2880:. Well, even if navboxes fall to being used on 10& of devices they still exist as one of the most valuable elements of "original" Knowledge (XXG) (i.e., Knowledge (XXG)'s original designs and features built around and for laptop and desktop display). These maps, when done well, are works of literary art, and provide a valuable service to researchers, other readers, and to those wishing to searching Knowledge (XXG)'s full range of topic coverage. As you may see, the editor that you assured that I can't revert or even challenge is editing this essay again right now, edit after edit, with really no discussion (or its evil twin, way too much discussion to wade through). Just as they have done on dozens of presidential navboxes, which in my opinion made them less navigationable as maps. My concern is that nobody is really checking these edits. Please consider doing so, thanks.
2607:, and does not take into account that topics are merged and split all the time, and some sections on subtopics are far richer than the average stand-alone stub article. After some reflection (re-edited, actually), I think 3 might need a caveat like "and further expansion of material on the subject is likely." But a counter-caveat could be made for entries in navbox-embedded lists that are complete lists of something finite, in which we expect most or all entries to be notable even if they don't have articles or major sections yet (but maybe that is already covered sufficiently by another rule that effectively overrides this one anyway).
2221:
2181:
1217:), you might remove those but it's significant effort without much benefit. There was a large discussion somewhere (probably on this talk) about whether there should be a rule that red links should be removed from navboxes. I can't find it at the moment but I think it ended with the conclusion that I support, namely that plausible red links are useful pointers that encourage editors to write articles on the missing topics. That only works if the red links are for plausible articles.
2826:. Then, when they revert your "I like it" bold edit do not waver, but toss them a dozen or two unlinked mix of essays and guidelines, and then revert them again. What response do you thnk you'd get (and Moxy, with all respect but a bit irritated at recent accusations, hopefully you will take note of the response of Covid-19 navbox editors who deem to revert the good faith undiscussed bold but misguided moves, and they have to revert again, and then report everybody post haste).
2917:
keep navigation templates consistent with all of these policies and guidelines per the
Content section of WP:P&G and WP:SUPPLEMENTAL. The content I added was an attempt to make suggestions intended to provide guidance in navbox editing to keep them consistent with all of these policies and guidelines. Perhaps the wording and guidance was not as well-written as it needed to be, but I think that greater guidance is needed for this specifically.
2933:
restrictive guidance in the WP:NAVBOX guideline and the WP:NAV essay. It occurs to me that any navbox that contributes to template clutter, broadly overlaps with other templates, or can be split into smaller templates that otherwise satisfy the criteria for good navigation templates is not well-designed. I certainly agree that the language in
Criterion 3 of the WP:NAVBOX guidelines for good navigation templates should be eliminatedâand
2673:, maybe you three can go over the edits and see if this was an essay-dump or what. I'm precluded from doing so (i.e. Moxy concerns), yet from an quick initial scan the additions seem to fall on the restrictive end in an attempt to change the way navboxes have been created, arranged, and maintained on Knowledge (XXG). On the bright side, this is just an essay that has the full power of an essay (none). Thanks.
167:
216:
198:
294:
266:
3053:. WP:NAVBOX Disadvantage Number 5 states: "Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a point of view. It may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others". The WP:CLNT project page has included language with respect to navigation templates and violations of the WP:NPOV policy since
358:
2260:
guidelines, and exclusion in this kind of navbox isn't misleading. Let us not forget that the sole purpose of a navbox is to navigate between existing articles. A complete set of data is maybe a list of years, etc., but even still, I think we could probably lose the whole part of the guideline on redlinks, these are routinely removed from navboxes, so the guideline needs updating.
280:
2921:
provide greater clarity as what is meant by "arbitrary selection", and if the intentions of the editor is not what the relevant issue is, then we can simply just remove "unintentional" from the language. We can come up with different language or guidance if "falsifiable" is too "esoteric" per the WP:P&G Content section, but it occurs to me that it is no more esoteric than
3094:
templates are maps, just maps that are supposed to span more well-defined and narrower ranges of topics than you do. Also, per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:TECHNICAL, Knowledge (XXG) is not an academic or scientific journal or a textbook and should not be written like any of those publications. It is supposed to be an encyclopedia written for the general public, not researchers. --
1198:. As you can see, it has a whole bunch of redlinks. I fear editors are just using the template as a list of every product Roland has ever made, regardless of whether articles exist or should exist for these products. Am I right to be suspicious here, is it acceptable to include lots of redlinks? Should I remove redlinks to things that don't require articles?
1305:
2303:
seldom be used and not kept permanently (judgement calls and exceptions are the spitshine of
Knowledge (XXG), and red links fail or succeed on their potential to educate and guide future editing). Many navboxes have so many red links that they look like Christmas lights, and, just like the lights, should be removed when two weeks stale.
2998:: That some other page happens to have something esoteric in it is no excuse for this one to use obfuscatory language (it's an indication, rather, that two pages rather than one need plain-English cleanup edits). Our goal is to communicate clearly, and if we lose most of the people reading it, then that goal has been failed.
2364:
As long as we have this language around a specific set of items, such as a filmography or a discography, then this will be a persistent issue. I think it's good and well to include redirects for the small and well-defined list of works like "albums by artist ", because excluding some of them would be
1818:
entry. The MK 20 SSR is a variant of the MK 17 rifle of the FN SCAR family of weapons. The entire family of weapons isn't in use by the US military so I wouldn't want links in the navbox to suggest that by just piping the MK 20 SSR link to the base FN SCAR article. Currently, the navbox links to ]
1576:
kind) do not necessarily bypass the guideline if they are well-documented (e.g. with a comment line in the source such as "] redirects here"). There will always be reckless editors who don't care about technical comments and just mess things up, but the sensible average editor hopefully will care and
537:
I'm not edit warring (not intentionally at least). I reverted Moxy's edits because they were unwarranted, were without explanation, and engaged in an edit war. I've been engaged in the discussion from the start, however the discussion isn't even going any further, and I don't see why I ought to cease
2916:
All I am trying to accomplish with the edits that I made to the WP:NAV explanatory essay is to keep its language and guidance consistent with the current WP:NAVBOX, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:N, and WP:NOT content policies and guidelines per WP:POLCON, and provide guidance that explains to editors how to
2835:
Navbox entries' relationship. I've had this pop in every once in awhile, and it should not exist as a guideline or essay topic in any way: an editor questions navbox entries as being unrelated to each other. "Why would anyone want to navigate between Pad Thai and Bette Davis?" someone will ask. That
2715:
It's not clear what "an arbitrary selection" really means here, nor what problem this is trying to solve. If it's not an actual problem, rather than an imagined hypothetically possible issue, then it should not be in a guideline or essay that operates like a guideline. Further, editors (being human)
2471:
It's not exactly "fixed"! Yes, redirects have been created for the non-articles, but we should only be linking once per article in navboxes so all the redirects back to the artist are completely useless as a navigational tool. And actually worse than redlinks as at least you're not expecting to go
1883:
There isn't a single perfect solution for this. There's always going to be someone who will tell you that you did it wrong, no matter what you do, but I could see either being appropriate, and I could even imagine that using a mix both in the same navbox would be sensible. Maybe you use a redirect
1823:
states, using redirects won't bold the entry in the navbox if the reader is currently on that page. So if someone was reading the FN SCAR page and opened the Modern US Infantry
Weapons navbox, they'd be confused because they wouldn't see any of the links blacked out and so they might not know which
1659:
Yes, it could link to sections, but I think either way a decision needs to be made so that section links are not made or removed differently depending on the NPOV context for each page. The contradictory application of editing could anger inexperienced editors who feel they are being sidelined using
2932:
