiculous use of the language disparaging two items on navboxes, such as "what does topic Afoo have to do with topic Bfoo", when both topics are directly related to the subject of the navbox. You take wording too literally. In the example above,

4635:

Criterion 1 is changed to include a piped link to the WP:ATC essay section "Do we really need this template at all?" since the section explains the reasoning behind why templates need well-defined, singular, and coherent subjects with objective criteria for article

4673:

Add a criterion that recommends that "External links are excluded, while red links are only included to keep the template from being incomplete and not where Knowledge would become something other than an encyclopedia if articles were created from the red links."

4613:

do not indicate what is changed by your proposal. The wording may look similar but some of the changes are rather large (i.e., you took the word "usually" out of the current language), so let's visually compare them here before criticizing or endorsing, thanks.

3533:

Should be removed as per the standard...... why are we going out of our way to make people have to scroll more for no reason or sandwich links all to one side. Should use the space efficiently........ This is one of the reasons why these are not seen in mobile

4340:

main article from the championship team templates, and as a general rule, good navigation templates should only minimally include articles that are included in multiple templates and includes no articles that are included in more than 5 separate templates. --

2226:

as your map, not the individuals' navboxes, that way you don't need to transclude them in a "cage". If the information is pertinent, the reader will be able to find the link in the article, you shouldn't be trying to use navboxes as substitutes for articles.

1379:

No. What should happen is that that article should be removed from this and any similar navbox as it would not be appropriate to have 56 navboxes in a "cage" on the article. What however is appropriate is to include the people and the memorial on the navbox

4770:

has a problem with what has been proposed. While this does not violate the letter of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, because your ghosting of the discussion has had the effect of preserving a particular revision of an article, it is effectively ownership behavior. --

4889:. These essays do point out best practice, but exceptions still should apply. Yes, okay, most navboxes with fewer than a handful of links do get deleted, but this is best left for common sense. This discussion is a real muddle to be honest, and as 4785:

I asked to discuss one change at a time, but you again throw up wholesale changes all at once which would result in multiple long wall-of-text discussions at the same time. Please pick one change, write it out: "Change xxx to xxx", and then discuss.

3316:

Image use policy is that images should serve a useful purpose and should be purely decorative. It is difficult to imagine a reasonable argument that images in a nav box or sidebar are useful and not being used in a way that is ostensibly decorative.

2284:

I would think they can be included if full and complete and can arguably be forked into their own article (some artworks have this situation), but I've seen links to sections which are too small and incomplete sections which are rightfully removed.

4441: 3376:

The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and

3834:

I made a request some weeks ago, still waiting for an answer: "What if you all just dispense with the instruction creep and just explain, in your own words, why adding an image to a navbox the way it is done is harmful or counterproductive?"

5224:

If an existing policy says that only explanatory essays rather than essays in general may be linked, then that's fine. I will strike the parts of the proposal to do otherwise, and leave the other parts of the proposal for discussion. --

1241:

Anything in the "above" section for a start for all options. It's a navbox, not an infobox. Without going too in depth (as it's not a topic I have any knowledge of), there seems like quite a few inappropriate inclusions in the body,

1306:

Using above for such purposes has been in effect for well over a decade. Letting readers have insight on a topic does not have to be reserved for "infoboxes" but can be presented in the official Knowledge map to the topic (navboxes).

2091:, it's his only memorial in Washington D.C. If this and similar exception aren't made then the other solution would be to include the navboxes of individual honored at the Memorial in a single navbox cage with a descriptive label. 733:

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it should be considered a substitute, it's just a consideration as to what can be included in a navbox. We should still follow the general principle of the very first sentence in the section, namely

1044:. Exceptions are one of the valued rungs in the backbone of Knowledge, they are called for in each guideline summary, and they give Wikipedians some breathing room in their editing style. But again, rare but efficient is the key. 2753:

is the same and we should be seeing images and icons interchangabley here, they are just decoration. Images should not be plastered on every article by use of a navbox, but specifically placed on articles encyclopediacally per

3394:. Common sense is matter of individual perception (opinion). That is what the quote from René Descartes would tell us. The one truism regarding common sense is that it is not all that common. WP:COMMONSENSE is a section within 3009:

those pages. It has already been pointed that UNDUE has nothing to do with this discussion, and CONSISTENT is about using similar articles titles in articles that are part of a theme... meaning, nothing to do with any of this.

5018: 4592: 3156:, add the missing image and call it a day? As for Riley, she was married to Musk, so I don't see the problem. In fact, the "Personal life" section should have a photo of Riley and Musk, if there was a free one available. 5176:"The supplemental template does not indicate a "higher status" within the community for an essay, but is used to denote that the essay in question has wide acceptance to be linked from said policy or guideline page. See 4679:

with piped links to the WP:NAV-WITHIN and WP:EXISTING sections of the WP:NAV essay that explains why red links should generally not be included in navigation templates and external links should always be excluded and

1183:

Question: What, exactly, does "transcludes" mean in the context of this wording? Even reading the dictionary definition I'm not totally clear what it would mean per this discussion. Can someone give examples, thanks.

2573:, images are rarely appropriate in navboxes", making the exception where the image is a map. A picture of a person, even Elon Musk, is nothing more than "decorative". Is it time to codify this into the guideline? 4068:

large navigation templates that can be split into smaller navigation templates that still satisfy most or all of the criteria for good navigation templates should probably be split, and where this is not possible,

4941: 4849:. I think the underlying, unnamed issue here is "excessive overlap among templates"—that's a goal worth addressing, and I think we could probably come to an agreement about better wording, if we thought about it. 3649:

I didn't cite that as a reason, that was a response to Randy's "we've always done it so we should still do it" argument. Just becasue we have the option to use a parameter doesn't mean we should (or indeed did).

1109:

The problem with B is that it opens the door to pages including very tangentially related navboxes. Putting every employer of a person, all their performances, etc. For example, this would defeat the purpose of

2047:

Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox and every article linked to from the navbox should normally transclude the navbox, so that the navigation is

5001:

requirements. In fact, none of the criteria are requirements since the policy requires that only a majority of the criteria be satisfied rather than all of them. As such exceptions can always continue to exist.

2034: 941:

policy (and the hedging phrase "should normally" that is already in Option A) allows reasonable exceptions, and the exceptions can also be noted on the talk page of especially problematic navboxes or articles.

4668:

with a piped link to the WP:ATC essay section "Do multiple templates on this article give the same information?" that explains the reasoning of why having multiple templates on individual articles produces

1335:(emphasis mine). All the time we are linking away to an article that does not have the navbox transcluded upon it does not perform that function as it navigates away from those articles, not between them. 4446:

I propose overhauling the criteria and recommendations for good navigation templates to incorporate the principles of the WP:ATC, WP:NENAT, WP:NENAN, and WP:NAV explanatory essays with the following text:

3760:

Just do what your doing now....and what most of us do....that is remove the images and if reverted just move on to others. The vast majority of readers dont see them so no point in fighting over them like

2835:. As for the navbox, navboxes go at the end of the article and are automatically collapsed if there's more than one (and do not even show up in cell phones and tablets), so it's hardly any clutter at all. 39: 4334:

the criterion is a recommendation rather than a requirement since it is not required that navigation templates satisfy all of the criteria for good navigation templates and only a majority of the criteria

5009:

Additionally, User:woodensuperman other editors who share User:Randy Kryn view that essays are not policies and guidelines will not follow the best practices that you acknowledge the essays outline. --

2654:

benefit on many navboxes. Relevant images on topic boxes clarify the subject in reader's minds ("oh, him, I recognize him, just didn't know his name!") and certainly does not breech "undue" neutrality.

2418:

There are exceptions to this exception: where a redirect represents a distinct sub-topic within a larger article and is not merely a variant name, it is preferable to leave the redirect in the template

4036:

Please understand that essays are not guidelines or policy, they are opinions of one or more editors. To move essay language into the actual guideline/policy page needs full discussion and consensus.

3454:? No, it is an article title and the lead of an article that define the topic of an article. It is the words in the navbox that define what the articles listed in the navbox are rlated to. Consider 5060:

Maybe you should take the criticism on board. If we just count the votes, it is 3 opposes (four if you take in Randy Kryn as you have mentioned) and only the proposer who thinks it is a good idea.

1165:

to remove individual items and entire areas of linked items (i.e. option A would remove portals and categories, etc. as well as historical listings of an individuals life in the "above" sections).

3062:

I maintain that imposing an image onto an article that may not already have one makes certain aspects of the topic seem to have more importance than others, thus unbalancing the article. See my

98: 2541: 4831:

WP:CREEP recommends that substantive additions to policy or guidelines only be made to deal with real problems. Template creep and oversized templates are real problems and pervasive ones. --

3849:

Your inquiry was already answered a few weeks ago.... Causes more scrolling and sandwiches links to one side. Would be best to explain how it's useful to have these effects for just an image.

1429: 3704:

it useful. What if you all just dispense with the instruction creep and just explain, in your own words, why adding an image to a navbox the way it is done is harmful or counterproductive?

158: 154: 150: 146: 142: 138: 4659:

Criterion 7 is changed from "The majority of the articles included are not also included in a single, separate template" to "The majority of the articles included are not also included in

4532: 4082: 3982: 2303:

I'm sure there's a recent discussion on this but I can't find it. I think if there's a defined section, it's sometimes allowable, although I can see some issues with some of the links in

1790:

I assume good faith, and also take past history into account. I use an example and suddenly you are going to edit American independence navboxes. This is not off-topic, the example given,

1900:

To answer your question at the top of the thread, Randy, "transcludes" = "uses". I think changing that to the plain language, regardless of the outcome of this RfC, would be a good step.

134: 130: 126: 122: 118: 114: 110: 106: 102: 4666:

Add a criterion that recommends that "Except where it would prevent the template from being complete, articles included in multiple other navigation templates or infoboxes are excluded"

5024:

I got news for you: essays are not policies or guidelines but more opinions. But when you state that additional criteria are not requirements, there is no need to add them. Not at all.

