text:
Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

Questioning WP:BIDIRECTIONAL
I recently came across the advice here that Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox. The way I've thought about navboxes is that they're part of an article and therefore subject to the same DUE considerations as the rest of it, and that this can mean 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 their article, but it wouldn't make sense to add them to that navbox.

What do others think of this guidance? Should we loosen it? {{u| Sdkb  }}  talk 18:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

 * In my view the advice or guideline as you've quoted it is sort of backwards, or sideways maybe. It should say something like Only include the navbox on articles that are linked to by the navbox.  In general I think it's good to follow this guideline.  The purpose of a navbox is to provide a handy way to click through to articles on a related topic.  If you include it in an article that it doesn't link to, then when you click away from that article, you can't click back using the navbox.  That said, it might be best to allow exceptions in some circumstances. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on that! -- wooden superman  11:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Some exceptions should apply, especially for items on lists included in the navbox. For instance, I once spent days adding Zoos to all of the zoo articles because it seemed obvious (and still seems obvious) that anyone clicking on a zoo page may have an interest in, of all things, zoos. They were reverted because, lists. Although reasonable limits should apply, when I read U.S. National Zoo I'd appreciate the logical assortment of closely associated pages on the navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally the advice is simply bad.....academic type topics ignore this and consider it harmful. Last thing we want is vital type articles to look like pop culture articles Elizabeth Taylor. United States is linked in 27 templates....that we simply dont spam on that page. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 12:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that these award navboxes are an issue, and they do fail on the fact that the articles do not generally meet point 3 of the guideline. Maybe awards navboxes are okay for the films, etc, but not for the individuals.
 * Personally, I think a tightening up of the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL guideline is in order and links should be removed from the navbox if the navbox is not suitable for transclusion on the page. Take your United States example. Why should it be included in the Houston navbox? -- wooden superman  12:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 'United States' should not be included in the 'Houston' navbox. Doesn't mean that a full purge of navboxes should occur on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This guideline should at least state that sidebars are excluded from WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. 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 in the sidebar. Sidebars also have less space for links than navboxes at the bottom. And the need to be able to "click back" is minimal because all browsers have back buttons. DFlhb (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Given the discussion above, it seems that the present language (Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional.) is not supported by consensus. How does this sound for somewhat looser language? {{u| Sdkb  }}  talk 04:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A few exceptions does not necessarily mean that the existing "should normally" is incorrect. And anyways, WP:IAR, subject to consensus, is always an option for anything. —Bagumba (talk) 10:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be in favor of a merged version that puts back in "normally", and keeps the new UNDUE clarification. I think that'll solve the issue without breaking anything.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ here.  Sdkb  talk 07:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've undid the change for now. It seems there was still consensus that the includer should still be in the navbox.  There was perhaps some leeway for an item in the inbox to not actually have to transclude it per UNDUE.  I suggest proposing the modified wording here, and discussing further.  Also notifying earlier participants, , , ,  and . Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 08:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, I think the navbox rules should be tightened, not loosened. If it's causing an WP:UNDUE issue, then we have to question whether the presence of the link in the navbox is the problem. -- wooden  superman  09:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Should be worded like MOS:INFOBOXUSE. Waste of time for editors to deal with having to explain why we dont need 12 nav templates in one articles.  Just because someone add a link to a nav template .... should not imply it has to be used everywhere. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 13:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Or we should remove the link from navbox. My take is, if it's not appropriate to put the navbox on the page, the link shouldn't be in the navbox. -- wooden  superman  13:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is content editors dont want to waste time having to debate what links to include in templates that 65%+ (mobile viewers) dont even see, Or waste time debating the need for a template in the first place ..again for a nav aid  that the majorty dont even see. Our example at Elizabeth Taylor as seen blelow is overwhelming  on  any page. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 13:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Those Elizabeth Taylor navboxes are addressed with just one navbox (have changed it to what is actually seen on the page). I agree that many items that a navbox couldn't be attached to should be presented on navboxes, but don't go as far as saying none should. Let's respect navboxes, even if only 35% of readers can see them (Wikipedia should not be designed for mobile vs. non-mobile). They are maps to Wikipedia articles closely related to the navbox subject, and fulfilling this purpose in an understandable, logical, and well-done sequence is, for some of us, one of Wikipedia's best features. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 * You are correct when a page is spammed with them they are normally in a box....that causes an accessibility problem for thoses that dont use a mouse. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call a navbox that includes the page subject "spam", but can see you point. Not understanding the mouse thing (I've never read or edited Wikipedia on mobile, preferring to keep my addiction at home and not carry it around), how do people without a mouse click on links (a serious question, I don't know)? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I use the tab button to navigate to links then press enter to follow the link or to open a nav box. Would be best to have only have a few nav boxes that are not collapsed (hidden) in an extra box MOS:DONTHIDE. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but his is new to me. So mobile users, on phones etc., can't easily click links? I too prefer not using the navbox cages (which is what I call the extra box) and release the navboxes to visible space when there are only four or five or so. I didn't know about MOS:DONTHIDE, will take a look but like the name already. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On mobile versions just need to touch the link to use...howerver navboxes are not displayed on the mobile website for Wikipedia, See Phabricator ticket T124168. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see an end to awards navboxes. For this very reason.  Who is actually bothering to navigate through all of these?  Surely anyone browsing recipients of the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award (for example) would look at the article. -- wooden  superman  14:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Many of us are fine with awards navboxes. Awards are reputable and notable "things" which are honored within the chosen professions of the article subject. They note professional achievement by the subject. This is important to overall understanding of the page subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Using the example of Elizabeth Taylor. Many of us think they should be on sub articles like List of awards and nominations received by Elizabeth Taylor that deal directly with the topic of awards   with the main article reserved for a main nav box that link all the sub Elizabeth Taylor articles. Just today we have another one added to the Elizabeth Taylor ...do we move them? do we ask for deletion? just a time sink to deal with so they just addup and sit there. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 14:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no Elizabeth Taylor navbox, so that would remove all navboxes from the page (Edit:glad to see the new navbox, the topic is searchable and notable). Yes, if the subject has their own awards page, that would be a good location if the navbox link was changed, and not navbox caged on the awards page. But not all actors or other award winners are proficient enough to have their own awards pages, so consistency would be in question. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct no Elizabeth Taylor navbox...this would be an odd ball..not sure why. But having one would just be another navbox on the page. Not seeing how we need to link 100/200 pages sometimes the same page linked in many of the navboxes on every page. In my view many navboxes are a runaround of our MOS:SEEALSO guideline . Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That one can be speedy deleted as was deleted with all the AFI templates per this discussion. -- wooden superman  16:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * None of this stuff about various award templates some people don't like, and so on, has really shifted me from what I said earlier: I'd be in favor of a merged version that puts back in "normally", and keeps the new UNDUE clarification. I think that'll solve the issue without breaking anything.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC: WP:BIDIRECTIONAL
What should WP:BIDIRECTIONAL say? (Prior discussion above.)  Sdkb  talk 04:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A (status quo): Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional.
 * Option B: Articles that transclude 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 undue.
 * Option C: There is no requirement that articles that transclude a given navbox have to be included as a link in the navbox.