I was aware that navigation templates are not included in the mobile app, but I did not know that their size and the number of templates in certain articles impairing accessibility was the reason why rather than some technical reason, and it occurs to me that this is a strong justification for more
2863:
we're some of the examples used as in why we don't have navigation templates viewed in mobile view in mainspace (now it's 70% of views). Basically these types of navigations are going to be relegated to administrative namespaces only..... because of mobile view accessibility concerns. If these type
1902:
Holy hell, how have I been on these last few months and not come across or realized that the anchor template exists? Thanks! And thank you for the advice. I like the idea about using the redirects and anchor links judiciously depending on which have potential to become their own page. I get the
1865:
I don't worry much about the lack of bold for redirect, because clicking it should take the person to the correct section of that page; some of them won't even notice that it's the same page. If there is a realistic chance of the redirect being turned into a real article, then I think the redirect
1835:
but it seems like a waste considering the MK 20 SSR is a discrete entity and there is a good amount of information on the topic at hand (MK 20 SSR) on the linked page (FN SCAR). The MK 20 SSR might not be noteworthy enough to warrant its own article but it's still a concrete object compared to the
2920:
I think the revision proposed by SMcCandlish to the language I added related to WP:N and WP:NOT is fine. The language for WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE is taken from WP:NAVBOX Disadvantage Number 5 and the WP:ATC section "Do we really need this template at all?". Perhaps a link to that WP:ATC section could
2774:
when it come to adminstrative matters). Slapping a guideline or policy tag on a page without community buy-in doesn't magically make it something the community will accept and enforce, either (more likely revert the applied template and category). Any page here has as much "authority" or whatever
2302:
Please note that the essay you link to in this section's title is not a guideline, and its language seems fine (so your wording "this guideline" etc. is inaccurate). Your example seems to have been fixed in subsequent edits. My opinion is that some red links in navboxes have their place but should
1827:
The alternative of a targeted anchor link being placed in the navbox is what was discussed above. While renaming and deletion of sections will inevitably break these links, it seems like it's still a net positive. If the link is broken, it just defaults to the top of the article page. Not ideal
1809:
navbox. Compared to the Human genetics navbox template, I guess this example has a bit of an advantage in that entries in the navbox are clearly defined--if it's a weapon used by current day US infantry, then it should be included, while the Human genetics template has a bit of a harder task when
576:
And as I keep saying, AVPGalaxy is still a recognized and trusted source of news in regards to the Alien/Predator franchise and has been for a long time and repeatedly referenced, and the information contained within its articles isn't even disputable (controversial perhaps, but not disputable). -
1734:
demands that navbox images "should have a justification to appear", but fails to explain what that justification should be. As it stands, it only gives licence for more fastidious editors to go around removing images that clearly illustrate the collective theme of the links grouped in the naxbox.
466:
So far, all the other editors have ceased editing, to discuss this conflict - one that you're the only party on one side of - while you're continuing to push your angle and take the opportunity to edit war. If you genuinely wish to settle it, then alright, we can settle it here. But, you could at
2420:
I'd be extremely wary of encouraging redirects in navboxes. There are many pop culture topics for which there are legions of fans and perhaps a few paid promoters who would be very delighted to be able to construct impressive looking navboxes filled with redirects for the sake of "completeness".
3034:
Maybe start with not adding tangential items to presidential navboxes, such as every bill that crosses their desk if they had anything to do with it or not (and no, arguably signing a bill does not make it the president's "own legacy" unless they had an initial hand in planning and passing it).
3093:
Again, your tone is incivil and your proposal about including the navigation templates of every
President and First Lady of the United States in either the White House article or the Executive Residence article is irrelevant to this talk page per WP:TALK#TOPIC. I do not dispute that navigation
709:
Where have I been supposedly "edit-warring" and where are these supposed "unconstructive edits"? The instances in which I've used words as the ones you describe is when people have removed material without adequate justification. Not to mention that I don't expect to cease editing the articles
2259:
I would propose that we remove the reference to filmographies in the guidelines regarding redlinks, as this is not how we do things in practice. A complete set of data isn't the same as a list of works. We don't even have redlinks in article text when the work is unlikely to meet notability
678:- and make unconstructive edits, with the argument being that others are "unwarranted", "vague" or undisputable. The DNR resort is for stepping back from issues, to have moderated discussions - which you are showing no regard for. If this does not change, this may warrant being taken to AN/I.
2093:
As I read it, the only reason to include the non-notable members is to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act. There's no navigational benefit whatsoever to included non-notable former members, it's purely unnecessary clutter. Navboxes are for navigation, not for information.
623:
It is indeed wise to take some time and reflect over things, and once I put my mind to something I tend to work rapidly. Might I ask which "Facebook page and tweet" it is that you're referring to? I am reading the linked article, yet I fail to understand what your problem is supposed to be
2937:. It is too subjective to satisfy the requirement of the WP:P&G Content section that policy and guideline language be "unambiguous", and per WP:NOTCREEP, is fairly redundant to the requirement that articles be related in the WP:NAVBOX guideline language before the list of criteria. --
1804:
Hi all. I don't mean to pick at a scab but I'm honestly curious about this and would like to ask so I can understand the pros and cons of both and, hopefully, avoid making a headache for other editors. I figure this might be easiest if there's a concrete example so I'm thinking of the
710:
because of a discussion that's going nowhere and especially when others keep editing the articles and removing the contents in question. It's interesting though (almost suspicious even) how you so consistently seem to keep track on every person who's edits I've decided to revert... -
1704:(so it looks right on the page). Then there's the matter of figuring out how to get the data back out of the other end of the system, so this isn't as quick and easy as clicking on a pageviews tool. But I believe that it's possible to do, and I believe that the regulars at
2966:
Also, as I've note elsewhere, the WP:NAVBOX policy has had language recommending against including articles in navigation templates that are loosely-related and that navigation templates should have more restrictive article inclusion criteria than categories and lists since
1884:
for one link, because you think it's likely to be expanded some day, but maybe you use an anchor for another link, because it's on a popular page (=the one you're most likely to look at the navbox on) and you guess that it's unlikely to be turned into separate article.
2801:
about previous discussions, I'll stick to just two points, and am not sure how much of those were added to this essay or exist in others (yes, some parts of some essays are viewed of value in some instances, but determinative value does not apply to every word of every
1879:
templates. Editors are very cooperative about preserving such links, and even if the section heading gets change (which is unlikely for some subjects anyway), then the anchor works like a duplicate of the old section heading (or whatever anchor text you use, e.g., an
752:
Even after altercations with other users 24/7, you aren't connecting the dots at this point? Okay, let me break this down for you. The Alien, Predator and AvP pages had navboxes that correlated to the separate franchises, with the few points of intersection including
2400:
Which is exactly why we need to change the language. Linking to non-notable topics does not aid navigation. Not just filmography and discography navboxes, but most navboxes are routinely purged of non-articles, and the guideline needs to reflect current practice.
1544:
should be modified to include a new bullet point. The bullet point should read, Section titles change frequently and so should not be placed in navigation templates. Doing so causes the issue of unlinked text in a navigation template, which should not be the case.
2811:
Navbox size. This hasn't been of major concern until lately while discussing navboxes of US. presidents. There should be no upper size limit of well-designed and well written navboxes. For those who disagree and want to split perfectly fine well-designed navboxes
1708:
could figure this out pretty easily. It might even be possible to change something in the main navbox template itself to do some of this work automatically (like marking all the links in navboxes as plainlinks, rather than needing to mark each one separately).