4727:. Unless you have further objections to those two criteria and the splitting recommendation, I take this to be an implicit statement that User:Moxy is not opposed to their inclusion. 4544: 4088:

I can't play this game with you, you have not reverted your edits and I can't right now or would go over 3rr. Please revert so this attempt-to-exhaust discussion can actually occur.

3424:

Do images in navboxes serve a useful purpose or are they primarily decorative? If their use is primarily decorative, then P&G would tell us not to use them. There is no shortcut

2083:

But with commonsense exceptions, which I'll describe further in the survey. Exceptions are allowed and encouraged in all guidelines. For example, Woodensuperman would like to delete

837:

Retain status quo, as B and C are not improvements, opening editors to slapping on navboxes for every employer or performance, and tangetial subjects like alma maters and hometowns.—

4006:

It's not clear to me why saying that templates that mostly overlap should be merged is controversial considering that an existing explanatory essay (WP:ATC) recommends doing so. --

3078:

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the

4118:

essay language around as policy, and because of the walls-of-text here and elsewhere, combined with mixing up essays with guidelines, I'm not really sure what you want to achieve.

3886:

as an example, I made a test. I have made two exact copies of that template at my userspace, one as it is and one without image as proposed, and placed together for comparison at

2508: 638:

issue at the article, the link should be removed from the navbox. The navbox should not be added to articles where it is not linked. This is what bidirectional actually means.

4607: 4556: 2050:. I find it very hard to wrap my mind round that (increasingly so as I get older!) but the deep underlying problem has led to many of the difficulties of varied understandings. 4500: 4248: 3992:, is edit warring by returning the language under discussion over repeated reverts. The language is controversial, and should be discussed at length with honesty as to intent. 3960: 1114:. I still think an includer should be listed in the navbox, but am open to discussion about whether say Elizabeth Taylor's bio needs to include every navbox she is listed in.— 4560: 4461: 4514: 2084: 1938:

Even so, it's clearly causing some degree of confusion, so we should avoid jargon whenever possible (and we could still keep the link, even if we changed to plain English).

1243: 893:

Ohhh I see.... Add them even when they're not linked in the template. So for instance every movie that Elizabeth Taylor is in thoses templates would be on her autobiography.

715:

Good navboxes generally follow most or all of these guidelines: ... 5. If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the

1973:

Transclusion is specific to the placing navboxes on articles, it is not the same as "using". If you are editing around navboxes, you should be familiar with the principle.

3437:

been used to great benefit on many navboxes. Relevant images on topic boxes clarify the subject in reader's minds ("oh, him, I recognize him, just didn't know his name!")"

2758:. Funnily enough, navboxes are not mentioned in this context, presumably because no-one thought anyone would even think about using navboxes to place images in this way. 2278: 4911: 2611:

Can you explain what navigational function is gained by having Elon Musk's face plastered across the bottom of every article this navbox is transcluded on? It's clearly

2064:

Yes, this is how EXACTLY how it should work. And this would help to stop the overproliferation of navboxes we see now, and the psuedo infoboxes we see way too much now.

610:

I share your concerns, it's not inclusion of the link in the navbox that would be undue, it's the transclusion of the navbox on the article that causes the undue issue.

4571:

If the collection of articles does not meet these criteria, the articles are likely loosely related. A list, category, or neither, may accordingly be more appropriate.

4937: 3609:

that pre-dates navbox markup maybe? In any case it doesn't negate the need to discuss this, they are still problematic. Stop trying to shut down a valid discussion.

1725:

should be "split to its components it may prove a more concise useful navigational tool". Nothing to do with any of the options mentioned above, you went off topic.

1501:

way too complicated to provide any useful navigation. If it was split to its components it may prove a more concise useful navigational tool, but as it stands, ugh!

5171: 5152: 5134: 5106: 5088: 5073: 5055: 5037: 4881: 4840: 4826: 4795: 4780: 4757: 4740: 4715: 4622: 4572: 4510: 4423: 4408: 4350: 4291: 4276: 4194: 4180: 4162: 4147: 4127: 4112: 4097: 4052: 4030: 4015: 4001: 4598:

Alternatively, if Criteria 3 and 5 were eliminated since they're not objective criteria, I'd recommend that good navboxes follow all of the remaining 7 criteria. --

4493: 3964: 3755: 3402:

for doing something. It must be demonstrated through a substantive argument (ie not just opinion) that doing so is an improvement to WP and the reader's experience.

4858: 797: 3148: 2210: 2109: 1524: 1461: 1384: 4552: 4548: 3731: 2454: 2378: 1154:

named on an awards navbox its inclusion on the page is approved by all three of the options above. I would lean towards B, such as of course keeping the links on

3829: 3528: 3326: 5247: 5234: 5219: 5201: 5187: 4393: 4378: 4254:

I think what would happen in the example that you've cited is pretty obvious: the templates could be merged into a single navigation template about the broader

3250: 3207: 3189: 3165: 3138: 3111: 3097: 3057: 3042: 3019: 2966: 2930: 2887: 2863: 2844: 1739: 4573:

Large navigation templates that can be split into smaller navigation templates that still satisfy three-fourths or all of the criteria should probably be split

3914: 3899: 3871: 3844: 3762: 3713: 2587: 2485:

If they are done well then yes, I can see your point. Yet some editors will overload section links onto a single navbox, which should be at least discouraged.

624: 3681: 3623: 3500: 2911: 2807: 2772: 2738: 2723: 2696: 2682: 2663: 2645: 2606: 2468: 2403: 2347: 2241: 2201: 2186: 2139: 2100: 1846: 1832: 1809: 1785: 1758: 1711: 1592: 1573: 1556: 1515: 1486: 1449: 1410: 1374: 1349: 1316: 1301: 1278: 1260: 1236: 1212: 1174: 792:..lets give content editors a choice/chance as to what is relevant for an article, especially during GA and FA reviews. Lets slowdown the workaround of our 3345: 2386: 1477:

which is one of the best navboxes pertaining to American independence on the site? Will stop here before getting way too personal about your way of editing.

24: 3664: 3644: 3574: 3263:, I believe that the only way the above editor would accept this would be if everyone accepted their view, and nothing else. I'd say it's time for them to 2878:

navbox gives a visual identification that those are the articles related to Elon Musk (instead of the articles related to, say, SpaceX, Tesla or Twitter).

2078: 1148: 2943:

again, as navboxes with images are more prominent than navboxes without, this suggesting that one is somehow more important than the others. We should be

2435: 485:

a given navbox should normally be included as a link in the navbox, enabling bidirectional navigation, but exceptions may be made when inclusion would be

3283: 3002: 3795: 3772: 3541: 1987: 751: 728: 708: 4455: 3948: 3926: 3600: 2059: 1193: 3856: 2298: 2473:

No need for a rule....we should simply do what is best for readers to navigate topics....that may involve a section link (especially after mergers).

2257: 3514:

is false. They are something that has crept in slowly over time. And note that navboxes are here to aid navigation, articles provide information.

2494: 2480: 1908: 689: 4540: 1968: 1946: 1933: 919: 905: 888: 874: 2022: 519: 3236:, etc., I maintain that the inclusion of images in navboxes remains controversial, which is why we need to wait for a consensus to be reached. 2687:

That's your opinion, mine is that they are "fine" when done properly, and do not breech any policy, guideline, essay, or talk page discussion.

4536: 4528: 4064:

Amendment to Proposal (2): The following language following the list of criteria for good navigation templates should be: "Per WP:NAV-WITHIN,

2008: 541: 4576: 2162: 980: 581:

reasonable to me, though I do wonder about potential fallout. Someone might try to apply a navbox to every article in a broad category (e.g.

736:

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

4988:

so long as it done so consistently within a jurisdiction and the information on the signs is accurate. Given that this discussion is about

3973:

Both of these proposals seem to me to be fairly straightforward and logical extensions of the current policy and the explanatory essay. --

2155: 1692: 951: 652: 4663:" following the reasoning of the WP:ATC essay sections "Do we have two or three templates where one would do?" to reduce template clutter. 2789:, multiple images of Musk by means of navbox and sidebar, but only one mention of him in the body of the text. How is this in line with 879:

No, C seems to allow the bio for Person X, who works for ACME, to include ACME's navbox, even if they are not linked there. I prefer A.—

4296:

Nope. You need to pay closer attention to the example that you've cited and the language of the criterion that I added. While 22 of the

1457:, you're going to go about purging American independence navboxes because I mentioned one here? You've removed the long-time image from 1123: 605: 1053: 74: 968: 486: 4474: 1104: 999: 672: 162: 4724: 3953: 2729:

them from use (although I've never added one) but would question, with editors who have added them, their overuse on some navboxes.

846: 829: 3700:

That's just a tautology, "it's not useful because it's not useful". When people use something and can explain why they do it, they

3605:

Okay, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm sure the very old style navboxes (when they ware hardcoded) had no scope for images, something like

2524: 776: 634:, but we need to tighten the rules. Every article that is in the navbox should have the navbox transcluded, but if this causes an 2269:

because they redirected to sections of articles. According to this guideline, should links to sections be excluded from navboxes?

1021: 4524: 4487: 2206:

How many exceptions do you need in a single navbox? The odd one, maybe, but that entire "above" section is all exceptions. Use

2154:, most of the "above" section should go too. This is a navbox, not an infobox. For example, we don't need to include a link to 812: 569: 1697:

So, stop telling me which topics I can and can't edit. Do NOT ever tell me to to "leave American independence navboxes alone".

4893:

says, best to deal with each of these issues one by one if there is any merit in these changes at all. I would recommend that

3405:

Saying that we have always had an image parameter in navboxes is also not of itself a substantive justification for their use.

2220: 2119: 1719: 1673: 1494: 1471: 1419: 937:

is how I have always understood the issue and seems best for the science and philosophy navboxes that I usually deal with. The

694:

No they're not substitutes for see also sections. You're reading that wrong. Navboxes are purely for navigation, nothing more.