 * Clarification note: If it aids understanding, Transcludes can be read as uses.  Sdkb  talk 17:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

 * Option B. Navboxes are part of articles, and therefore the reasons that we have WP:DUE 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 their article, but it wouldn't make sense to add them to that navbox.  Sdkb  talk 04:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Option B, tetatively. This 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.  being jammed onto every pool/billiards/snooker player bio, event page, etc.). What prevents that from happening?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. -- wooden superman  07:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A, but we need to tighten the rules. Every article that is in the navbox should have the navbox transcluded, but if this causes an WP:UNDUE 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.  -- wooden  superman  07:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A with rewording. 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 Only include the navbox on articles that are linked to by the navbox.  — Mudwater (Talk) 10:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Navboxes aren't only for navigation, though — per the fifth bullet point of WP:NAVBOX here (which has guideline status), they also function as substitutes for see also sections.  Sdkb  talk 17:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No they're not substitutes for see also sections. You're reading that wrong. Navboxes are purely for navigation, nothing more. -- wooden superman  17:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Quoting from the guideline: 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 See also sections of the articles.  Sdkb  talk 17:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia. -- wooden superman  17:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A. If the article isn't worthwhile to link back to, then the article does not belong on the navbox. --Gonnym (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Option B. Middle ground or...C..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 MOS:SEEALSO guideline and our November 2020 RfC for article stewards. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 13:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Option C because A and B are irrational (see my comment below). I don't like option C but I prefer it to abstaining. Thincat (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A 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.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ..You seem to be advocating for C....dont added them allover? Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 09:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 17:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the potential problem. —Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Option A is how I have always understood the issue and seems best for the science and philosophy navboxes that I usually deal with. The WP:Ignore all rules 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. Biogeographist (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Option B, 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. --Aquillion (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Option A – The status-quo language already allows for exceptions. We don't need more cases of templates like National Register of Historic Places, which is currently plastered on nearly 29,000 articles about places that happen to be on the National Register of Historic Places. Graham (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Option B, at least for sidebars. Quoting my reasoning from above: 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 in the sidebar. Sidebars also have less space for links than navboxes at the bottom. 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. DFlhb (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Option B 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 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 Second Continental Congress, who are now covered within their biographical navboxes (i.e. Richard Henry Lee. Exceptions are one of the valued rungs in the backbone of Wikipedia, 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion
Pinging participants from the prior discussion: Cheers,  Sdkb   talk 04:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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 WP:PERFNAV. 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.—Bagumba (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 * 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 subject to more stringent scrutiny in the way that say WP:DEFINING is used in categories. -- wooden superman  07:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 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 Richard Henry Lee 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 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). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 * 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * transcluding = placing the navbox in the article. -- wooden superman  11:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Then on my question above about, for example, Richard Henry Lee, what would be removed, if anything, per Option A, Option B, and Option C. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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, Memorial to the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence for one.  And that's before we even go into options a, b or c. -- wooden  superman  12:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So you'd gut the navbox in any case. Would like '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. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Per your The "above" is fine for informational purposes. I repeat.  This is a navbox, not an infobox. -- wooden  superman  12:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia map to the topic (navboxes). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The very first line of WP:NAVBOX states: Navigation templates are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia (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. -- wooden  superman  13:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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, Richard Henry Lee, 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence so you can navigate between those articles through this method. -- wooden  superman  13:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (although there is a massive overlap with a section of Historical American Documents which quite frankly is a mess. I think I'd prefer to see a discrete Declaration of Independence navbox which combines elements of both.) -- wooden  superman  13:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you serious??, you're going to go about purging American independence navboxes because I mentioned one here? You've removed the long-time image from Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and now want to disfigure Historical American Documents 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Historical American Documents 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 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!  -- wooden  superman  13:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And with regard to the image at Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, see WP:NAVDECOR: Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative; Per MOS:DECOR, images are rarely appropriate in navboxes. -- wooden superman  13:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here we go, the deletionist treatment, 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). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -- wooden superman  13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 * 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 teeny-tiny navboxes, let's use Historical American Documents as an example, which option best keeps it as is? Option B with improved option language per 's wording? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So, stop telling me which topics I can and can't edit. Do NOT ever tell me to to "leave American independence navboxes alone". -- wooden  superman  13:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Historical American Documents should be "split to its components [so] it may prove a more concise useful navigational tool". Nothing to do with any of the options mentioned above, you went off topic. -- wooden  superman  13:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 cool, and probably WP:Hounding or at least on the edges. I don't do that to him. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * FFS, WP:AGF Randy, I'm not hounding you. I'm just trying to clean up the navboxes in line with the guidelines. And this is wildly off topic. -- wooden superman  14:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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, Richard Henry Lee, pertains to what would be removed and what remains as descriptive of a navbox topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound like good faith to me. I was just doing a bit of wikignoming when I came across something that needed tidying up, the same way I usually edit. -- wooden  superman  14:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. Anyway, does option B allow for the document navbox to exist as is (as it has for well over a decade)? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 * 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.  Sdkb  talk 17:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Transcludes is already linked to Help:Transclusion upon first usage at WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. —Bagumba (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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).  Sdkb  talk 17:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If we must, then includes is more succinct than uses. —Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. -- wooden superman  17:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging @Gonnym, given that the comment in your !vote seems to speak to something different than what is being proposed.  Sdkb  talk 17:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I understand fine. If it's linked in the navbox, the navbox must be used in the article. Gonnym (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This wearisome issue has been discussed for at least the last ten years (starting here?} and every year or so since then. The first part of option A Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox does not ensure bidirectionality . For that 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 bidirectional. 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. Thincat (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. -- wooden superman  21:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 Memorial to the 56 Signers of the Declaration of Independence from individual navboxes even though, like Richard Henry Lee, 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that article does not need to be included in all of those individuals' navboxes. They are linked in the navboxes Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence and also in Historical American Documents.  This is already sufficent to provide navigation between these articles.  Also I am seeing some redundancy between the two. -- wooden  superman  09:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact, looking at Richard Henry Lee, 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 List of United States senators from Virginia in this navbox, when Lee is included in United States senators from Virginia.  This is how WP:BIDIRECTIONAL should work. -- wooden  superman  10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Those would be exceptions (do you understand that all guidelines use common sense and exceptions?). A navbox is a map to articles on Wikipedia 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 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How many exceptions do you need in a single navbox? The odd one, maybe, but that entire "above" section is all exceptions.  Use Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence or Historical American Documents 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. -- wooden  superman  12:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Best film" poll navboxes.
Does anyone have anything to add at these deletion discussions? Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 1 and Templates for discussion/Log/2024 February 29. We've already deleted other AFI ones and a Sight and Sound one recently. -- wooden superman  17:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, as they are all good functional and popular navboxes. In fact the Sight and Sound navbox will be up for deletion review soon as it was "decided" by three 'voters', two of who wanted to delete it and the third, in a fuller and more reasoned response, wanted it kept. I was personally unaware of that discussion or would have been in its midst as a Keep editor - the Sight and Sound poll is the definitive listing of best films ever made upon its renewal every 10 years, and the 2008 Cahiers du Cinema poll, its navbox up for deletion now, isn't far behind as an honored and reputable poll of film. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I point you to this discussion where it seems consensus was not to WP:DRV this. -- wooden superman  08:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a deletion review but a limited discussion at a WikiProject talk page. If someone wants to challenge a deletion then a WikiProject discussion isn't the place to decide the issue. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Should navboxes not include links to sections?