2720:
and need not be addressed here probably, at least not at this length. (I would think we'd be more concerned with selective cherrypicking and intentional bias than with arbitrariness and accidental skew, honestly.) This follow-on bit is probably too obtuse:
3057:. The kind of mapping that you describe is not required by the WP:NAVBOX guideline, and as far as I can tell, it never has been per my previous comment about the loosely-related recommendation language being included since September 2010. Which is to say,
1813:
As far as I can tell, the two options to linking to a section of an article that doesn't have a distinct article is to link to a redirect which anchors to that section or to specifically link to the section in question. The example I'm thinking of is the
1237:
Red links may be used on navigation templates with links to existing articles, but they cannot be excessive. Editors who add excessive red links to navboxes are expected to actively work on building those articles, or they may be removed from the
1945:
Didn't see anything in the archives, but is there a preferred way to order multiple navboxes that are placed at the bottom of articles? I assume the obvious of most relevant (on top) to least relevant (on bottom) but thought I'd ask. --
2688:
If the current version is disputed (on actual merits, beyond an "I don't like change" or "I'm not sure I understand" feeling :-) then reverting to the essentially stable version before the major changes could be reasonable. Probably
2775:
one wants to call it as it has accrued over time from the community taking it seriously and acting on it. What kind of template is at the top is often not terribly relevant, unless matters have turned in an ANI or ArbCom direction.
437:
Are you kidding me? The discussion had not concluded here yet. In fact, when I saw it earlier today, I wasn't even clear on where the problem was and was hoping for some clarification from either one of the two original commenters.
2032:
ed links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading
1645:? Then the link will not be broken. If you add the suggested hidden text about what links to that section, people would even update the navbox if they make major changes to the page (like splitting it into a different article).
1459:
Quick update. The module is working well and I've been adding it to a few templates experimentally. The alphabetical sorting is now implemented too. I am ready for some feedback with a view to deploying it more widely. â Martin
2836:
question is always irrelevant if the entries relate to one thing and one thing only: the subject of the navbox. Connections between entries are of no importance, their logical connection to the titled topic is all that matters.
2041:
Note: In navigation boxes about musical ensembles, it may be appropriate to list all of the members of the ensemble, to avoid the perception that the ensemble is a solo act, provided that at least one member of the ensemble is
1626:
I am not okay with allowing these loopholes to be used for topic-based or even politically-heated biases. The policy should be clear. There has been no other careful argument for why the policy should remain the way it is.
673:
requested several times that we have discourse here, before the discussion at DNR resumes. Unfortunately, it does not seem like you are grasping what anyone has stated, as you're continuing to edit-war - the latest being
2145:
I disagree with the guideline regarding redlinks in filmographies, etc, as some works are simply not notable. Even filmographies in articles are sometimes only partial filmographies, so this seems strange in a navbox.
3019:
I don't disagree with your reasoning. What alternative guidance and language would you propose that explains to editors how to avoid giving selected articles undue weight by inclusion in a navigation template? --
467:
least have the courtesy to step back like everyone else and at least discuss it, rather than continuing to revert and try to earn brownie points by complimenting editors who say they wish for us to keep it here.
1213:
I would leave that template alone because the redlinks are not excessive. If you knew (from familiarity with the topic) that some of them really were unsuitable for an article (no hope of satisying
2934:
2225:
2213:
371:
2584:
I'm definitely firmly in camp "1" here, with allowances for option 2 in exceptional circumstances (but definitely not if the article is already linked), which I think reflects current practice.
2150:
should always be the preferred option, so that notability can be established prior to inclusion. In any case, a well-defined set is North/South/East/West, not sometime members of a pop band.
3128:
338:
1534:
Section links are usually encouraged because they are at least able to default as article text if they are broken, whereas navboxes cannot do this because they usually only contain links.
1383:
1828:
but at least the navbox will still show which entries are bolded out and thus addressed by the page they are on. So, linking to sections seems to be the lesser of the two evils to me.
791:
the navboxes from Alien vs. Predator (arcade game), which you reverted again - making for edit-warring, as you had already tumbled with SNAAAAKE!! prior to that. The same is true for
1689:
I have been wondering for years whether non-editors use navboxes at any significant rate, and I believe that I have identified a way to measure that, if anyone's interested in it.
1595:
is enough. And since I had some experience with
Altanner1991's way of discussing, I will also add that I'll stand by my view even if I won't take part in this discussion any more.
50:
1968:
suggests we list all members of bands when at least one is blue linked; it seems a reasonable extension to apply the spirit of that rule to episodes of TV shows. For reference,
1316:
558:
I have no vested interest in this discussion but my name came up so here I am. I have another concern spamming of a blog with no content added and no edit summaries pls see -
2185:
642:... no fan sites no blogs no Facebook etc.... don't rely on fans for information.... because we need to get information from reliable trusted sources that are vetted.--
1532:
navboxes should not include links to sections, because section titles change frequently and so result in the unusual premise of a navbox without ubiquitous linking.
137:
133:
129:
1441:
I'm working on a few more improvements like automatically sorting the links into alphabetical order, and allowing an option for redlinks to be displayed â Martin
998:
Thank you yes. This editor keeps ignoring this no matter how many times I've told them. It's getting to the point where I feel like they are just stonewalling me.
3138:
2754:
All that said, we need to get away from this "essays aren't actionable" idea. They often are; some of our best-accepted principles are found in essays, incuding
2751:
But I'm not sure this point is really necessary (per my first objection above â i.e., what actual problem would this solve?) The rest of it all seems fine to me.
1840:
becoming bogged down by entries for, say, "Lung cancer in China" (which just redirects to Lung cancer#Epidemiology) and "Prostate cancer in China", etc. etc.).
777:
85:
1420:) that I have written for use in navboxes which has several features that might be useful. The module uses Wikidata to generate stable links. In particular:
2971:. That relatedness is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for article inclusion in a navigation template is not a novel proposition on my part, but
1976:
appears to only list the episodes that have articles, but this could give the impression that the episodes listed are the all the episodes of the season.
301:
2729:
This doesn't say anything that an editor without an MS degree is likely to be able to apply on
Knowledge (XXG). Next, this is not worded very well to me:
395:
1999:
I'd oppose this, as a navbox is for navigation, not information. Any unlinked text does not provide a navigation function, and just clutters a navbox.
348:
606:
559:
1279:
813:
656:
I would generally agree with that concern, however I would also have to acknowledge that there are exceptions which might be difficult to reject. -
638:
No problem with the content as evident in my action only removing the website.. it's the source is being used that is a problem ...Pls read over
91:
232:
2603:
For my part, I think I'd end up as firmly at 2 and exceptionally 3, but neither 1 nor 4 being acceptable. 4 seems like simply chaos, while 1 is
1979:
Would anyone oppose extending the guidance here to include collections like TV shows? Or perhaps editors here have alternate ways to view this.
3075:
Lord have mercy. Now you disagree that navboxes are maps to
Knowledge (XXG) coverage of a topic? Also, your belief that U.S. president's don't
1612:
is hardly the rationale to give unless under dire circumstances. And Rsk, your contentious stubbornness is frankly worthy of a sitewide block.
806:
3133:
2046:
What about including former members of a group as well? As you likely know, the convention is to have current members listed with <b: -->
1705:
1298:
2746:
2735:
2028:, while existing articles are strongly favored for navboxes, there can be times when we include non-existing article links or text. E.g.:
1341:. Interested editors seem to be split into two parties who have very different perspectives, and the talk pages shows years of concerns.--
310:
1551:
Redirects allow for section linking however this should not be abused, and would have to be seen as dishonestly bypassing the guideline.
965:
Noting that I only reverted said edits because they were still unjustified, regardless how many individuals disagree with the actions. -
1806:
1402:
754:
1484:
820:
2710:
2706:
1663:
So I also advocate linking to sections. But this needs to find consensus so the policy can be applied uniformly across all articles.