2125:. This is already sufficent to provide navigation between these articles. Also I am seeing some redundancy between the two. 5297: 2364:

is the main article for this section, which is already linked in the navbox, so we probably don't need this redirect either.

2266: 415: 80: 4219:." Please explain, for example, what this would do to many sports navboxes which list winning teams from year to year, i.e. 5287: 5282: 4523:

and are not included where if articles were created from the red links, it would lead to Knowledge would becoming become a

987: 347: 170: 3672:, are you going to strike your incorrect accusation above or just leave it so readers of this section get the wrong idea? 5292: 4688:

that explain what would happen if red links were created from articles included in navigation templates indiscriminately.

3432:

where there is a picture of him at the top of the infobox and the same picture in the sidebar at the end of the infobox.

2939:

This is a nonsense. You don't need a picture of Elon Musk to know that these articles are about Elon Musk. I go back to

3028:

is very much in play here. An image in a navbox gives undue weight to a topic over one without an image in the navbox.

2916:

We're talking about navboxes, not infoboxes. They are very different. Images are completely appropriate in an infobox.

2105:

Yes, that article does not need to be included in all of those individuals' navboxes. They are linked in the navboxes

4399:

of your proposals, presented simply with wording you've polished in the last few days on the page, and go from there.

3741:

which governs navboxes and it would be here that any amendment would be made, so it is exactly the appropriate forum.

4813:

All those rules are not a substitute for common sense. This pure rule creep, not something that benefits templates.

600: 4702:

well-defined group of articles" to "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of

2849:

How does an image in a navbox facilitate navigation between the articles within? After all, that's what it's for.

5230: 5210: 5197: 5167: 5130: 5084: 5051: 5014: 4836: 4776: 4736: 4711: 4697:

If Criteria 3 and 5 are eliminated because they are not objective criteria, require that all criteria be satisfied.

4603: 4588: 4419: 4389: 4346: 4272: 4176: 4143: 4108: 4078: 4048: 4011: 3978: 3628:

Over 17 years ago, before 2007? That's what you're trying to cite as a policy to support the removal of images? --

2321:, with no section on Anatolia and no reference to Anatolia in this section. Also at this section it suggests that 406: 386: 279: 4364: 4360: 4518: 3475: 3259:, consensus does not require unanimity; one or two editors disagreeing does not change this. If we were going to 2832: 2353: 589:

being jammed onto every pool/billiards/snooker player bio, event page, etc.). What prevents that from happening?

472:

a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional.

343: 338: 318: 185: 4168:

Ah, ownership accusation, the last refuge. Try replacing "maintaining" with "ownership" for a better descriptor.

3410:

nobody has seen fit to question it (until now). There is no evidence presented of an affirmative consensus. Per

3198:

allowed in navboxes. Until such consensus changes, adding images to navboxes lacking them is not controversial.

4329: 4325: 4321: 4313: 4305: 4301: 4233: 4223: 4216: 2900:. No pressing (or any viable) reason has been presented to insist on the removal of images in an info-box. -- 2326: 1837:

Uh huh. Anyway, does option B allow for the document navbox to exist as is (as it has for well over a decade)?

20: 4442:

Incorporating principles of WP:ATC, WP:NENAT, WP:NENAN, and WP:NAV into Criteria for Good Navigation Templates

4985: 2546: 69: 3919:

Agree..... but in general should we be adding images that are not accessible because they're so teeny Mini.

3781:

seems to have summarized why it is inappropriate excellently. Perhaps we should have a proper RFC on this?

1767:

Randy, I'm not hounding you. I'm just trying to clean up the navboxes in line with the guidelines. And this

820:

because A and B are irrational (see my comment below). I don't like option C but I prefer it to abstaining.

4945: 3491:

with the flag of the Ba'athist party. In each case, it is the words that are meaningful, not the pictures.

2513: 2357: 221: 2000:, given that the comment in your !vote seems to speak to something different than what is being proposed. 5226: 5193: 5163: 5126: 5080: 5047: 5010: 4894: 4832: 4772: 4745: 4732: 4707: 4599: 4584: 4415: 4385: 4368: 4356: 4342: 4268: 4212: 4172: 4139: 4104: 4074: 4044: 4007: 3989: 3974: 3726: 3485: 2781:, a picture should not be placed on an artcicle if it is not pertinent. There isn't an image of Musk in 2440:

However, I think we should be avoiding linking to different sections of the same article multiple times.

1031: 275: 271: 266: 246: 60: 1327:

Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation

3406: 3368: 2148: 1794: 1359: 1221: 1158: 1038: 938: 93: 4480:

If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the

4185:

In this one, exchange "existing content policy" with "unofficial editor essays" and you may be close.

3591:, in the spirit of navbox respect please strike out your claim that I passed along a false statement. 2039:

Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox

4043:

recommendations about non-overlapping templates is perfectly defensible since it reduces clutter. --

3887: 3458: 2831:

is completely irrelevant for this discussion. That section not only talks about icons, it is part of

2330: 2322: 767:. If the article isn't worthwhile to link back to, then the article does not belong on the navbox. -- 4628:

Essays are not guidelines, and it seems you are asking to endorse many essays into the present page.

3961:

WP:ATC explanatory essay sections "Do multiple templates on this article give the same information?"

3332:

information, doesn't WP:1000 state that each image is worth 1,000 words or am I mixing that up with

2289:

would likely know more about the history of discussion and/or guideline on this aspect of navboxes.

976:– The status-quo language already allows for exceptions. We don't need more cases of templates like 4905: 3789: 3749: 3658: 3617: 3606: 3522: 3419:

Consensus arising from silence evaporates when an editor changes existing content or objects to it.

3244: 3183: 3132: 3091: 3036: 2960: 2924: 2857: 2801: 2766: 2717: 2676: 2639: 2581: 2535: 2448: 2429: 2397: 2372: 2361: 2341: 2235: 2180: 2133: 2072: 1981: 1826: 1779: 1733: 1705: 1630: 1586: 1550: 1509: 1443: 1404: 1343: 1295: 1254: 1206: 1142: 1059: 947: 745: 702: 646: 618: 450: 4691:

Increase the ratio of satisfied criteria necessary to be considered a good navigation template to

414:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4846: 3910: 3867: 3825: 3496: 3322: 3194:

Sorry to rain on your parade, but I have to remind you that the current consensus is that images

2410: 2314: 2307: 2262: 2169: 1921: 456: 4367:

standards. Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as

5206: 5160:

and yourself have only used the language of the WP:CREEP essay that is not an explanatory essay

4021:

after revert is not the pathway for something like this. Please self-revert this time, thanks.

3895: 3840: 3709: 3387: 3203: 3161: 3107: 3053: 3015: 2907: 2883: 2840: 986:, which is currently plastered on nearly 29,000 articles about places that happen to be on the 4965: 4953: 4897:

does not amend the guideline further until clear consensus for any change has been reached.

4494:

The majority of the articles included are not also included in one or more separate templates

3584: 3555: 3411: 3383: 3333: 3048:

can be used each time a common word, such as "undue", happens to be the same as one of them.

2013:

No, I understand fine. If it's linked in the navbox, the navbox must be used in the article.

597: 227: 2318: 1679:

as an example, which option best keeps it as is? Option B with improved option language per

681:

here (which has guideline status), they also function as substitutes for see also sections.

5146: 5100: 5067: 5031: 4877: 4820: 4791: 4753: 4618: 4404: 4287: 4244: 4190: 4158: 4123: 4093: 4026: 3997: 3677: 3596: 3341: 2998: 2945: 2734: 2692: 2659: 2602: 2490: 2464: 2294: 2197: 2096: 1842: 1805: 1754: 1688: 1569: 1482: 1370: 1312: 1274: 1232: 1189: 1170: 1049: 547: 411: 346:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the 4766:. You have had more than enough time to respond, and you appear to be the only editor who 4217:

The majority of the articles included are not also included in a single, separate template

3102:

Ready, the Bezos navobox has an image now. Problem solved, we can go on with our lives...

8: 5177: 4921: 4900: 3784: 3744: 3669: 3653: 3612: 3588: 3517: 3362:

Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative.

3256: 3239: 3178: 3127: 3086: 3031: 2976: 2955: 2919: 2852: 2796: 2761: 2712: 2671: 2634: 2576: 2530: 2443: 2424: 2392: 2367: 2336: 2286: 2230: 2175: 2128: 2067: 1976: 1821: 1815: 1774: 1728: 1700: 1581: 1545: 1504: 1438: 1399: 1338: 1290: 1249: 1201: 1137: 1071: 964: 943: 740: 697: 641: 613: 584: 50: 4854: 3906: 3880: 3863: 3821: 3778: 3492: 3391: 3318: 3224:

the opposite could be argued. However depending on ones reading of the application of

3213: 2992: 2988: 2872: 2786: 2743: 2702: 2562: 2555: 1800:, pertains to what would be removed and what remains as descriptive of a navbox topic. 1746: 1531: 1131: 995: 65: 4481: 3891: 3836: 3705: 3638: 3568: 3277: 3199: 3157: 3103: 3049: 3011: 2901: 2897: 2879: 2836: 2088: 2055: 1964: 1929: 1917: 1119: 1111: 915: 884: 842: 825: 716: 499: 482: 469: 46: 4933: 4337: 4255: 3738: 3468: 3153: 3117: 3068: 2984: 2274: 2018: 1322: 1266: 1091: 1010:

in the sidebar. Sidebars also have less space for links than navboxes at the bottom

772: 678: 592: 4650:

of every article" for greater clarity and consistency with language of MOS:LAYOUT.

4488:

Excluding the article about the subject, there are at least five articles included

3587:

aside, this find alone should negate the intent and direction of this discussion.

2033:

This wearisome issue has been discussed for at least the last ten years (starting

1818:

when I came across something that needed tidying up, the same way I usually edit.