This navbox included pages about genetic histories of many ethnic groups, but most of them were removed because they redirected to sections of articles. According to this guideline, should links to sections be excluded from navboxes? Jarble (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. would likely know more about the history of discussion and/or guideline on this aspect of navboxes. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 Human genetics.  For example Early Anatolian Farmers is linked, but this redirects to Neolithic Europe, with no section on Anatolia and no reference to Anatolia in this section.  Also at this section it suggests that Genetic history of Europe is the more in depth article which has a section Genetic history of Europe which at leasts mentions Anatolia.  However as Genetic history of Europe is already linked, we don't need to link it again anyway. -- wooden  superman  13:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Similarly Genetic history of the Caucasus is linked, which is a redirect to Prehistoric Caucasus, a section which suggests that Caucasus hunter-gatherer is the main article for this section, which is already linked in the navbox, so we probably don't need this redirect either. -- wooden superman  14:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * (earlier discussion here) -- wooden superman  14:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NAVNOREDIRECT: 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 articles using the template. 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. -- wooden superman  14:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * However, I think we should be avoiding linking to different sections of the same article multiple times. -- wooden superman  14:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, I don't recall ever linking a section to a navbox. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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). Moxy 🍁 16:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of episode count on Doctor Who episodes navbox?
Would anyone like to weigh in at Template talk:Doctor Who episodes? -- wooden superman  08:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Images in navboxes (again)
I think we need to put this to bed. How does including an image in, say Elon Musk, facilitate navigation? Essay WP:NAVDECOR (Navigation templates are not arbitrarily decorative) states: "Per MOS:DECOR, 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? -- wooden superman  12:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an easy one, and rests solely on the foundation of MOS:DECOR. 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). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:UNDUE.  I mean, look at PayPal or OpenAI for example.  Or Talulah Riley, where even inclusion of the navbox could be considered WP:UNDUE... -- wooden  superman  13:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Talulah Riley 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 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not "fine". It's useless clutter on the footer of every page. -- wooden  superman  13:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But by being arbitrarily decorative, it does go against WP:NAVDECOR and MOS:DECOR. -- wooden superman  13:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 them from use (although I've never added one) but would question, with editors who have added them, their overuse on some navboxes. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NAVDECOR is about images. In this case though, the spirit of MOS:DECOR 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 MOS:IMAGES.  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. -- wooden  superman  14:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * i.e. per MOS:IMAGES, a picture should not be placed on an artcicle if it is not pertinent. There isn't an image of Musk in Talulah Riley's main article, so why should there be one by means of navbox?  Look at Boring Test Tunnel, 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 MOS:IMAGES? -- wooden  superman  14:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 * MOS:DECOR is completely irrelevant for this discussion. That section not only talks about icons, it is part of Manual of Style/Icons. 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. Cambalachero (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How does an image in a navbox facilitate navigation between the articles within? After all, that's what it's for.  -- wooden  superman  15:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In your example, a photo of Elon Musk next to the Elon Musk 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). Cambalachero (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with and .  No pressing (or any viable) reason has been presented to insist on the removal of images in an info-box. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We're talking about navboxes, not infoboxes. They are very different. Images are completely appropriate in an infobox. -- wooden superman  20:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 WP:UNDUE 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 WP:CONSISTENT MOS:CONSISTENT within a single article. -- wooden superman  20:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You should WP:KNOW that it is WP:POINTLESS to WP:LINK to WP:RANDOM shortcuts to make it seem as if your WP:PROPOSAL was based on WP:POLICIES WP:AND WP:GUIDELINES, when actually WP:ITISNOT (see how annoying it can be?). People read 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. Cambalachero (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, late at night, couldn't be bothered to check, but WP:UNDUE 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. -- wooden superman  05:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 can be used each time a common word, such as "undue", happens to be the same as one of them. Cambalachero (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 Talulah Riley example.  Or The Space Barons, where Musk has an image, but Bezos does not.  This is very much part of WP:UNDUE, which states: 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 use of imagery. -- wooden  superman  13:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ready, the Bezos navobox has an image now. Problem solved, we can go on with our lives... Cambalachero (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well that was WP:POINTY. It doesn't solve the Talulah Riley issue though. -- wooden  superman  14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's not late at night and you can check, why don't you actually read the pages you cite? Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point 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 WP:BEBOLD, 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. Cambalachero (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 of Bezos!! Use of the word "missing" would imply that a navbox should have an image, which is clearly NOT the case.  -- wooden  superman  14:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry to rain on your parade, but I have to remind you that the current consensus is that images are allowed in navboxes. Until such consensus changes, adding images to navboxes lacking them is not controversial. Cambalachero (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that WP:NAVDECOR explicitly states Per MOS:DECOR, images are rarely appropriate in navboxes the opposite could be argued. However depending on ones reading of the application of WP:UNDUE, MOS:IMAGES, MOS:CONSISTENT, 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. -- wooden  superman  15:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the above comment on the current consensus. Remember, per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus does not require unanimity; one or two editors disagreeing does not change this. If we were going to wait for a consensus to be reached, 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 drop the stick. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 23:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 * 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. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia information, not reduce it (yes, images contain information, doesn't WP:1000 state that each image is worth 1,000 words or am I mixing that up with WP:COMMONSENSE?). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