223:
203:
3009:
2786:
2618:
2574:
2502:
31:
1903:
feeling that there's a lot of imperfect solutions on wikipedia and in computing in general. Well, heck, in life in general lol.
3099:
3066:
3025:
2980:
2942:
1751:
1058:
952:
762:
698:
526:
487:
418:
80:
35:
2723:
If the subject of the template is a single, coherent subject, the article inclusion criteria should basically be an objective,
228:
1641:
If you are concerned about a section heading breaking because it was changed, then why not advise people to add an anchor per
271:
178:
1912:
1852:
1374:
932:) - and now avpgalaxy.net has been blacklisted for user-generated content and edit-warring. Does that clear things up a bit?
921:
891:
71:
605:
I think it may be best to slow down....you have added a
Facebook page and a tweet as sources recently. Could you read over
3059:
navigation templates serving as comprehensive maps is your personal view of how navigation templates should be constructed
1570:
279:
2995:
1609:
1521:
1712:
I don't have any plans to do this myself, but I wanted to leave this message in case anyone else was interested in it.
314:
3095:
3062:
3021:
2976:
2938:
2813:
2694:
2386:
2131:
2078:
1819:
which is a redirect to the section in the FN SCAR page that discusses the MK 20 SSR. The problem there is that, like
1195:
1487:
relevant to this guideline, which may interest editors working with navigation templates or navbox style guidelines.
1161:
989:
729:
443:
2491:
Improved the situation by changing both redirs to go to the right section instead of the top of the artist article.
2820:
1973:
1824:
things on the FN SCAR page are part of the modern US infantry's arsenal (ie. MK 16, MK 17, MK 20 SSR, MK 13 EGLM).
1346:
1127:. This seems weird to me, like putting links in headers, and it's inconsistent. Is there any consensus about this?
124:
2629:
2517:
2439:
2330:
1820:
367:
2922:
624:(especially now that I've added further sources to the news, which I'd figure would be even harder to refute). -
146:
3049:
I don't think this is the appropriate talk page for that discussion, and the tone of your comment is decidedly
2640:
2592:
2528:
2480:
2458:
2409:
2291:
2268:
2158:
2102:
2007:
1837:
1380:? All the links in the former are in the latter, and every page with the former also has the latter, adjacent.
1124:
2604:
1278:
I don't know if this is the best place to ask, but I'd appreciate some third party input on the discussion at
184:
2929:
understood in formal logic and mathematics and used in the first bullet point of the WP:NAV-RELATED section.
2390:
2135:
2113:"ed links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data". â
2082:
1972:
fits this: most episodes have articles, but the two from season one that donât are still listed. Meanwhile,
1836:
less well defined entries which WP:EXISTING seems to be aimed at preventing (like preventing the navbox for
1398:
1386:, with just three participants (one of whom was the proposer, me) resulted in keeping the former template.
1926:
1889:
1717:
1668:
1650:
1632:
1617:
1582:
1556:
1157:
985:
725:
439:
1759:
1755:
1731:
61:
17:
3006:
2783:
2615:
2571:
2499:
2318:
1342:
1259:
1203:
1175:
1132:
834:, this does not even scratch the surface of the other conflicts you've gotten into with other editors -
3050:
2742:
2731:
2447:
2443:
2326:
2253:
2025:
1965:
1832:
1541:
1232:
101:
76:
3084:
3079:, something I still can't understand per common sense and just basic knowledge of where people live.
3040:
2885:
2850:
2678:
2355:
2308:
2052:
tag. Should former members of a band be included in a navbox, even if not all of them have articles?
1052:
946:
914:
875:
799:
692:
670:
520:
481:
412:
2771:
3076:
2670:
2635:
2587:
2550:
Do not permit redirects in naboxes (other than those that are alternative names of their subjects).
2523:
2475:
2453:
2404:
2286:
2263:
2153:
2097:
2055:
2002:
1417:
863:
2991:
2556:
Permit a redirect in a navbox if it is to section that mentions the subject named by the redirect.
639:
306:
2990:
Overall, I support the stated goal of normalizing this essay to the requirements of the relevant
2705:
An arbitrary selection of related articles included in a navigation template can unintentionally
1969:
1951:
1908:
1848:
1767:
1492:
1389:
1222:
1074:
1017:
970:
743:
715:
661:
629:
596:
582:
543:
457:
151:
1642:
1437:
Potential articles can be loaded, which will automatically appear if/when the article is created
1282:
regarding changes to that template and the interpretation of policy behind the changes. Thanks.
761:
picked up on that you had been adding all three navboxes to all the pages when they came across
2226:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates § Questioning WP:BIDIRECTIONAL
2214:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates § Questioning WP:BIDIRECTIONAL
150:
2701:
of the recent changes. Most of them seem sensible to me, but I have quibbles with a few parts.
2426:
2338:
1922:
1899:
1885:
1799:
1795:
1783:
1713:
1664:
1646:
1628:
1613:
1600:
1578:
1552:
1507:
1324:
1312:
1003:
907:
847:
57:
2864:
of templates were built reasonably and used reasonably it would have changed people's minds.
2767:
2763:
2759:
2717:
2147:
3001:
2994:
pages. Our advice to editors should be consistent, whether it's in an essay or not. PS: See
2953:
2903:
2778:
2666:
2610:
2566:
2553:
Permit a redirect in a navbox if it is to a section about the subject named by the redirect.
2494:
1287:
1255:
1199:
1171:
1128:
148:
3103:
3088:
3070:
3044:
3029:
3014:
2984:
2946:
2889:
2871:
2854:
2791:
2755:
2682:
2646:
2623:
2598:
2579:
2534:
2507:
2486:
2464:
2429:
2415:
2395:
2359:
2341:
2312:
2297:
2274:
2246:
2206:
2164:
2140:
2108:
2087:
2013:
1993:
1955:
1930:
1916:
1893:
1856:
1771:
1744:
1721:
1672:
1654:
1636:
1621:
1604:
1592:
1586:
1560:
1496:
1472:
1453:
1406:
1350:
1328:
1291:
1263:
1249:
1226:
1207:
1179:
1165:
1151:
1136:
1078:
1064:
1021:
1007:
993:
974:
958:
747:
733:
719:
704:
665:
651:
633:
618:
600:
591:
Noting that I have added more articles covering the news. Just to put your mind at ease. -
586:
571:
547:
532:
506:'s edits?? You are way out of line with your edit-warring and seriously need to step back.
493:
461:
447:
424:
231:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
3080:
3058:
3036:
2957:
2907:
2881:
2846:
2674:
2382:
2351:
2304:
2127:
2074:
1873:
1740:
1701:
1039:
933:
758:
679:
507:
468:
432:
399:
309:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
1831:
I guess there is the third alternative of simply removing the entry altogether by citing
1693:
826:
and so on. And, you're still adding and re-adding navboxes - the last was Ellen Ripley,
2724:
1988:
1467:
1448:
1364:
1245:
1147:
984:
If an article does not appear in a nav box, that nav box should not be on the article.