5141: 5114: 5095: 5062: 5026: 4949: 4925: 4917: 4890: 4873: 4815: 4787: 4749: 4614: 4400: 4283: 4240: 4186: 4154: 4119: 4089: 4022: 3993: 3673: 3592: 3337: 3225: 3073: 3025: 2940: 2893: 2730: 2688: 2655: 2628: 2612: 2598: 2486: 2460: 2290: 2193: 2092: 1838: 1801: 1750: 1684: 1565: 1478: 1366: 1308: 1270: 1228: 1185: 1166: 1075: 1045: 1017: 635: 4992:

and per WP:NOTFREESPEECH, I'd argue that this analogy is more than appropriate.

4641:

the criterion is changed to "The subject of the template should be mentioned in

4981: 3959:(1) We should include a criterion for good navigation templates based upon the 3425: 3233: 2980: 2972: 2949: 2265:

included pages about genetic histories of many ethnic groups, but most of them

960: 901: 870: 808: 3812:

Thank you for taking the time to read a long post. I would tend to agree with

181: 5276: 4977: 4850: 3395: 3264: 3121: 3063: 2995: 2782: 2650: 2624: 1764: 1067: 991: 666: 557: 5043:

I got news for you: essays are not policies or guidelines but more opinions.

4462:

The subject of the template should be mentioned in the lead section or body

3255:

I also agree with the above comment on the current consensus. Remember, per

1227:, what would be removed, if anything, per Option A, Option B, and Option C. 677:

Navboxes aren't only for navigation, though — per the fifth bullet point of

398: 380: 4973: 4929: 3629: 3580: 3559: 3268: 2051: 1960: 1925: 1115: 1087: 911: 880: 857: 838: 821: 5139:

Do you have any content-related arguments instead of links to more pages?

5093:

Do you have any content-related arguments instead of links to more pages?

4763: 4677:

legal code, or law report, or an indiscriminate collection of information"

3072:, where Musk has an image, but Bezos does not. This is very much part of 3765:. In the long run the academic look will prevail over kids picture book. 2785:'s main article, so why should there be one by means of navbox? Look at 2551:

I think we need to put this to bed. How does including an image in, say

2270: 2014: 1997: 793: 768: 4359:

editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow

4073:

autocollapsed child navboxes within the template should be created." --

556:. Navboxes are part of articles, and therefore the reasons that we have 186: 3354: 3229: 2790: 2778: 2755: 1083: 1013: 4515:

red links are only included to keep the template from being incomplete

3818:

In the long run the academic look will prevail over kids picture book.

3548:

Images have been used in sidebars and footer navboxes since they began

3512:

Images have been used in sidebars and footer navboxes since they began

561:

their article, but it wouldn't make sense to add them to that navbox.

5242: 5214: 5182: 4728: 4519:

not where Knowledge would become something other than an encyclopedia

4373: 3921: 3851: 3813: 3767: 3536: 3429: 3219: 2828: 2750: 2706: 2668:

It is not "fine". It's useless clutter on the footer of every page.

2594: 2570: 2475: 2002: 1940: 1902: 1814:

That doesn't sound like good faith to me. I was just doing a bit of

1680: 1537: 1425:

which quite frankly is a mess. I think I'd prefer to see a discrete

1098: 1079: 895: 864: 802: 722: 683: 662:

Only include the navbox on articles that are linked to by the navbox.

563: 535: 513: 3954:

At the insistence of another editor to begin a discussion about this

3143:

If it's not late at night and you can check, why don't you actually

4969: 4456:

All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject

4336:. What would reduce clutter in your example would be to remove the 4215:, you have edit-warred (I still can't revert, 3RR) into including " 183: 4475:

There should be a Knowledge article on the subject of the template

4706:

articles" to retain a requirement for relatedness per WP:NAV. --

3353:

If one was being pedantic, perhaps I should have said guideline (

330: 312: 258: 240: 4499:

Except where it would prevent the template from being complete,

4471:

The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.

342:, a group dedicated to improving the maintenance of Knowledge's 3171:

of Bezos!! Use of the word "missing" would imply that a navbox

2620: 2616: 2037:?} and every year or so since then. The first part of option A 1246:

for one. And that's before we even go into options a, b or c.

1034:, who are now covered within their biographical navboxes (i.e. 187: 2085:

Memorial to the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence

1244:

Memorial to the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence

862:..You seem to be advocating for C....dont added them allover? 4961: 4957: 2593:

This is an easy one, and rests solely on the foundation of

502:

a given navbox have to be included as a link in the navbox.

2459:

Agree, I don't recall ever linking a section to a navbox.

2333:

is already linked, we don't need to link it again anyway.

1007:, at least for sidebars. Quoting my reasoning from above: 278:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the 2627:, where even inclusion of the navbox could be considered 1536:

Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative; Per

3149:

Knowledge:Do not disrupt Knowledge to illustrate a point

3024:

Okay, late at night, couldn't be bothered to check, but

2701:

But by being arbitrarily decorative, it does go against

4324:}} template and the only 10 of the 36 entries in the {{ 3965:"Do we have two or three templates where one would do?" 3371:

would give voice to the gideline and would also state:

1415:(although there is a massive overlap with a section of 1130:

subject to more stringent scrutiny in the way that say

5113:

I'd also add that there is a distinction that you and

3390:

is an argumentive fallacy. One must continue and read

1217:

Thanks. Then on my question above about, for example,

4579:

child navboxes within the template should be created.

4355:

Don't get blocked.... policy quote so it's clear ..."

3763:

Knowledge:Don't edit war over the colour of templates

5209:

note "a".... It's also on many other project pages.

4505:

other navigation templates or infoboxes are excluded

4171:

That is "ownership" behavior per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. --

410:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 15: 3876:Really? As this thread started citing the template 2567:

Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative

4942:standards for sea marks and marine navigation aids 4762:I've waited a week for you to reply, during which 2868:In your example, a photo of Elon Musk next to the 2749:about images. In this case though, the spirit of 1749:or at least on the edges. I don't do that to him. 1578:Welcome to Knowledge the 💕 that anyone can edit. 1198:transcluding = placing the navbox in the article. 4328:}} template overlap with the 33 entries in the {{ 4304:}} template overlap with the 33 entries in the {{ 2325:is the more in depth article which has a section 508: 5274: 3554:parameter has existed within the template since 1287:. I repeat. This is a navbox, not an infobox. 1265:So you'd gut the navbox in any case. Would like 1064:Pinging participants from the prior discussion: 3949:WP:ATC and splitting large navigation templates 3398:. IAR (and WP:COMMONSENSE) are not a catch-all 3175:have an image, which is clearly NOT the case. 2525:Template talk:Doctor Who episodes#Episode count 2329:which at leasts mentions Anatolia. However as 2211:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence 2110:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence 1525:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence 1462:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence 1385:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence 4972:. Likewise, there is no inherent advantage to 2258:Should navboxes not include links to sections? 1285:The "above" is fine for informational purposes 525:Clarification note: If it aids understanding, 5192:What policy is your quotation cited from? -- 4521:if articles were created from the red links. 3777:It would be nice to have it codified though, 4938:regulations for preventing collisions at sea 3386:is not a substantive argument of itself. An 2156:List of United States senators from Virginia 4557:official journal, legal code, or law report 3447:is opinion offered without substantiation. 3222:, images are rarely appropriate in navboxes 2087:from individual navboxes even though, like 1540:, images are rarely appropriate in navboxes 498:There is no requirement that articles that 270:, an attempt to structure and organize all 25:Categories, lists, and navigation templates 3441:clarifies the subject in the reader's mind 4133:to editors who do not wish to follow the 1435:navbox which combines elements of both.) 220:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 4561:indiscriminate collection of information 3435:There is the assertion that images have 2158:in this navbox, when Lee is included in 274:. If you wish to help, please visit the 4946:left-hand traffic or right-hand traffic 4928:: Common sense is not a substitute for 3820:We might revisit an RfC in the future. 5275: 3737:This guideline includes the guideline 3005:(see how annoying it can be?). People 4845:Dropped #7, for reasons given in the 2987:shortcuts to make it seem as if your 1562:Here we go, the deletionist treatment 4944:. There is no inherent advantage to 3546:I'd like to state that the claim of 3471:has two sidebars, both with images: 2358:Prehistoric Caucasus#Genetic history 2163:United States senators from Virginia 1396:those articles through this method. 988:National Register of Historic Places 981:National Register of Historic Places 910:Yes, that's the potential problem. — 209: 207: 203: 4332:}} template. But as I said before, 2327:Genetic history of Europe#Neolithic 2045:ensure bidirectionality . For that 226:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 13: 5079:existing policy by bold edits. -- 4575:, and where this is not possible, 3261:wait for a consensus to be reached 2356:is linked, which is a redirect to 14: 5309: 2523:Would anyone like to weigh in at 2317:is linked, but this redirects to 404:This page is within the scope of 336:This page is within the scope of 264:This page is within the scope of 2561:, facilitate navigation? Essay 2360:, a section which suggests that 1520:And with regard to the image at 900: 869: 807: 424:Knowledge:WikiProject Categories 397: 379: 329: 311: 257: 239: 208: 169: 40:Click here to start a new topic. 4731:, correct me if I am wrong. -- 2833:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Icons 2354:Genetic history of the Caucasus 1669:teeny-tiny navboxes, let's use 427:Template:WikiProject Categories 356:Knowledge:WikiProject Templates 4661:one or more separate templates 4312:12 of the 30 entries in the {{ 2509:Inclusion of episode count on 359:Template:WikiProject Templates 1: 5248:03:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 5235:03:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 5220:03:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 5202:03:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 5188:01:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 5172:01:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 4684:to the WP:NOT policy article 4553:soapbox or means of promotion 4549:publisher of original thought 4316:}} template overlap with the 2416:articles using the template. 2221:Historical American Documents 2120:Historical American Documents 1720:Historical American Documents 1674:Historical American Documents 1495:Historical American Documents 1472:Historical American Documents 1420:Historical American Documents 418:and see a list of open tasks. 350:and see a list of open tasks. 37:Put new text under old text. 5298:WikiProject Categories pages 4764:you've been actively editing 713:Quoting from the guideline: 7: 5288:NA-importance List articles 5283:Project-Class List articles 5153:23:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 5135:17:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 5107:23:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 5089:17:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 5074:16:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 5056:16:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 5038:16:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 5019:15:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 4912:11:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 4882:10:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 4859:09:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 4841:22:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC) 4827:22:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC) 4796:10:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 4781:15:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC) 4758:13:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 4741:06:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 4716:00:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 4623:00:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC) 4608:16:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 4593:16:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 4511:External links are excluded 4424:16:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 4409:14:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 4394:13:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 4379:02:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 4351:16:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 4292:08:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 4277:22:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4263:of the criteria and only a 4249:13:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4195:13:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4181:12:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4163:04:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4148:04:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4128:03:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4113:03:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4098:03:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4083:00:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4053:00:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4031:00:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4016:00:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 4002:00:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC) 3983:13:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC) 1430:Declaration of Independence 1333:those articles in Knowledge 1032:Second Continental Congress 288:Knowledge:WikiProject Lists 45:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 10: 5314: 5293:WikiProject Lists articles 3773:15:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 3756:10:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 3732:00:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 3714:13:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3682:15:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3665:12:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3645:12:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3624:12:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3601:12:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3575:11:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3550:is absolutely correct. An 3542:11:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3529:11:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3501:09:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC) 3452:purposely define the topic 3450:Does an image in a navbox 3407:Argumentum ad antiquitatem 3369:Knowledge:Image use policy 3346:11:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3327:09:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3284:23:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3251:15:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3208:15:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3190:14:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3166:14:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3139:14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3112:14:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3098:13:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3058:13:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3043:05:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC) 3020:23:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2967:20:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2931:20:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2912:19:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2888:18:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2864:15:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2845:14:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2808:14:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2773:14:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2739:13:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2724:13:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2697:13:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2683:13:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2664:13:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2646:13:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2607:12:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2588:12:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC) 2547:Images in navboxes (again) 2542:08:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC) 2495:14:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC) 2481:16:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC) 2469:15:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC) 2455:14:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC) 2436:14:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC) 2404:14:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC) 2379:14:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC) 2348:13:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC) 2299:13:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC) 2279:13:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC) 2242:12:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC) 2202:12:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC) 2187:10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC) 2140:09:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC) 2101:13:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC) 1467:and now want to disfigure 1054:13:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC) 291:Template:WikiProject Lists 4870:Oppose all per The Banner 4484:sections of the articles. 