If one was being pedantic, perhaps I should have said guideline (MOS:IMAGES), which states:
 * Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative.

However, Image use policy would give voice to the gideline and would also state:
 * 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 central.

Invoking WP:COMMONSENSE is not a substantive argument of itself. An appeal to common sense is an argumentive fallacy. One must continue and read WP:NOCOMMON. 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 WP:IAR. IAR (and WP:COMMONSENSE) are not a catch-all get out of jail free 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.

Saying that we have always had an image parameter in navboxes is also not of itself a substantive justification for their use. Argumentum ad antiquitatem 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 nobody has seen fit to question it (until now). There is no evidence presented of an affirmative consensus. Per WP:WEAKSILENCE:

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

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 WP:1000, 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 Elon Musk 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.

There is the assertion that images have 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!")". 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 clarifies the subject in the reader's mind. Asserting there is a great benefit is opinion offered without substantiation.

Does an image in a navbox purposely define the topic? 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 History of China. 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.

The Syrian civil war has two sidebars, both with images: Bashar al-Assad series with their photo, and Ba'athism sidebar with the flag of the Ba'athist party. In each case, it is the words that are meaningful, not the pictures. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Your claim that Images have been used in sidebars and footer navboxes since they began is false. They are something that has crept in slowly over time.  And note that navboxes are here to aid navigation, articles provide information. -- wooden  superman  11:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 view. Moxy 🍁 11:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to state that the claim of Images have been used in sidebars and footer navboxes since they began is absolutely correct. An image parameter has existed within the template since its creation in August 2007. -- Alex_ 21 TALK 11:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, WP:COMMONSENSE aside, this find alone should negate the intent and direction of this discussion. , in the spirit of navbox respect please strike out your claim that I passed along a false statement. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 this 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. -- wooden  superman  12:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Over 17 years ago, before 2007? That's what you're trying to cite as a policy to support the removal of images? -- Alex_ 21 TALK 12:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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). -- wooden  superman  12:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , are you going to strike your incorrect accusation above or just leave it so readers of this section get the wrong idea? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 make 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? Cambalachero (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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. — The Transhumanist  00:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 * This guideline includes the guideline WP:NAVBOX which governs navboxes and it would be here that any amendment would be made, so it is exactly the appropriate forum. -- wooden superman  10:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 Don't edit war over the colour of templates. In the long run the academic look will prevail over kids picture book. Moxy 🍁 15:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have it codified though, seems to have summarized why it is inappropriate excellently.  Perhaps we should have a proper RFC on this? -- wooden  superman  08:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Thank you for taking the time to read a long post. I would tend to agree with and In the long run the academic look will prevail over kids picture book. We might revisit an RfC in the future. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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?" Cambalachero (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. Moxy 🍁 02:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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 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. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Really? As this thread started citing the template Elon Musk 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 User:Cambalachero/sandbox. 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. Cambalachero (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree..... but in general should we be adding images that are not accessible because they're so teeny Mini. Moxy 🍁 21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


text:
Fifth World (mythology)

The Fifth World in the context of creation myths describes the present world as interpreted by several indigenous groups in the USA and Mexico. The central theme of the myth holds that there were four other cycles of creation and destruction that preceded the Fifth World. The creation story is taken largely from the mythological, cosmological, and eschatological beliefs and traditions of earlier Mesoamerican cultures.

Aztec mythology
According to Aztec mythology the present world is a product of four cycles of birth, death, and reincarnation. When each world is destroyed it is reborn through the sacrifice of a god. The god’s sacrifice creates a new sun, which creates a new world. The myth is sometimes referred to as the “Legend of Five Suns.”

Jaguars, a hurricane, fire rain, and a flood destroyed the first four suns. After the fourth sun was destroyed the gods gathered to choose a god to become the new sun. Tecuciztecatl, a boastful and proud god, offered himself up for sacrifice. However, the rest of the gods favored Nanahuatzin, the smallest and humblest god. The gods built a grand fire, but at the last second Tecuciztecatl refused to jump into the fire because he was too afraid of the pain. Instead, Nanahuatzin jumped in the fire. Embarrassed by Nanahuatzin’s sacrifice, Tecuciztecatl followed him into the fire. The two suns rose in the sky, but they were too bright. The gods threw a rabbit at Tecuciztecatl to dim his light, and he turned into the moon. This is the reason why the Aztec people say there is a rabbit that lives on the moon.

Still however, the sun remained motionless in the sky, burning the ground below. The gods then recognized they all must be sacrificed so that the people could survive. The god Ehecatl helped offering them up. The sacrifices made the sun move through the sky, energizing earth instead of burning it.

Human sacrifice
In the Aztec tradition, the Fifth World is the last one and after this one the earth will not be recreated. This is why the Aztecs practised human sacrifice. The gods would only keep the sun alive as long as the Aztecs continued providing them with blood. Their worldview held a deep sense of indebtedness. Blood sacrifice was an often-used form of nextlahualli or debt-payment. Franciscan Friar Bernardino de Sahagún wrote in his ethnography of Mesoamerica that the victim was someone who "gave his service.”

Navajo mythology
The Navajo, who were neighbors of the Hopi in the southwest, borrow elements of the Pueblo people’s emergence myths in their creation stories. The Navajo creation story has parallels to the Biblical book of Genesis. The early Abrahamic concept of the world is similar to the Navajo concept of the world. This world is one where the earth is an area of land floating in an ocean covered by a domed heaven. The domed heaven fits the land and ocean like a lid with its edges on the horizon. The Navajo creation story traces the evolution of life through four previous worlds until the people reach the fifth and present world. As the people passed through each of the previous four worlds, they went through evolution. They started out as insects and various animals until they became human in the Fourth World.

Upon arriving in the Fourth World the First Man was not satisfied. The land was barren. He planted a reed and it grew to the roof of the Fourth World. First Man sent the badger up the reed, but water began to drip before he could reach top so he returned. Next a locust climbed the reed. The locust made a headband with two crossed arrows on his forehead. With the help of all the gods the locust reached the Fifth World. When he pushed through mud he reached water and saw a black water bird swimming towards him. The bird told the locust that he could only stay if he could make magic. The locust took the arrows from his headband and pulled them through his body, between his shell and his heart. The black bird was convinced that the locust possessed great medicine, and he swam away taking the water with him. The locust returned to the lower world.

Now two days had passed and there was no sun. First Man sent the badger up to the Fifth World again. The badger returned covered with mud from a flood. First Man collected turquoise chips to offer to the five Chiefs of the Winds. They were satisfied with the gift, and they dried the Fifth World. When the badger returned he said that he had come out on dry earth. So First Man led the rest of people to the upper world. So with the explicit help of the gods the people reached the Fifth World similar to the Aztec creation story.