902:). Then, when it was alerted on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the administrator
647:
614:
567:
1339:
1214:
3122:
2322:
1947:
1904:
1844:
1787:
1763:
1511:
1488:
1218:
1070:
1069:
I never implied nothing had been said, but no adequate explanation had been given. -
1013:
966:
739:
711:
657:
625:
592:
578:
539:
499:
453:
1338:
Is there a chance that we could get some community perspective at the said template
538:
improving the articles while waiting for responses to this particular discussion. -
2860:
2422:
2334:
1791:
1596:
1515:
1320:
1027:
999:
792:
773:
2975:
has been implicit in the language of the WP:NAVBOX guideline for 14 years now. --
2697:; maybe they'd like to better explain what they're trying to accomplish. Here's
1758:, but where I think it is generally thought appropriate to have a picture. Does
1283:
1274:
Input regarding changes to navigation template (inc. section-level link removal)
2716:
sometimes introducing PoV/weight bias unintentionally is really the subject of
2051:
section followed by a listing of former members that do not have the <b: -->
2366:
2347:
2114:
2061:
1736:
724:
And for the record, diffs to this behaviour is what I've been waiting to see.
357:
293:
265:
2961:
2911:
2877:
2866:
2798:
2662:
2234:
2194:
1983:
1815:
1463:
1444:
1241:
1143:
841:
776:
picked up on the issue, as well, and removed the uncorrelated navboxes from
643:
610:
563:
503:
215:
197:
2816:) please start with this one, and do so in a bold move without discussion:
2547:
It seems to me there are four possibilities here, and this could be RfCed:
1577:
reflect changes to the anchor also in the manually "backlinked" redirect. â
1566:
Just a word about the last point: redirects to sections (especially of the
1869:
If you decide to link to the particular section, then just add one of the
1430:
Common words can be automagically removed from the piped label by using a
1424:
Links to articles that are moved will automatically update in the template
1427:
Articles which are deleted will automatically disappear from the template
903:
675:
1750:
This is a good question. I was wondering about this with regards to the
1304:
906:
stepped in to clean up the pages, you tried editing warring with him on
227:, a group dedicated to improving the maintenance of Knowledge (XXG)'s
1030:, saying "Let's discuss this", as if nobody's said anything at all (
3035:
Starting there would go a long way in fixing what has been broken.
2747:
Knowledge (XXG) would be serving other than an encyclopedic purpose
2661:
Very recent large-scale edits made in this essay seem concerning.
2325:
was converted into a redirect to the artist's article. Aside from
2736:
Knowledge (XXG) would become something other than an encyclopedia
1810:
deciding what should be and shouldn't be included in the navbox.
305:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of
1866:
has additional value (i.e., we don't have to change it later).
160:
152:
26:
1311:
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect
1254:
Thanks for the replies. Thank you Izno, that's pretty clear.
1735:
What are the criteria for including (or removing) an image?
1303:
356:
2559:
Permit all redirects in navboxes, regardless where they go.
2280:
An example of where this guideline is causing a problem is
1696:. The link in the navbox would need the full URL with the
838:. Over the AvP Galaxy issue, you've been edit-warring with
1526:
can navboxes link to sections (in other words, subpages)?
1012:
I ask again, must they appear directly or indirectly? -
3054:
2968:
2698:
2690:
2446:
issue here. You would expect to be taken to an actual
2281:
1120:
1035:
1031:
929:
925:
917:
910:
899:
895:
887:
883:
879:
871:
867:
859:
855:
851:
827:
823:
816:
809:
802:
795:
788:
784:
780:
769:
765:
560:
Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Noticeboard#âBlog spam
109:
2346:
Since that navbox is at the core of this discussion,
1843:
I look forward to hearing others' thoughts on this.
1591:
I don't think we should add anything to WP:EXISTING.
1334:
Feedback requested at the
Template "Germanic peoples"
3129:
High-impact WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
3061:
rather than the consensus view of the community. --
2512:
I've removed these redirects as they do not link to
2186:
Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests for approval/SdkbBot 4
1862:
I think that whichever you will choose will be fine.
2020:
Question about musical ensembles and former members
787:, as well. After I was informed of this issue, I
2797:Thank you for your long comment. Per concern of
1778:Section linking vs Redirect linking in navboxes
1121:in this revision of the Michael Jackson article
177:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
2709:or give the subjects of the articles selected
2632:, option 2 is the current accepted practice.
2350:likely has an opinion on the questioned use.
778:List of Alien vs. Predator (franchise) comics
8:
2749:if articles were created from the red links.
2738:if articles were created from the red links.
2514:a distinct sub-topic within a larger article
1026:After all this, you're editing warring with
1921:It's a big wiki. Nobody can learn it all.
1416:I'd like to make people aware of a module (
768:, which is why they brought it here as you
374:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
2973:a longstanding and implicit recommendation
2224:You are invited to join the discussion at
2184:You are invited to join the discussion at
260:
192:
2693:. The recent major changer appears to be
1762:still reflect common editorial practice?
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Navigation templates
3139:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
1706:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (technical)
1280:Template_talk:TRS-80_and_Tandy_computers
1115:Putting links to articles in the sidebar
814:Aliens versus Predator (1999 video game)
329:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
262:
194:
2741:
2730:
2722:
2704:
2513:
1754:, whose image is clearly at odds with
1431:
1236:
2703:This bit seems a little bit muddled:
807:Aliens vs. Predator (2010 video game)
241:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Templates
7:
2317:In the case of the example provided
166:
164:
1807:Template:Modern US Infantry Weapons
1752:template on Artificial intelligence
981:Thanks. That's extremely clear now.
755:Alien (creature in Alien franchise)
183:It is of interest to the following
34:for discussing improvements to the
2438:Yes, agreed, it does fall foul of
821:Aliens Versus Predator: Extinction
396:the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard
323:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Essays
313:. For a listing of essays see the
302:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays
25:
2734:... should not be included where
299:This page is within the scope of
221:This page is within the scope of
56:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
2745:... should not be included when
2219:
2179:
1123:, the "Death" category links to
763:Alien vs. Predator (arcade game)
292:
278:
264:
214:
196:
165:
51:Click here to start a new topic.
3134:NA-Class Knowledge (XXG) essays
2859:Template:COVID-19 pandemic and
2845:Those are my two common cents.
1156:Common, normal and acceptable.
607:WP:Identifying reliable sources
3104:02:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
3089:01:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
3071:02:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
3045:01:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
3030:17:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
3015:08:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
2985:20:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
2947:19:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
2890:01:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
2872:00:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2855:04:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
2792:05:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
2683:04:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
2472:to an article with a redlink!
1772:14:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
922:Alien vs. Predator (franchise)
892:Alien vs. Predator (franchise)
394:I have requested mediation at
390:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard
244:Template:WikiProject Templates
1:
2999:
2776:
2647:10:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
2608:
2564:
2535:10:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
2492:
1931:03:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
1917:02:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
1894:03:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
1857:02:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
1673:01:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
1454:20:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
1407:22:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
1180:05:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
448:21:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
425:20:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
235:and see a list of open tasks.
48:Put new text under old text.
2624:10:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
2599:10:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
2580:20:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
2508:20:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
2487:14:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2465:14:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2430:17:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2416:14:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2396:14:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2360:14:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2342:14:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2313:14:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2298:11:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
2275:11:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
1956:02:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
1745:17:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
1524:has raised a crucial debate:
1522:Template talk:Human genetics
1166:08:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
1152:02:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
1137:01:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
398:, to diffuse this conflict.
343:This page has been rated as
2861:Meryl Streep#External links
2740:I would replace that with:
1722:19:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
1655:18:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
1637:16:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
1622:15:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
1605:10:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
1587:18:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
1561:08:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
1356:Shining some light on Licht
1196:Template:Roland_Corporation
1079:18:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
1065:16:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
1022:10:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
1008:01:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
994:01:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
975:10:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
959:00:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
748:19:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
734:19:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
720:18:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
705:15:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
666:19:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
652:19:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
634:19:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
619:19:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
601:18:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
587:18:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
572:18:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
548:18:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
533:17:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
494:17:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
462:00:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
452:That's a fair complaint. -
326:Template:WikiProject Essays
3155:
2657:Large changes to the essay
2252:Problem with redlinks per
2247:18:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
2207:05:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
1994:02:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
1974:Template:House (TV series)
1941:Ordering multiple navboxes
1264:14:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
1250:13:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
1227:06:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
1208:04:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
1038:). That does it. No more.