3888:User:Cambalachero/sandbox 2952:within a single article. 2331:Genetic history of Europe 2323:Genetic history of Europe 2319:Neolithic Europe#Genetics 2079:21:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 2060:19:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 2023:18:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 2009:17:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1988:17:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1969:17:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1947:17:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1934:17:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1909:17:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1847:14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1833:14:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1810:14:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1786:14:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1759:14:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1740:13:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1712:13:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1693:13:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1593:13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1574:13:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1557:13:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1516:13:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1487:13:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1450:13:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1411:13:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1375:13:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1350:13:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1317:12:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1302:12:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1279:12:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1261:12:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1237:11:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1213:11:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1194:11:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1175:11:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1149:07:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1124:07:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1105:04:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 1022:08:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC) 1000:06:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 969:03:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC) 952:23:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC) 920:01:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC) 906:17:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC) 889:09:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC) 875:09:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC) 847:09:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC) 830:19:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 813:13:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 777:12:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 752:17:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 729:17:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 719:sections of the articles. 709:17:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 690:17:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 673:10:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 653:07:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 625:07:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 606:06:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 570:04:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 542:17:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 520:04:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC) 392: 324: 252: 234: 75:Be welcoming to newcomers 5125:per WP:SUPPLEMENTAL. -- 4996:oversized templates. It 4648:the lead section or body 3927:21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 3915:22:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 3900:16:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 3872:00:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 3857:02:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 3845:13:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC) 3830:11:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC) 3796:08:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC) 3120:. It doesn't solve the 2362:Caucasus hunter-gatherer 199: 5180:for more information." 4968:is the rule for narrow 3443:. Asserting there is a 2387:earlier discussion here 2315:Early Anatolian Farmers 1321:The very first line of 1134:is used in categories. 658:Option A with rewording 272:list pages on Knowledge 5227:CommonKnowledgeCreator 5194:CommonKnowledgeCreator 5164:CommonKnowledgeCreator 5127:CommonKnowledgeCreator 5081:CommonKnowledgeCreator 5048:CommonKnowledgeCreator 5011:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4895:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4833:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4773:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4746:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4733:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4708:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4600:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4585:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4416:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4386:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4343:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4269:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4213:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4173:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4140:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4105:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4075:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4045:CommonKnowledgeCreator 4008:CommonKnowledgeCreator 3990:CommonKnowledgeCreator 3975:CommonKnowledgeCreator 3481:with their photo, and 3476:Bashar al-Assad series 3388:appeal to common sense 1955:is more succinct than 407:WikiProject Categories 70:avoid personal attacks 5117:have ignored between 4986:U.S. customary system 4966:priority to the right 4954:bidirectional traffic 4501:articles included in 4330:1928 New York Yankees 4326:1932 New York Yankees 4322:1927 New York Yankees 4314:1923 New York Yankees 4306:1928 New York Yankees 4302:1927 New York Yankees 4234:1928 New York Yankees 4224:1927 New York Yankees 1916:is already linked to 800:for article stewards. 451:RfC: WP:BIDIRECTIONAL 339:WikiProject Templates 163:Auto-archiving period 4990:navigation templates 4320:32 entries in the {{ 4300:32 entries in the {{ 4267:of the criteria. -- 3400:get out of jail free 3147:the pages you cite? 2144:In fact, looking at 1920:upon first usage at 1390:so you can navigate 575:Option B, tetatively 5178:Template:Supplement 4545:manual or guidebook 3558:in August 2007. -- 2615:. I mean, look at 2514:Doctor Who episodes 1745:cool, and probably 939:WP:Ignore all rules 468:Every article that 430:Categories articles 5123:explanatory essays 3216:explicitly states 2787:Boring Test Tunnel 1771:wildly off topic. 796:guideline and our 362:Templates articles 222:content assessment 81:dispute resolution 42: 4956:in an individual 4952:is preferable to 4934:rules of the road 4369:gaming the system 3727:The Transhumanist 3486:Ba'athism sidebar 3357:), which states: 2623:for example. Or 2149:Richard Henry Lee 2089:Richard Henry Lee 1951:If we must, then 1918:Help:Transclusion 1894: 1893: 1795:Richard Henry Lee 1631:WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE 1455:Are you serious?? 1360:Richard Henry Lee 1222:Richard Henry Lee 1159:Richard Henry Lee 1039:Richard Henry Lee 798:November 2020 RfC 670: 446: 445: 442: 441: 438: 437: 374: 373: 370: 369: 306: 305: 302: 301: 267:WikiProject Lists 194: 193: 61:Assume good faith 38: 5305: 5245: 5217: 5185: 5151: 5144: 5105: 5098: 5072: 5065: 5036: 5029: 4908: 4903: 4825: 4818: 4466:of every article 4376: 4338:New York Yankees 4238: 4232: 4228: 4222: 3956:, I argue that: 3924: 3885: 3879: 3854: 3792: 3787: 3770: 3752: 3747: 3730: 3661: 3656: 3641: 3635: 3632: 3620: 3615: 3571: 3565: 3562: 3553: 3539: 3525: 3520: 3510:Your claim that 3490: 3484: 3480: 3474: 3469:Syrian civil war 3463: 3459:History of China 3457: 3280: 3274: 3271: 3247: 3242: 3186: 3181: 3135: 3130: 3094: 3089: 3076:, which states: 3069:The Space Barons 3039: 3034: 3001:, when actually 2963: 2958: 2927: 2922: 2877: 2871: 2860: 2855: 2804: 2799: 2769: 2764: 2720: 2715: 2679: 2674: 2642: 2637: 2584: 2579: 2560: 2554: 2538: 2533: 2518: 2512: 2478: 2451: 2446: 2432: 2427: 2411:WP:NAVNOREDIRECT 2400: 2395: 2375: 2370: 2344: 2339: 2312: 2306: 2238: 2233: 2225: 2219: 2215: 2209: 2183: 2178: 2170:WP:BIDIRECTIONAL 2167: 2161: 2153: 2147: 2136: 2131: 2124: 2118: 2114: 2108: 2075: 2070: 2007: 2005: 1984: 1979: 1945: 1943: 1922:WP:BIDIRECTIONAL 1907: 1905: 1829: 1824: 1799: 1793: 1782: 1777: 1736: 1731: 1724: 1718: 1708: 1703: 1678: 1672: 1629:Wrong venue for 1625: 1624: 1589: 1584: 1553: 1548: 1529: 1523: 1512: 1507: 1499: 1493: 1476: 1470: 1466: 1460: 1446: 1441: 1434: 1428: 1424: 1418: 1407: 1402: 1389: 1383: 1364: 1358: 1346: 1341: 1298: 1293: 1257: 1252: 1226: 1220: 1209: 1204: 1163: 1157: 1145: 1140: 1103: 1101: 1095: 1043: 1037: 985: 979: 904: 898: 873: 867: 861: 811: 805: 748: 743: 727: 725: 705: 700: 688: 686: 671: 669: 663: 649: 644: 621: 616: 604: 588: 568: 566: 540: 538: 518: 516: 509:Prior discussion 457:WP:BIDIRECTIONAL 432: 431: 428: 425: 422: 401: 394: 393: 383: 376: 375: 364: 363: 360: 357: 354: 333: 326: 325: 315: 308: 307: 296: 295: 292: 289: 286: 261: 254: 253: 243: 236: 235: 213: 212: 211: 204: 188: 174: 173: 164: 16: 5313: 5312: 5308: 5307: 5306: 5304: 5303: 5302: 5273: 5272: 5241: 5213: 5207:WP:SUPPLEMENTAL 5181: 5142: 5140: 5096: 5094: 5063: 5061: 5027: 5025: 4982:imperial system 4950:one-way traffic 4906: 4901: 4816: 4814: 4768:appears to have 4695:three-fourths. 