Now after all the people had arrived from the lower worlds First Man and First Woman placed the mountain lion on one side and the wolf on the other. They divided the people into two groups. The first group chose the wolf for their chief. The mountain lion was the chief for the other side. The people who had the mountain lion chief turned were to be the people of the Earth. The people with the wolf chief became the animals.

Navajo medicine men say there are two worlds above the Fifth World. The first is the World of the Spirits of Living Things and the second is the Place of Melting into One.

The Navajo legends are an oral account that is passed down from generation to generation. There are various versions of the story — as there are in any oral account — but the variations are slight.

Hopi mythology
The Hopi’s creation myth is slightly different than the creation myths of the Aztecs and Navajo. The Hopi believe we are currently living in the Fourth World, but are on the threshold of the Fifth World.

In each of the three previous worlds, humanity was destroyed by destructive practices and wars. In the most common version of the story the Spider Grandmother (Kookyangso'wuuti) caused a reed to grow into the sky, and it emerged in the Fourth World at the sipapu, a small tunnel or inter-dimensional passage. As the end of one world draws near the sipapu appears to lead the Hopi into the next phase of the world.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Fifth World (mythology)


text: Category:American librarians

title: Category:American librarians


text:
Talk:Temein languages

Temein is but one language of the Temein group.

title: Talk:Temein languages


text: Category:Hopi mythology

title: Category:Hopi mythology


text:
Rocky Mountain Rail Society

The Rocky Mountain Rail Society (RMRS) is a registered nonprofit organization of volunteers dedicated to the preservation of Canadian National Railway steam locomotive 6060, The Spirit of Alberta. Their goal is to ensure that The Spirit of Alberta remains in full and complete operating condition for the enjoyment of steam rail fans.

Society structure and team members
The Rocky Mountain Rail Society operates under a board of directors and a varying number of directors. The key mechanical positions that make up the Mechanical Committee are chief mechanical officer, assistant to the chief mechanical officer and rolling stock operations officer. All planning for repairs, modifications and maintenance of any RMRS equipment must be done in consultation with and under the approval of the Mechanical Committee. A volunteer coordinator is also appointed to manage all volunteer resources and scheduling.

Team member roles

 * Chief mechanical officer – Responsible for the planning, scheduling and expenditure of all repairs and maintenance. Reports to the board of directors.
 * Assistant to the chief mechanical officer – responsible for the planning, scheduling and expenditure of all repairs and maintenance when the chief mechanical officer is not available to fill these duties. Reports to the board of directors.
 * Rolling stock operations officer – responsible for the planning, scheduling and expenditure of all repairs and maintenance required on RMRS rolling stock. Reports to the board of directors.
 * Volunteer coordinator – responsible for managing volunteer resources with respect to training and scheduling.
 * Volunteer workers – responsible for conducting work on the locomotives and rolling stock under the direction of the Mechanical Committee and Volunteer Coordinator.

Society operation
From 1998 to 2011, the society's excursions consisted of providing 6060 as steam power to a number of runs of Alberta Prairie Railway Excursions (APRE) tourist trains which were operated on a regular weekend schedule from mid-May to mid-October. (Special event runs also occurred at other dates in the year). The railway normally used its own steam locomotive, number 41, or a diesel for these runs but on 12 days each summer RMRS provided 6060 as power. The trips occurred along a line built by the Canadian Northern Railway between Stettler and Big Valley in Alberta, Canada. The length of this run is 48 mi round trip. As there was no capacity to turn locomotives at Big Valley, 6060 ran in reverse to that location, and then returned in a forward direction to Stettler.

History of CNR 6060
Canadian National 6060 (affectionately known as Bullet-nosed Betty) was assembled in Canada's Montreal Locomotive Works in October 1944 under builder's number 72757. In 1959, 6060 was retired from active service and was subsequently placed on static display in Jasper, Alberta, in 1962. Ten years later, Canadian National Railway restored 6060 to operating condition, and used her to haul steam excursions out of Toronto, Ontario.

In 1980, to commemorate the Province of Alberta's 75th anniversary, No. 6060 was presented to the people of Alberta as a gift. After more than five years of retirement, she was restored a second time with the help of the Province of Alberta and, most notably, volunteers from the Rocky Mountain Rail Society. No. 6060 travelled under her own power to Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1986 to participate in the Steam Expo, part of the World's Fair.

In November 1991, No. 6060’s Alberta owners announced that they could no longer take care of the locomotive, and they sought to move No. 6060 to a park for permanent static display, while the New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway made an offer to buy it for their steam program. The Rocky Mountain Rail Society was determined to keep No. 6060 from leaving Canada and to become a static display piece, so they launched a campaign for the Provincial Government to reconsider No. 6060’s future. This led to the province relinquishing the title of No. 6060 to the Rocky Mountain Rail Society in early 1992.

After several years of storage at the Alberta Railway Museum near Edmonton, No. 6060 was moved to Stettler in 1998 to operate regularly in the service of Alberta Prairie Steam Tours. She continued to transport thousands of excursion passengers every summer until going out of service in 2011. This impressive mountain-type engine is considered to be one of the best remaining examples of a modern steam locomotive, and until 2011 was Canada's largest operating steamer and North America's only operating mountain-type engine.