99:
3077:reside in the White House
2923:Necessity and sufficiency
1473:18:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
1360:What should be done with
1170:Thanks to both of youse.
364:
342:
287:
209:
191:
86:Be welcoming to newcomers
2329:, this may run afoul of
2165:11:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
2141:11:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
2109:11:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
2088:10:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
2014:11:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
1961:EXISTING and TV episodes
1838:Template:Health in China
1685:Do readers use navboxes?
1539:Proposal for added text:
1497:02:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
1329:22:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
1315:. Please participate in
1299:Redirects for discussion
1292:15:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
1125:Death of Michael Jackson
836:on these very same pages
2707:present a point of view
2450:article from a navbox.
1351:21:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
1319:if you wish to do so.
1317:the redirect discussion
502:, now you're reverting
3096:CommonKnowledgeCreator
3063:CommonKnowledgeCreator
3022:CommonKnowledgeCreator
2977:CommonKnowledgeCreator
2939:CommonKnowledgeCreator
2935:I did propose doing so
2814:CommonKnowledgeCreator
2695:CommonKnowledgeCreator
1308:
368:automatically assessed
361:
349:project's impact scale
307:Knowledge (XXG) essays
81:avoid personal attacks
2319:Template:Danielle Dax
1375:Karlheinz Stockhausen
1307:
1190:Redlinks in templates
366:The above rating was
360:
224:WikiProject Templates
1571:R with possibilities
1549:Additional comments:
1483:I have just started
1231:The consensus is in
915:Predator (franchise)
876:Predator (franchise)
800:Predator (franchise)
609:before proceeding.--
2996:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1694:wikitech:Provenance
1692:The tool to use is
1418:Module:Article list
1412:Stable article list
1297:Navboxes listed at
864:The Predator (film)
36:Navigation template
2442:. We also have a
2321:-- the redlink to
1970:Template:Torchwood
1309:
362:
247:Templates articles
179:content assessment
92:dispute resolution
53:
2821:COVID-19 pandemic
2244:
2232:
2204:
2192:
1660:made-up policies.
1471:
1452:
1142:That's normal. --
1048:
1044:
942:
938:
908:Alien (franchise)
848:Alien (franchise)
828:a few minutes ago
688:
684:
516:
512:
477:
473:
408:
404:
387:
386:
383:
382:
379:
378:
375:
259:
258:
255:
254:
159:
158:
72:Assume good faith
49:
16:(Redirected from
3146:
3013:
2965:
2915:
2869:
2825:
2819:
2790:
2725:falsifiable test
2643:
2638:
2630:WP:NAVNOREDIRECT
2622:
2595:
2590:
2578:
2531:
2526:
2518:WP:NAVNOREDIRECT
2506:
2483:
2478:
2461:
2456:
2440:WP:NAVNOREDIRECT
2412:
2407:
2394:
2377:
2375:
2331:WP:NAVNOREDIRECT
2294:
2289:
2271:
2266:
2245:
2242:
2241:
2239:
2230:
2223:
2222:
2205:
2202:
2201:
2199:
2190:
2183:
2182:
2161:
2156:
2139:
2122:
2105:
2100:
2086:
2069:
2059:
2050:
2047:tags and in the
2010:
2005:
1992:
1986:
1878:
1872:
1821:WP:NAVNOREDIRECT
1700:key, wrapped in
1699:
1575:
1569:
1461:
1442:
1433:
1405:
1396:
1392:
1379:
1373:
1369:
1363:
1343:Andrew Lancaster
1061:
1055:
1049:
1046:
1042:
955:
949:
943:
940:
936:
845:
701:
695:
689:
686:
682:
529:
523:
517:
514:
510:
490:
484:
478:
475:
471:
436:
421:
415:
409:
406:
402:
365:
331:
330:
327:
324:
321:
296:
289:
288:
283:
282:
281:
276:
268:
261:
249:
248:
245:
242:
239:
218:
211:
210:
200:
193:
170:
169:
168:
161:
153:
112:
27:
21:
3154:
3153:
3149:
3148:
3147:
3145:
3144:
3143:
3119:
3118:
2951:
2901:
2865:
2823:
2817:
2699:a combined diff
2659:
2641:
2636:
2593:
2588:
2529:
2524:
2516:as required by
2481:
2476:
2459:
2454:
2410:
2405:
2380:
2373:
2368:
2292:
2287:
2269:
2264:
2257:
2235:
2233:
2229:
2220:
2217:
2195:
2193:
2189:
2180:
2177:
2159:
2154:
2125:
2116:
2103:
2098:
2072:
2063:
2053:
2048:
2022:
2008:
2003:
1982:
1980:
1963:
1943:
1876:
1870:
1780:
1729:
1702:Help:Plainlinks
1697:
1687:
1573:
1567:
1504:
1481:
1414:
1394:
1388:
1387:
1377:
1371:
1367:
1361:
1358:
1336:
1302:
1276:
1194:Take a look at
1192:
1117:
1063:
1059:
1053:
1040:
957:
953:
947:
934:
839:
703:
699:
693:
680:
671:Robert McClenon
531:
527:
521:
508:
492:
488:
482:
469:
430:
423:
419:
413:
400:
392:
328:
325:
322:
319:
318:
315:essay directory
277:
274:
246:
243:
240:
237:
236:
155:
154:
149:
118:
117:
116:
115:
108:
104:
97:
67:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
3152:
3150:
3142:
3141:
3136:
3131:
3121:
3120:
3117:
3116:
3115:
3114:
3113:
3112:
3111:
3110:
3109:
3108:
3107:
3106:
2969:September 2010
2899:
2898:
2897:
2896:
2895:
2894:
2893:
2892:
2840:
2839:
2838:
2837:
2830:
2829:
2828:
2827:
2806:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2671:Woodensuperman
2658:
2655:
2654:
2653:
2652:
2651:
2650:
2649:
2605:WP:BUREAUCRACY
2601:
2562:
2561:
2560:
2557:
2554:
2551:
2545:
2544:
2543:
2542:
2541:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2537:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2436:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2418:
2256:
2250:
2216:
2212:Discussion at
2210:
2176:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2056:Woodensuperman
2044:
2043:
2035:
2034:
2021:
2018:
2017:
2016:
1962:
1959:
1942:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1881:
1880:abbreviation).