4444: 4372: 4236: 4230: 4226: 4220: 3951: 3920: 3883: 3877: 3850: 3790: 3785: 3766: 3750: 3745: 3723: 3659: 3654: 3643: 3639: 3633: 3630: 3618: 3613: 3573: 3569: 3563: 3560: 3551: 3535: 3523: 3518: 3488: 3482: 3478: 3472: 3461: 3455: 3282: 3278: 3272: 3269: 3245: 3240: 3184: 3179: 3133: 3128: 3092: 3087: 3037: 3032: 2961: 2956: 2925: 2920: 2875: 2869: 2858: 2853: 2802: 2797: 2767: 2762: 2718: 2713: 2677: 2672: 2640: 2635: 2582: 2577: 2569:) states: "Per 2558: 2552: 2549: 2536: 2531: 2521: 2516: 2510: 2474: 2449: 2444: 2430: 2425: 2398: 2393: 2373: 2368: 2342: 2337: 2313:. For example 2310: 2304: 2260: 2236: 2231: 2223: 2217: 2213: 2207: 2181: 2176: 2168:. This is how 2165: 2159: 2151: 2145: 2134: 2129: 2122: 2116: 2112: 2106: 2073: 2068: 2003: 2001: 1982: 1977: 1941: 1939: 1903: 1901: 1895: 1827: 1822: 1797: 1791: 1780: 1775: 1734: 1729: 1722: 1716: 1706: 1701: 1676: 1670: 1633: 1587: 1582: 1551: 1546: 1527: 1521: 1510: 1505: 1497: 1491: 1474: 1468: 1464: 1458: 1444: 1439: 1432: 1426: 1422: 1416: 1405: 1400: 1387: 1381: 1362: 1356: 1344: 1339: 1296: 1291: 1255: 1250: 1224: 1218: 1207: 1202: 1161: 1155: 1143: 1138: 1099: 1097: 1065: 1062: 1041: 1035: 983: 977: 894: 863: 855: 801: 746: 741: 723: 721: 703: 698: 684: 682: 664: 661: 647: 642: 619: 614: 590: 582: 564: 562: 550: 536: 534: 529:can be read as 514: 512: 453: 429: 426: 423: 420: 419: 361: 358: 355: 352: 351: 293: 290: 287: 284: 283: 202: 190: 189: 184: 161: 87: 86: 56: 12: 11: 5: 5311: 5301: 5300: 5295: 5290: 5285: 5271: 5270: 5269: 5268: 5267: 5266: 5265: 5264: 5263: 5262: 5261: 5260: 5259: 5258: 5257: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5253: 5252: 5251: 5250: 5111: 5110: 5109: 4922:woodensuperman 4915: 4914: 4884: 4866: 4865: 4864: 4863: 4862: 4861: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4699: 4689: 4682:to the various 4671: 4664: 4657: 4651: 4638: 4581: 4580: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4508: 4497: 4491: 4485: 4478: 4472: 4469: 4459: 4443: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4256:sports dynasty 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 3950: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3859: 3803: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3670:Woodensuperman 3637: 3589:Woodensuperman 3585:WP:COMMONSENSE 3567: 3544: 3422: 3421: 3412:WP:WEAKSILENCE 3384:WP:COMMONSENSE 3380: 3379: 3365: 3364: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3334:WP:COMMONSENSE 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3276: 3265:drop the stick 3253: 3234:MOS:CONSISTENT 3124:issue though. 3116:Well that was 3080:use of imagery 2950:MOS:CONSISTENT 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2775: 2548: 2545: 2520: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2308:Human genetics 2287:Woodensuperman 2259: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2142: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1971: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1714: 1635: 1634: 1628: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1518: 1413: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1072:Woodensuperman 1061: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1024: 1002: 971: 954: 944:Biogeographist 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 850: 849: 832: 815: 779: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 655: 629: 628: 627: 580: 572: 549: 546: 545: 544: 505: 504: 491: 481:Articles that 474: 466:(status quo): 452: 449: 444: 443: 440: 439: 436: 435: 433: 416:the discussion 402: 390: 389: 384: 372: 371: 368: 367: 365: 334: 322: 321: 316: 304: 303: 300: 299: 297: 262: 250: 249: 244: 232: 231: 225: 214: 200:To top of page 197: 196: 192: 191: 182: 180: 179: 176: 175: 89: 88: 85: 84: 77: 72: 63: 57: 55: 54: 43: 34: 33: 30: 29: 28: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5310: 5299: 5296: 5294: 5291: 5289: 5286: 5284: 5281: 5280: 5278: 5249: 5244: 5238: 5237: 5236: 5232: 5228: 5223: 5222: 5221: 5216: 5212: 5208: 5205: 5204: 5203: 5199: 5195: 5191: 5190: 5189: 5184: 5179: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5169: 5165: 5161: 5156: 5155: 5154: 5150: 5149: 5145: 5138: 5137: 5136: 5132: 5128: 5124: 5120: 5116: 5112: 5108: 5104: 5103: 5099: 5092: 5091: 5090: 5086: 5082: 5077: 5076: 5075: 5071: 5070: 5066: 5059: 5058: 5057: 5053: 5049: 5046:navboxes. -- 5044: 5041: 5040: 5039: 5035: 5034: 5030: 5023: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5016: 5012: 5006: 5002: 4999: 4993: 4991: 4987: 4983: 4979: 4978:metric system 4975: 4974:traffic signs 4971: 4967: 4963: 4959: 4955: 4951: 4947: 4943: 4939: 4935: 4931: 4930:traffic codes 4927: 4923: 4919: 4913: 4910: 4909: 4904: 4896: 4892: 4888: 4885: 4883: 4879: 4875: 4871: 4868: 4867: 4860: 4856: 4852: 4848: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4829: 4828: 4824: 4823: 4819: 4812: 4809: 4797: 4793: 4789: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4778: 4774: 4769: 4765: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4755: 4751: 4747: 4744: 4743: 4742: 4738: 4734: 4730: 4726: 4721: 4717: 4713: 4709: 4705: 4700: 4698: 4694: 4693:two-thirds or 4690: 4687: 4683: 4678: 4672: 4670: 4665: 4662: 4658: 4656: 4652: 4649: 4646: 4645: 4644:the main text 4639: 4637: 4633: 4632: 4629: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4620: 4616: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4605: 4601: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4590: 4586: 4578: 4577:autocollapsed 4574: 4570: 4569: 4563: 4562: 4558: 4554: 4550: 4546: 4542: 4538: 4534: 4530: 4526: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4509: 4506: 4504: 4498: 4495: 4492: 4489: 4486: 4483: 4479: 4476: 4473: 4470: 4467: 4465: 4460: 4457: 4454: 4453: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4406: 4402: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4391: 4387: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4375: 4370: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4348: 4344: 4339: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4315: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4299: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4262: 4257: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4246: 4242: 4235: 4225: 4218: 4214: 4196: 4192: 4188: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4178: 4174: 4169: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4160: 4156: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4145: 4141: 4136: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4125: 4121: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4110: 4106: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4080: 4076: 4072: 4067: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4037: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4005: 4004: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3988:This editor, 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3971: 3968: 3966: 3962: 3957: 3955: 3928: 3923: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3912: 3908: 3907:Cinderella157 3903: 3902: 3901: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3882: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3869: 3865: 3864:Cinderella157 3860: 3858: 3853: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3842: 3838: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3822:Cinderella157 3819: 3815: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3797: 3794: 3793: 3788: 3780: 3779:Cinderella157 3776: 3775: 3774: 3769: 3764: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3754: 3753: 3748: 3740: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3729: 3728: 3715: 3711: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3683: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3663: 3662: 3657: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3642: 3636: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3622: 3621: 3616: 3608: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3572: 3566: 3557: 3549: 3545: 3543: 3538: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3527: 3526: 3521: 3513: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3493:Cinderella157 3487: 3477: 3470: 3465: 3460: 3453: 3448: 3446: 3445:great benefit 3442: 3438: 3433: 3431: 3427: 3420: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3413: 3408: 3403: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3378: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3370: 3363: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3356: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3319:Cinderella157 3315: 3314: 3285: 3281: 3275: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3252: 3249: 3248: 3243: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3221: 3215: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3188: 3187: 3182: 3174: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3137: 3136: 3131: 3123: 3122:Talulah Riley 3119: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3096: 3095: 3090: 3083: 3081: 3075: 3071: 3070: 3066:example. Or 3065: 3064:Talulah Riley 3061: 3060: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3041: 3040: 3035: 3027: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2999:WP:GUIDELINES 2997: 2994: 2991:was based on 2990: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2965: 2964: 2959: 2951: 2948: 2947: 2946:WP:CONSISTENT 2942: 2938: 2937: 2932: 2929: 2928: 2923: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2904: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2874: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2862: 2861: 2856: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2827: 2826: 2809: 2806: 2805: 2800: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2783:Talulah Riley 2780: 2776: 2774: 2771: 2770: 2765: 2757: 2752: 2748: 2745: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2722: 2721: 2716: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2681: 2680: 2675: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2652: 2651:Talulah Riley 2649: 2648: 2647: 2644: 2643: 2638: 2630: 2626: 2625:Talulah Riley 2622: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2586: 2585: 2580: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2557: 2544: 2543: 2540: 2539: 2534: 2526: 2515: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2477: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2453: 2452: 2447: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2434: 2433: 2428: 2421: 2419: 2412: 2409: 2405: 2402: 2401: 2396: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2377: 2376: 2371: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2346: 2345: 2340: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2309: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2264: 2243: 2240: 2239: 2234: 2222: 2212: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2185: 2184: 2179: 2172:should work. 2171: 2164: 2157: 2150: 2143: 2141: 2138: 2137: 2132: 2121: 2111: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2077: 2076: 2071: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2048:bidirectional 2044: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2006: 1999: 1995: 1989: 1986: 1985: 1980: 1972: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1944: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1906: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1831: 1830: 1825: 1817: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1796: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1784: 1783: 1778: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1738: 1737: 1732: 1721: 1715: 1713: 1710: 1709: 1704: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1675: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1632: 1627: 1626: 1594: 1591: 1590: 1585: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1555: 1554: 1549: 1541: 1539: 1533: 1526: 1519: 1517: 1514: 1513: 1508: 1496: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1473: 1463: 1456: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1448: 1447: 1442: 1431: 1421: 1414: 1412: 1409: 1408: 1403: 1395: 1394: 1386: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1361: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1348: 1347: 1342: 1334: 1332: 1331: 1324: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1300: 1299: 1294: 1286: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1259: 1258: 1253: 1245: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1223: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1211: 1210: 1205: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1182: 1181: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1160: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1147: 1146: 1141: 1133: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1107: 1106: 1102: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1040: 1033: 1028: 1025: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1006: 1003: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 982: 975: 972: 970: 966: 962: 958: 955: 953: 949: 945: 940: 936: 933: 932: 921: 917: 913: 909: 908: 907: 903: 897: 892: 891: 890: 886: 882: 878: 877: 876: 872: 866: 859: 854: 853: 852: 851: 848: 844: 840: 836: 