6060's design is an extension of CNR Northern U-2-g design (4-8-4) which was able to run through divisional points where other engines would need to be serviced, and established performance records. One such locomotive ran 18,353 mi in one month, and it was typical for the design to run without change from Montreal, Quebec, to Halifax, Nova Scotia, for a total of 841 mi. As a result of being constructed during World War II when the need for more locomotives was high but the ready supply of iron was low, the U-1-f class of 4-8-2s, of which 6060 was the first, were lighter and more versatile locomotives than the U-2 Northerns. 6060 rolled off the erecting floor at Montreal Locomotive Works early in October 1944. In spite of being 20 tons lighter than the U-2s, the performance of the U-1-f class was undiminished and they quickly took over prestigious passenger runs, capable of easily maintaining speeds of 75 mph. 6078, a classmate of 6060, made the run from Toronto to Sarnia, Ontario, in two hours and fifty-eight minutes at an average speed (including water stops) of 58.7 mph. This entire sub-class of engine remained in service until the end of steam on the CNR.

title: Rocky Mountain Rail Society


text:
Dangerous Dreams

Dangerous Dreams is the debut studio album by American dance-punk band Moving Units. It was released on October 12, 2004, by Palm Records. It was their second release, after their 2002 Moving Units EP.

The track "Between Us & Them" was used in Leo Romero's opening part in Foundation's skateboarding video That's Life. The track "Going for Adds" was used in a 2007 commercial for Secret Anti-Perspirant Deodorant.

Critical reception
Dangerous Dreams was met with "mixed or average" reviews from critics. At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream publications, this release received an average score of 53 based on 12 reviews.

In a review for AllMusic, critic reviewer Heather Phares wrote: "Dangerous Dreams mix of uptight rhythms, angular guitars, and shouty, faux-Brit vocals doesn't invoke nostalgia for late '70s and early '80s. A case of too little, too late, nothing on Moving Units' full-length debut Dangerous Dreams does anything to disprove the feeling that the dance-punk scene is at best overcrowded and at worst approaching rigor mortis any day now." David Spain of LAS Magazine said: "Dangerous Dreams is a passable album that never achieves greatness, nor does it fail miserably, rather residing with the mundane. Jangled, angular guitars and pungent bass lines meander their way through 12 tracks, laced with British-inspired LA vocals."

Writing for Pitchfork, Sam Ubl explained: "Dangerous Dreams is plagued by a pervasive feeling of been there/done that, and the album ultimately sounds like the same two or three tracks on repeat. Moving Units may not be directly responsible for dance-punk's fustiness, but they can't help but suffer from it."

Personnel
Credits adapted from AllMusic.

Moving Units
 * Blake Miller – vocals
 * Johal Bogeli − bass
 * Chris Hathwell – drums

Production
 * Chris Hathwell – producer
 * Blake Miller – mixing, producer
 * Mickey Petralia – engineer, mixing, producer
 * Louie Teran – mastering
 * Richard Kaplan – engineer
 * Colby Buddelmeyer – engineer
 * Josh Achziger − engineer

title: Dangerous Dreams


text:
Deepak Perwani

Deepak Perwani (born 1963) (ديپڪ پرواني) is a Pakistani fashion designer and actor. He is a member of the Hindu Sindhi community in Pakistan.

Filmography

 * Mere Paas Paas (Hum TV)
 * Kadoorat (2013 on Hum TV)
 * Punjab Nahi Jaungi (2017)
 * Altered Skin as Farooq (2018)
 * Yunhi (2023)
 * Very Filmy (2024)

title: Deepak Perwani


text:
Thor Kristensen

Thor Kristensen (born 4 June 1980 in Hadsund, North Denmark Region) was a member of Denmark's rowing team, the Gold Four, during the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens. Along with Thomas Ebert, Stephan Mølvig, and Eskild Ebbesen, he won the gold medal in the Lightweight Four division.

title: Thor Kristensen


text:
Buster Nupen

Eiulf Peter "Buster" Nupen (1 January 1902 – 29 January 1977) was a cricketer who played in 17 Test matches for South Africa between 1921–22 and 1935–36. He was born in Norway, lost an eye in a childhood accident, and was shot through both knees during the Rand Rebellion when he was 20.

A deadly force for Transvaal against lesser batsmen on matting wickets during the late 1920s – by which time his bowling on these wickets had been developed into a fine art – in 1930–31 Nupen was, owing to the absence of South Africa's former captain Nummy Deane due to poor form, chosen to captain the Test team against England. He did so with considerable skill and accomplished the best bowling of his Test career. He took 5 for 63 and 6 for 87 in the First Test to give South Africa victory by 28 runs, and 3 for 148 and 6 for 46 in the drawn Fourth Test. However, Nupen was thought so badly of on turf pitches that he was left out of the Third and Fifth Tests, the first two played on turf in South Africa. He achieved his best-ever domestic figures the following year with 43 wickets for 434 runs (including 9 for 48 and 7 for 88 in a match against Griqualand West). In 28 Currie Cup matches for Transvaal he took 190 wickets at an average of 12.92, nine times taking 10 or more wickets in a match.

He was educated at King Edward VII School (Johannesburg) and practised as an attorney in Johannesburg for 45 years.

title: Buster Nupen


text:
Deol

Deol is a Jat surname native to the Punjab region of India.

title: Deol


text:
Vivianna Torun Bülow-Hübe

Vivianna Torun Bülow-Hübe (4 December 1927 – 3 July 2004), often known simply as Torun, was one of Sweden's most important 20th century silversmiths and a master jeweller. She is the first female silversmith to have become internationally noted. Among her most important works are the watch "Vivianna," the bracelet "Mobius," and the earrings and necklaces "Dew Drop."