1867:
1863:
1779:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1728:
1725:
1686:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1661:
1624:
1589:
1503:
1500:
1480:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1439:
1438:
1435:
1428:
1425:
1413:
1410:
1357:
1354:
1335:
1332:
1301:
1295:
1275:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1191:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1158:Walter Görlitz
1116:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1051:
986:Walter Görlitz
982:
979:
978:
977:
945:
726:Walter Görlitz
691:
589:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
519:
496:
480:
440:Walter Görlitz
411:
391:
388:
385:
384:
381:
380:
377:
376:
363:
353:
352:
341:
335:
334:
332:
297:
285:
284:
269:
257:
256:
253:
252:
250:
219:
207:
206:
201:
189:
188:
182:
171:
157:
156:
147:
145:
144:
141:
140:
120:
119:
114:
113:
105:
100:
98:
96:
95:
88:
83:
74:
68:
66:
65:
54:
45:
44:
41:
40:
39:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3151:
3140:
3137:
3135:
3132:
3130:
3127:
3126:
3124:
3105:
3101:
3097:
3092:
3091:
3090:
3086:
3082:
3078:
3074:
3073:
3072:
3068:
3064:
3060:
3056:
3052:
3048:
3047:
3046:
3042:
3038:
3033:
3032:
3031:
3027:
3023:
3018:
3017:
3016:
3011:
3008:
3005:
3004:
2997:
2993:
2989:
2988:
2987:
2986:
2982:
2978:
2974:
2970:
2963:
2959:
2955:
2949:
2948:
2944:
2940:
2936:
2930:
2928:
2924:
2918:
2913:
2909:
2905:
2891:
2887:
2883:
2879:
2875:
2874:
2873:
2868:
2862:
2858:
2857:
2856:
2852:
2848:
2844:
2843:
2842:
2841:
2834:
2833:
2832:
2831:
2822:
2815:
2810:
2809:
2808:
2807:
2800:
2796:
2795:
2794:
2793:
2788:
2785:
2782:
2781:
2773:
2769:
2765:
2761:
2757:
2752:
2750:
2748:
2744:
2739:
2737:
2733:
2728:
2726:
2719:
2714:
2712:
2708:
2700:
2696:
2692:
2687:
2686:
2685:
2684:
2680:
2676:
2672:
2668:
2664:
2656:
2648:
2645:
2644:
2639:
2631:
2628:It seems per
2627:
2626:
2625:
2620:
2617:
2614:
2613:
2606:
2602:
2600:
2597:
2596:
2591:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2576:
2573:
2570:
2569:
2563:
2558:
2555:
2552:
2549:
2548:
2546:
2536:
2533:
2532:
2527:
2519:
2515:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2504:
2501:
2498:
2497:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2485:
2484:
2479:
2470:
2466:
2463:
2462:
2457:
2449:
2445:
2441:
2437:
2431:
2428:
2424:
2419:
2417:
2414:
2413:
2408:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2392:
2388:
2384:
2379:
2372:
2365:misleading. â
2363:
2362:
2361:
2357:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2340:
2336:
2332:
2328:
2324:
2323:Timber Tongue
2320:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2310:
2306:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2296:
2295:
2290:
2283:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2276:
2273:
2272:
2267:
2255:
2251:
2249:
2248:
2240:
2238:
2227:
2215:
2211:
2209:
2208:
2200:
2198:
2187:
2175:Relevant BRFA
2174:
2166:
2163:
2162:
2157:
2149:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2137:
2133:
2129:
2124:
2120:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2107:
2106:
2101:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2071:
2067:
2057:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2027:
2019:
2015:
2012:
2011:
2006:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1990:
1985:
1977:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1960:
1958:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1940:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1901:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1882:
1875:
1868:
1864:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1841:
1839:
1834:
1829:
1825:
1822:
1817:
1811:
1808:
1802:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1785:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1733:
1726:
1724:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1710:
1707:
1703:
1695:
1690:
1684:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1625:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1572:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1543:
1540:
1536:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1525:
1523:
1518:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1501:
1499:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1478:
1474:
1469:
1465:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1450:
1446:
1436:
1429:
1426:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1419:
1411:
1409:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1395:Pigsonthewing
1391:
1385:
1381:
1376:
1366:
1355:
1353:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1333:
1331:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1306:
1300:
1296:
1294:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1273:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1234:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1189:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1119:For example,
1114:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1062:
1056:
1050:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
996:
995:
991:
987:
983:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
956:
950:
944:
931:
927:
923:
919:
916:
912:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
843:
837:
833:
829:
825:
822:
818:
815:
811:
808:
804:
801:
797:
794:
790:
786:
782:
779:
775:
771:
767:
764:
760:
756:
751:
750:
749:
745:
741:
737:
736:
735:
731:
727:
723:
722:
721:
717:
713:
708:
707:
706:
702:
696:
690:
677:
672:
669:
668:
667:
663:
659:
655:
654:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
636:
635:
631:
627:
622:
621:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
603:
602:
598:
594:
590:
588:
584:
580:
575:
574:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
549:
545:
541:
536:
535:
534:
530:
524:
518:
505:
501:
497:
495:
491:
485:
479:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
451:
450:
449:
445:
441:
434:
429:
428:
427:
426:
422:
416:
410:
397:
389:
373:
369:
359:
355:
354:
350:
346:
340:
337:
336:
333:
316:
312:
308:
304:
303:
298:
295:
291:
290:
286:
273:
270:
267:
263:
251:
234:
230:
226:
225:
220:
217:
213:
212:
208:
205:
202:
199:
195:
190:
186:
180:
176:
172:
163:
162:
143:
142:
139:
135:
131:
128:
126:
122:
121:
111:
107:
106:
103:
93:
89:
87:
84:
82:
78:
75:
73:
70:
69:
63:
59:
58:Learn to edit
55:
52:
47:
46:
43:
42:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
3002:
2972:
2950:
2931:
2926:
2919:
2900:
2779:
2753:
2711:undue weight
2702:
2691:this version
2660:
2633:
2611:
2585:
2567:
2521:
2495:
2473:
2451:
2402:
2370:
2284:
2261:
2258:
2236:
2218:
2196:
2178:
2151:
2118:
2095:
2065:
2045:
2036:
2023:
2000:
1978:
1964:
1944:
1923:WhatamIdoing
1900:WhatamIdoing
1886:WhatamIdoing
1842:
1830:
1826:
1812:
1803:
1800:WhatamIdoing
1796:Altanner1991
1784:Austronesier
1781:
1760:WP:NAVIMAGES
1756:WP:NAVIMAGES
1732:WP:NAVIMAGES
1730:
1714:WhatamIdoing
1711:
1691:
1688:
1665:Altanner1991
1647:WhatamIdoing
1629:Altanner1991
1614:Altanner1991
1579:Austronesier
1553:Altanner1991
1548:
1547:
1538:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1528:
1520:
1519:
1508:Austronesier
1505:
1482:
1479:Relevant RfC
1440:
1415:
1403:Andy's edits
1399:Talk to Andy
1390:Andy Mabbett
1384:A recent TfD
1382:
1359:
1337:
1310:
1277:
1193:
1118:
835:
831:
793:Ellen Ripley
783:, which you
393:
344:
300:
222:
185:WikiProjects
175:project page
174:
123:
30:This is the
3003:SMcCandlish
2954:SMcCandlish
2904:SMcCandlish
2780:SMcCandlish
2667:SMcCandlish
2612:SMcCandlish
2568:SMcCandlish
2496:SMcCandlish
2448:WP:EXISTING
2444:WP:SURPRISE
2327:WP:EXISTING
2254:WP:EXISTING
2026:WP:EXISTING
1966:WP:EXISTING
1833:WP:Existing
1542:WP:EXISTING
1502:WP:EXISTING
1256:Popcornduff
1233:WP:Red link
1200:Popcornduff
1172:Popcornduff
1129:Popcornduff
738:Exactly. -
345:High-impact
275:Highâimpact
3123:Categories
3081:Randy Kryn
3055:April 2005
3037:Randy Kryn
2992:WP:P&G
2958:Randy Kryn
2908:Randy Kryn
2882:Randy Kryn
2847:Randy Kryn
2772:WP:NONAZIS
2675:Randy Kryn
2352:Randy Kryn
2305:Randy Kryn
1530:Consensus:
759:SNAAAAKE!!
433:DarthBotto
311:discussion
233:discussion
2743:Red links
2732:Red links
1816:MK 20 SSR
1434:parameter
1238:template.
640:WP:RS/SPS
238:Templates
229:templates
204:Templates
94:if needed
77:Be polite
32:talk page
2642:superman
2594:superman
2530:superman
2482:superman
2460:superman
2411:superman
2367:Justin (
2293:superman
2270:superman
2160:superman
2115:Justin (
2104:superman
2062:Justin (
2042:notable.