833: 831: 827: 823: 819: 816: 814: 810: 804: 799: 795: 791: 787: 786:Middle ground 783: 780: 778: 774: 770: 766: 763: 753: 750: 749: 744: 737: 732: 731: 730: 726: 720: 718: 712: 711: 710: 707: 706: 701: 693: 692: 691: 687: 680: 676: 675: 674: 668: 659: 656: 654: 651: 650: 645: 637: 633: 630: 626: 623: 622: 617: 609: 608: 607: 602: 599: 596: 595: 586: 578: 576: 573: 571: 567: 559: 555: 552: 551: 543: 539: 532: 528: 524: 523: 522: 521: 517: 510: 503: 501: 495: 492: 490: 488: 484: 478: 475: 473: 471: 465: 462: 461: 460: 458: 448: 434: 417: 413: 409: 408: 403: 400: 396: 395: 391: 388: 385: 382: 378: 377: 366: 349: 345: 341: 340: 335: 332: 328: 327: 323: 320: 317: 314: 310: 309: 298: 294:List articles 281: 277: 273: 269: 268: 263: 260: 256: 255: 251: 248: 245: 242: 238: 237: 233: 229: 223: 219: 215: 206: 205: 201: 195: 178: 177: 172: 168: 160: 156: 152: 148: 144: 140: 136: 132: 128: 124: 120: 116: 112: 108: 104: 100: 97: 95: 91: 90: 82: 78: 76: 73: 71: 67: 64: 62: 59: 58: 52: 48: 47:Learn to edit 44: 41: 36: 35: 32: 31: 26: 22: 18: 17: 5159: 5147: 5122: 5118: 5101: 5068: 5042: 5032: 5007: 5003: 4997: 4994: 4989: 4916: 4898: 4886: 4869: 4847:edit summary 4821: 4810: 4767: 4703: 4696: 4692: 4685: 4681: 4675: 4667: 4660: 4653: 4647: 4643: 4642: 4634: 4627: 4582: 4541:crystal ball 4522: 4502: 4463: 4445: 4333: 4317: 4310:11 of the 29 4309: 4297: 4264: 4260: 4211: 4167: 4134: 4070: 4065: 4063: 4040: 4035: 3972: 3969: 3958: 3952: 3892:Cambalachero 3837:Cambalachero 3817: 3782: 3742: 3725: 3720: 3706:Cambalachero 3701: 3651: 3610: 3556:its creation 3547: 3515: 3511: 3466: 3451: 3449: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3434: 3423: 3418: 3404: 3399: 3381: 3375: 3366: 3361: 3352: 3260: 3257:WP:CONSENSUS 3237: 3217: 3200:Cambalachero 3195: 3176: 3172: 3158:Cambalachero 3144: 3125: 3104:Cambalachero 3084: 3079: 3077: 3067: 3050:Cambalachero 3029: 3012:Cambalachero 3006: 2977:WP:POINTLESS 2953: 2944: 2917: 2903:Gwillhickers 2902: 2898:Cambalachero 2880:Cambalachero 2850: 2837:Cambalachero 2794: 2759: 2746: 2710: 2669: 2632: 2574: 2566: 2550: 2528: 2522: 2441: 2422: 2417: 2414: 2390: 2365: 2334: 2267:were removed 2261: 2228: 2173: 2126: 2115:and also in 2065: 2046: 2042: 2038: 1974: 1956: 1952: 1913: 1819: 1772: 1768: 1726: 1698: 1683:'s wording? 1579: 1561: 1543: 1535: 1502: 1454: 1436: 1397: 1392: 1391: 1336: 1329: 1328: 1326: 1288: 1284: 1247: 1199: 1135: 1108: 1063: 1026: 1008: 1004: 973: 956: 934: 834: 817: 789: 785: 781: 764: 738: 735: 714: 695: 657: 639: 631: 611: 593: 574: 553: 530: 526: 506: 497: 493: 480: 476: 467: 463: 455:What should 454: 447: 405: 337: 276:project page 265: 228:WikiProjects 218:project page 217: 166: 92: 19:This is the 4071:collapsable 3392:WP:NOCOMMON 3214:WP:NAVDECOR 3212:Given that 2993:WP:POLICIES 2989:WP:PROPOSAL 2975:that it is 2971:You should 2892:Agree with 2744:WP:NAVDECOR 2703:WP:NAVDECOR 2563:WP:NAVDECOR 2263:This navbox 1914:Transcludes 1816:wikignoming 1747:WP:Hounding 1532:WP:NAVDECOR 1267:SMcClandish 1132:WP:DEFINING 1092:SMcCandlish 794:MOS:SEEALSO 594:SMcCandlish 527:Transcludes 470:transcludes 5277:Categories 5211:disclosure 5143:The Banner 5115:Randy Kryn 5097:The Banner 5064:The Banner 5028:The Banner 4976:using the 4926:Randy Kryn 4918:The Banner 4891:Randy Kryn 4887:Oppose all 4874:Randy Kryn 4817:The Banner 4788:Randy Kryn 4750:Randy Kryn 4636:inclusion. 4615:Randy Kryn 4533:repository 4525:dictionary 4401:Randy Kryn 4284:Randy Kryn 4241:Randy Kryn 4187:Randy Kryn 4155:Randy Kryn 4135:principles 4120:Randy Kryn 4090:Randy Kryn 4023:Randy Kryn 3994:Randy Kryn 3674:Randy Kryn 3593:Randy Kryn 3579:Thank you 3355:MOS:IMAGES 3338:Randy Kryn 3230:MOS:IMAGES 3003:WP:ITISNOT 2894:Randy Kyrn 2791:MOS:IMAGES 2779:MOS:IMAGES 2756:MOS:IMAGES 2731:Randy Kryn 2689:Randy Kryn 2656:Randy Kryn 2599:Randy Kryn 2487:Randy Kryn 2461:Randy Kryn 2352:Similarly 2291:Randy Kryn 2194:Randy Kryn 2093:Randy Kryn 1839:Randy Kryn 1802:Randy Kryn 1751:Randy Kryn 1685:Randy Kryn 1566:Randy Kryn 1479:Randy Kryn 1367:Randy Kryn 1309:Randy Kryn 1271:Randy Kryn 1229:Randy Kryn 1186:Randy Kryn 1167:Randy Kryn 1112:WP:PERFNAV 1076:Randy Kryn 1060:Discussion 1046:Randy Kryn 585:Cue sports 500:transclude 483:transclude 421:Categories 412:categories 387:Categories 348:discussion 280:discussion 5158:proposal 4984:, or the 4970:waterways 4537:newspaper 4529:directory 4308:}}, only 3881:Elon Musk 3739:WP:NAVBOX 3430:Elon Musk 3382:Invoking 3367:However, 3220:MOS:DECOR 3154:WP:BEBOLD 3118:WP:POINTY 2985:WP:RANDOM 2873:Elon Musk 2829:MOS:DECOR 2777:i.e. per 2751:MOS:DECOR 2707:MOS:DECOR 2595:MOS:DECOR 2571:MOS:DECOR 2556:Elon Musk 1996:Pinging @ 1538:MOS:DECOR 1325:states: 1323:WP:NAVBOX 1283:Per your 961:Aquillion 679:WP:NAVBOX 353:Templates 344:templates 319:Templates 83:if needed 66:Be polite 21:talk page 4907:superman 4851:Mathglot 4686:sections 4669:clutter. 4655:created. 4559:, or an 4513:, while 4503:multiple 4482:See also 4265:majority 4041:policies 3791:superman 3751:superman 3660:superman 3619:superman 3524:superman 3377:central. 3246:superman 3226:WP:UNDUE 3185:superman 3134:superman 3093:superman 3074:WP:UNDUE 3038:superman 3026:WP:UNDUE 2962:superman 2941:WP:UNDUE 2926:superman 2859:superman 2803:superman 2768:superman 2719:superman 2678:superman 2641:superman 2629:WP:UNDUE 2613:WP:UNDUE 2583:superman 2537:superman 2450:superman 2431:superman 2399:superman 2374:superman 2343:superman 2237:superman 2182:superman 2135:superman 2074:superman 1983:superman 1953:includes 1828:superman 1781:superman 1735:superman 1707:superman 1588:superman 1552:superman 1511:superman 1445:superman 1406:superman 1345:superman 1297:superman 1256:superman 1208:superman 1144:superman 1096:Cheers, 1068:Mudwater 1027:Option B 1005:Option B 974:Option A 957:Option B 935:Option A 835:Option A 818:Option C 782:Option B 765:Option A 747:superman 717:See also 704:superman 667:Mudwater 648:superman 636:WP:UNDUE 632:Option A 620:superman 554:Option B 511:above.) 494:Option C 477:Option B 464:Option A 94:Archives 51:get help 4704:related 3581:Alex 21 3552:|image= 3426:WP:1000 2981:WP:LINK 2973:WP:KNOW 2519:navbox? 2052:Thincat 1961:Bagumba 1926:Bagumba 1393:between 1330:between 1116:Bagumba 1090:, and 1088:Bagumba 912:Bagumba 881:Bagumba 858:Bagumba 839:Bagumba 822:Thincat 577:. This 167:90 days 5119:essays 4980:, the 4948:, but 4940:, and 4902:wooden 4811:oppose 4365:WP:0RR 4361:WP:1RR 3786:wooden 3746:wooden 3655:wooden 3614:wooden 3519:wooden 3396:WP:IAR 3241:wooden 3180:wooden 3173:should 3129:wooden 3088:wooden 3033:wooden 2996:WP:AND 2957:wooden 2921:wooden 2854:wooden 2798:wooden 2763:wooden 2714:wooden 2673:wooden 2636:wooden 2621:OpenAI 2617:PayPal 2578:wooden 2532:wooden 2445:wooden 2426:wooden 2394:wooden 2369:wooden 2338:wooden 2271:Jarble 2232:wooden 2177:wooden 2130:wooden 2069:wooden 2015:Gonnym 1998:Gonnym 1978:wooden 1823:wooden 1776:wooden 1765:WP:AGF 1730:wooden 1702:wooden 1583:wooden 1547:wooden 1530:, see 1506:wooden 1440:wooden 1401:wooden 1340:wooden 1292:wooden 1251:wooden 1203:wooden 1139:wooden 992:Graham 769:Gonnym 742:wooden 699:wooden 643:wooden 615:wooden 558:WP:DUE 548:Survey 224:scale. 5162:. -- 4960:of a 4555:, an 4066:Large 3631:Alex_ 3561:Alex_ 3534:view. 3270:Alex_ 3267:. -- 2041:does 1763:FFS, 1084:DFlhb 1014:DFlhb 788:or... 579:seems 487:undue 459:say? 285:Lists 247:Lists 216:This 99:Index 79:Seek 27:page. 5243:Moxy 5231:talk 5215:Moxy 5198:talk 5183:Moxy 5168:talk 5148:talk 5131:talk 5121:and 5102:talk 5085:talk 5069:talk 5052:talk 5033:talk 5015:talk 4964:and 4962:road 4958:lane 4878:talk 4855:talk 4837:talk 4822:talk 4792:talk 4777:talk 4754:talk 4737:talk 4729:Moxy 4725:here 4712:talk 4619:talk 4604:talk 4589:talk 4551:, a 4547:, a 4543:, a 4539:, a 4535:, a 4531:, a 4527:, a 4517:and 4464:text 4420:talk 4405:talk 4390:talk 4374:Moxy 4357:Bold 4347:talk 4288:talk 4273:talk 4245:talk 4229:and 4191:talk 4177:talk 4159:talk 4144:talk 4124:talk 4109:talk 4094:talk 4079:talk 4049:talk 4027:talk 4012:talk 3998:talk 3979:talk 3963:and 3922:Moxy 3911:talk 3896:talk 3868:talk 3852:Moxy 3841:talk 3826:talk 3816:and 3814:Moxy 3768:Moxy 3710:talk 3702:make 3678:talk 3640:TALK 3607:this 3597:talk 3570:TALK 3537:Moxy 3497:talk 3467:The 3342:talk 3336:?). 3323:talk 3279:TALK 3218:Per 3204:talk 3162:talk 3145:read 3108:talk 3054:talk 3016:talk 3007:read 2908:talk 2896:and 2884:talk 2841:talk 2735:talk 2705:and 2693:talk 2660:talk 2631:... 2603:talk 2491:talk 2476:Moxy 2465:talk 2295:talk 2275:talk 2198:talk 2097:talk 2056:talk 2035:here 2019:talk 2004:Sdkb 1965:talk 1957:uses 1942:Sdkb 1930:talk 1904:Sdkb 1843:talk 1806:talk 1755:talk 1689:talk 1681:Moxy 1570:talk 1483:talk 1371:talk 1313:talk 1275:talk 1233:talk 1190:talk 1171:talk 1120:talk 1100:Sdkb 1080:Moxy 1050:talk 1018:talk 996:talk 965:talk 948:talk 916:talk 896:Moxy 885:talk 865:Moxy 843:talk 826:talk 803:Moxy 773:talk 724:Sdkb 685:Sdkb 565:Sdkb 537:Sdkb 531:uses 515:Sdkb 68:and 5246:🍁 5218:🍁 5186:🍁 4583:-- 4377:🍁 4371:." 4363:or 4261:all 3925:🍁 3855:🍁 3771:🍁 3540:🍁 3196:are 2983:to 2979:to 2619:or 2479:🍁 2216:or 2043:not 1959:. — 1924:. — 603:😼 5279:: 5233:) 5200:) 5170:) 5133:) 5087:) 5054:) 5017:) 4998:is 4936:, 4932:, 4924:, 4920:, 4899:-- 4880:) 4857:) 4839:) 4794:) 4779:) 4756:) 4739:) 4714:) 4621:) 4606:) 4591:) 4422:) 4407:) 4392:) 4349:) 4318:31 4298:31 4290:) 4275:) 4247:) 4239:. 4237:}} 4231:{{ 4227:}} 4221:{{ 4193:) 4179:) 4161:) 4146:) 4126:) 4111:) 4096:) 4081:) 4051:) 4029:) 4014:) 4000:) 3981:) 3913:) 3898:) 3884:}} 3878:{{ 3870:) 3843:) 3828:) 3783:-- 3743:-- 3724:— 3712:) 3680:) 3652:-- 3634:21 3611:-- 3599:) 3583:, 3564:21 3516:-- 3499:) 3489:}} 3483:{{ 3479:}} 3473:{{ 3462:}} 3456:{{ 3414:: 3344:) 3325:) 3273:21 3238:-- 3232:, 3228:, 3206:) 3177:-- 3164:) 3126:-- 3110:) 3085:-- 3056:) 3030:-- 3018:) 2954:-- 2918:-- 2910:) 2886:) 2876:}} 2870:{{ 2851:-- 2843:) 2795:-- 2793:? 2760:-- 2747:is 2737:) 2711:-- 2709:. 2695:) 2670:-- 2662:) 2633:-- 2605:) 2575:-- 2559:}} 2553:{{ 2529:-- 2527:? 2517:}} 2511:{{ 2493:) 2467:) 2442:-- 2423:-- 2413:: 2391:-- 2389:) 2366:-- 2335:-- 2311:}} 2305:{{ 2297:) 2277:) 2229:-- 2224:}} 2218:{{ 2214:}} 2208:{{ 2200:) 2174:-- 2166:}} 2160:{{ 2152:}} 2146:{{ 2127:-- 2123:}} 2117:{{ 2113:}} 2107:{{ 2099:) 2066:-- 2058:) 2021:) 1975:-- 1967:) 1932:) 1845:) 1820:-- 1808:) 1798:}} 1792:{{ 1773:-- 1769:is 1757:) 1727:-- 1723:}} 1717:{{ 1699:-- 1691:) 1677:}} 1671:{{ 1580:-- 1572:) 1544:-- 1542:. 1534:: 1528:}} 1522:{{ 1503:-- 1498:}} 1492:{{ 1485:) 1475:}} 1469:{{ 1465:}} 1459:{{ 1437:-- 1433:}} 1427:{{ 1423:}} 1417:{{ 1398:-- 1388:}} 1382:{{ 1373:) 1363:}} 1357:{{ 1337:-- 1315:) 1289:-- 1277:) 1248:-- 1235:) 1225:}} 1219:{{ 1200:-- 1192:) 1173:) 1162:}} 1156:{{ 1136:-- 1122:) 1086:, 1082:, 1078:, 1074:, 1070:, 1052:) 1042:}} 1036:{{ 1020:) 998:) 990:. 984:}} 978:{{ 967:) 950:) 918:) 887:) 845:) 828:) 784:. 775:) 739:-- 696:-- 665:— 640:-- 612:-- 591:— 587:}} 583:{{ 533:. 496:: 479:: 198:↑ 165:: 159:15 157:, 155:14 153:, 151:13 149:, 147:12 145:, 143:11 141:, 139:10 137:, 133:, 129:, 125:, 121:, 117:, 113:, 109:, 105:, 101:, 49:; 5229:( 5196:( 5166:( 5129:( 5083:( 5050:( 5013:( 4876:( 4853:( 4835:( 4790:( 4775:( 4752:( 4735:( 4710:( 4617:( 4602:( 4587:( 4564:. 4507:. 4496:. 4490:. 4477:. 4468:. 4458:. 4418:( 4403:( 4388:( 4345:( 4286:( 4271:( 4243:( 4189:( 4175:( 4157:( 4142:( 4122:( 4107:( 4092:( 4077:( 4047:( 4025:( 4010:( 3996:( 3977:( 3909:( 3894:( 3866:( 3839:( 3824:( 3708:( 3676:( 3595:( 3495:( 3340:( 3321:( 3202:( 3160:( 3106:( 3082:. 3052:( 3014:( 2906:( 2882:( 2839:( 2733:( 2691:( 2658:( 2601:( 2565:( 2489:( 2463:( 2420:. 2385:( 2293:( 2273:( 2196:( 2095:( 2054:( 2017:( 1963:( 1928:( 1841:( 1804:( 1753:( 1687:( 1568:( 1481:( 1369:( 1311:( 1273:( 1231:( 1188:( 1169:( 1118:( 1094:: 1066:@ 1048:( 1016:( 994:( 963:( 946:( 914:( 899:- 883:( 868:- 860:: 856:@ 841:( 824:( 806:- 790:C 771:( 601:¢ 598:☏ 507:( 489:. 282:. 230:: 135:9 131:8 127:7 123:6 119:5 115:4 111:3 107:2 103:1 96:: 53:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.