2009:superman
1948:GoneIn60
1913:contribs
1905:Jasonkwe
1853:contribs
1845:Jasonkwe
1788:Ahmet Q.
1764:Felix QW
1643:WP:RSECT
1512:Ahmet Q.
1489:Chubbles
1432:|remove=
1313:Navboxes
1219:Johnuniq
1071:TurokSwe
1014:TurokSwe
1000:â
Trekker
967:TurokSwe
785:reverted
770:reverted
740:TurokSwe
712:TurokSwe
658:TurokSwe
626:TurokSwe
593:TurokSwe
579:TurokSwe
540:TurokSwe
500:TurokSwe
454:TurokSwe
125:Archives
102:Shortcut
62:get help
3051:incivil
2960:, and
2910:, and
2802:essay).
2768:WP:DUCK
2764:WP:ROPE
2760:WP:AADD
2718:WP:BIAS
2148:WP:WTAF
2033:result.
1792:Rsk6400
1698:?wprov=
1597:Rsk6400
1516:Rsk6400
1321:Hildeoc
1028:*Treker
789:removed
774:*Treker
347:on the
2876:Hello
2762:(plus
2756:WP:BRD
2637:wooden
2589:wooden
2525:wooden
2477:wooden
2455:wooden
2406:wooden
2288:wooden
2265:wooden
2155:wooden
2099:wooden
2004:wooden
1874:anchor
1727:Images
1593:WP:UCS
1485:an RfC
1284:Ubcule
918:(diff)
911:(diff)
824:(diff)
817:(diff)
810:(diff)
803:(diff)
796:(diff)
781:(diff)
766:(diff)
370:using
320:Essays
272:Essays
181:scale.
110:WT:NAV
2427:wiser
2423:older
2348:koavf
2339:wiser
2335:older
2049:above
1737:Cnbrb
1365:Licht
173:This
90:Seek
38:page.
3100:talk
3085:talk
3067:talk
3041:talk
3026:talk
2981:talk
2962:Moxy
2943:talk
2927:used
2912:Moxy
2886:talk
2878:Moxy
2867:Moxy
2851:talk
2799:Moxy
2770:and
2766:and
2758:and
2679:talk
2663:Moxy
2356:talk
2309:talk
2282:here
2237:Sdkb
2231:{{u|
2197:Sdkb
2191:{{u|
2037:And
2024:Per
1989:talk
1984:HTGS
1952:talk
1927:talk
1909:talk
1890:talk
1849:talk
1768:talk
1741:talk
1718:talk
1669:talk
1651:talk
1633:talk
1618:talk
1601:talk
1583:talk
1557:talk
1493:talk
1468:talk
1464:MSGJ
1449:talk
1445:MSGJ
1370:and
1347:talk
1325:talk
1288:talk
1260:talk
1246:talk
1242:Izno
1223:talk
1215:WP:N
1204:talk
1176:talk
1162:talk
1148:talk
1144:Izno
1133:talk
1075:talk
1060:cont
1054:talk
1047:OTTO
1043:ARTH
1018:talk
1004:talk
990:talk
971:talk
954:cont
948:talk
941:OTTO
937:ARTH
842:Moxy
744:talk
730:talk
716:talk
700:cont
694:talk
687:OTTO
683:ARTH
662:talk
648:talk
644:Moxy
630:talk
615:talk
611:Moxy
597:talk
583:talk
568:talk
564:Moxy
544:talk
528:cont
522:talk
515:OTTO
511:ARTH
504:Moxy
489:cont
483:talk
476:OTTO
472:ARTH
458:talk
444:talk
420:cont
414:talk
407:OTTO
403:ARTH
372:data
339:High
79:and
3012:đŒ
2925:as
2870:đ
2789:đŒ
2621:đŒ
2577:đŒ
2520:.
2505:đŒ
2228:.
2188:.
1911:) (
1851:) (
1798:, @
1794:, @
1790:, @
1786:, @
1610:IAR
1397:);
904:JzG
890:),
874:),
862:),
846:on
832:And
676:JzG
562:.--
3125::
3102:)
3087:)
3069:)
3043:)
3028:)
3000:â
2983:)
2956:,
2945:)
2906:,
2888:)
2853:)
2824:}}
2818:{{
2777:â
2681:)
2669:,
2665:,
2634:--
2609:â
2586:--
2565:â
2522:--
2493:â
2474:--
2452:--
2425:â
2403:--
2369:ko
2358:)
2337:â
2333:.
2311:)
2285:--
2262:--
2243:}}
2203:}}
2152:--
2121:vf
2117:ko
2096:--
2068:vf
2064:ko
2001:--
1981:â
1954:)
1929:)
1915:)
1892:)
1877:}}
1871:{{
1855:)
1770:)
1743:)
1720:)
1671:)
1653:)
1635:)
1620:)
1603:)
1585:)
1574:}}
1568:{{
1559:)
1495:)
1466:·
1447:·
1401:;
1378:}}
1372:{{
1368:}}
1362:{{
1349:)
1327:)
1290:)
1262:)
1248:)
1240:--
1235::
1225:)
1206:)
1178:)
1164:)
1150:)
1135:)
1077:)
1034:,
1020:)
1006:)
992:)
973:)
928:,
920:,
913:,
898:,
886:,
882:,
870:,
858:,
854:,
830:.
819:,
812:,
805:,
798:,
772:.
757:.
746:)
732:)
718:)
664:)
650:)
632:)
617:)
599:)
585:)
570:)
546:)
460:)
446:)
136:,
132:,
60:;
3098:(
3083:(
3065:(
3039:(
3024:(
3010:Âą
3007:â
2979:(
2964::
2952:@
2941:(
2914::
2902:@
2884:(
2849:(
2812:(
2787:Âą
2784:â
2727:.
2713:.
2677:(
2619:Âą
2616:â
2575:Âą
2572:â
2503:Âą
2500:â
2393:âŻ
2391:M
2389:âș
2387:C
2385:âź
2383:T
2381:â€
2378:)
2376:f
2374:v
2371:a
2354:(
2307:(
2138:âŻ
2136:M
2134:âș
2132:C
2130:âź
2128:T
2126:â€
2123:)
2119:a
2085:âŻ
2083:M
2081:âș
2079:C
2077:âź
2075:T
2073:â€
2070:)
2066:a
2060:â
2058::
2054:@
1991:)
1987:(
1950:(
1925:(
1907:(
1898:@
1888:(
1847:(
1782:@
1766:(
1739:(
1716:(
1667:(
1649:(
1631:(
1616:(
1599:(
1581:(
1555:(
1514:@
1510:@
1506:@
1491:(
1470:)
1462:(
1451:)
1443:(
1393:(
1345:(
1323:(
1286:(
1258:(
1244:(
1221:(
1202:(
1174:(
1160:(
1146:(
1131:(
1073:(
1057:âą
1045:B
1041:D
1036:2
1032:1
1016:(
1002:(
988:(
969:(
951:âą
939:B
935:D
930:2
926:1
924:(
900:2
896:1
894:(
888:3
884:2
880:1
878:(
872:2
868:1
866:(
860:3
856:2
852:1
850:(
844::
840:@
742:(
728:(
714:(
697:âą
685:B
681:D
660:(
646:(
628:(
613:(
595:(
581:(
566:(
542:(
525:âą
513:B
509:D
498:@
486:âą
474:B
470:D
456:(
442:(
435::
431:@
417:âą
405:B
401:D
351:.
317:.
187::
138:3
134:2
130:1
127::
64:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