Early life
Torun grew up in Malmö with her sculptor mother, town planner father and three older siblings. Her entire family was creative: a sister became a poet and her brother and other sister grew up to become architects. Torun began making jewelry as a teenager. She attended the Stockholm university of arts, crafts and design Konstfackskolan (later renamed Konstfack). She staged her first exhibition at the age of 21. In 1948 she traveled to Paris and Cannes, where she met painters Pablo Picasso, Georges Braque and Henri Matisse. A few years later she opened her own studio, which made her the first female silversmith in Sweden with her own workshop.

Personal life
Torun had her first child, Pia, at the age of 18. She later married Pia's father, a Danish journalism student, but the marriage was short-lived. In 1948, Torun married her second husband, a French architect, with whom she had a second child, Claude. In 1956 they divorced, and Torun lost custody of Claude to his father. She then remarried and moved to Paris with her third husband, the African-American painter Walter Coleman, with whom she later had two children, Ira and Marcia. In 1958 the family moved to Biot in the south of France to avoid the political problems they were encountering in Paris as a result of the war in Algeria. In 1965 Torun's marriage to Coleman broke up.

After the breakup of her third marriage, Torun become a member of the Subud international spiritual movement, and in 1968 she moved to Germany to be nearer to a Subud community. She later moved to Jakarta in Indonesia, where Subud was founded. In 2002, after being diagnosed with leukemia, she left Indonesia to live with her daughter Marcia in Denmark until her death in 2004 at the age of 76.

Work and awards
Throughout her career, Torun worked in Sweden, France, Germany and Indonesia.

In 1948, saying that she didn't want to design jewelry for the wives of wealthy men to keep locked up in private, Torun began making what she called "anti-status jewelry" out of twisted silver wire embellished with crystals and stones. In 1959, she designed the Mobius necklace, which included a lead crystal drop to be draped over the shoulder of the wearer. It was described by Barbara Cartlidge, author of the reference book Twentieth Century Jewelry, as a "milestone in the history of modern jewelry." In 1962, Torun designed a stainless steel bangle-style wristwatch for an exhibition at the Musée des Arts Décoratifs in Paris. It later became the first wristwatch to be produced by the world-renowned Danish silver company Georg Jensen.

In 1960, Torun was awarded a gold medal at the 1960 Milan Triennale and also won the American Lunning Prize for design, given annually to innovative Scandinavian designers in their thirties. She then met the Danish silversmith Georg Jensen, for whom she began designing exclusively in 1969.

Torun is the designer behind some of the most famous Georg Jensen jewelry designs, including 'Mobius', 'The Vivianna / Open Watch', 'Beans', 'Forget me knot' and 'Hidden Heart'. She is the second most famous Georg Jensen designer, behind Jensen himself. In 1992 she was awarded the Prince Eugen medal by King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden for outstanding artistic achievement. Also in 1992, the Georg Jensen form held an exhibition honouring 25 years of its association with Torun, 45 years of her work with silver and her 65th birthday. In the same year, the Musee des Arts Decoratifs in the Louvre held a 45-year retrospective of Torun's work.

Torun's jewelry was inspired by natural shapes such as flowers, leaves, swirls and the flow of water. It is described as sober, minimalist and simple. Torun has been praised for her ability to shape solid materials into seemingly flexible forms, so that metal flows like water around the wearer's neck and shoulders. She did not use valuable stones, preferring instead pebbles, granite, rock crystal, moonstone and quartz.

Torun's jewelry has been worn by celebrities including Billie Holiday, Ingrid Bergman, and Brigitte Bardot, and her customers included Pablo Picasso, Chester Himes and Duke Ellington. Her work can be seen in the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, the Swedish National Museum in Stockholm, the Musee des Arts Decoratifs in Montreal, the Louvre in Paris, the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths in London, and in the Pinakothek der Moderne in Munich. Her jewelry and housewares are sold today by retailers such as Georg Jensen, Bed Bath & Beyond and Amazon.

title: Vivianna Torun Bülow-Hübe


text:
User talk:Manicpoet

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Ormskirk
I am very sorry to have to revert your very first edit! But your edit to Template:Stn art lnk was simply in the wrong place. Stn_art_lnk is what is called a template. By putting the Ormskirk link into it, you caused that link to appear in about 800 railway station articles! Which I am sure is not what you meant to do.

Please add the link properly to the Ormskirk article. Here it is for you to cut and paste:

 * Ormskirk: as I see it contains many photographs of Ormskirk.

-- RHaworth 10:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I see you have worked it out. Don't bother with emails for "public" stuff like that - use these talk pages. I follow the convention that if someone leaves me a message on my talk page, I will reply there - I expect the person to be watching my page. And vice versa. By the way, have a look at Son of Paddy's Ego, I think he lives in your area. -- RHaworth 14:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks a lot for your help, it's appreciated. Manicpoet 20:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Manicpoet


text: User:Sebw~enwiki

title: User:Sebw~enwiki


text:
User talk:Thelordourchrist

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! It's always a pleasure to have another editor join — we can never have too many good editors.

Some useful stuff/Things to remember:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia — Our most important principles and philosophies. Or if you're interested in specific polices, see our Policies and Guidelines page.
 * Open tasks — These are important things that aren't getting done. We need your help with them.
 * Tutorial — What you need to know about editing pages.
 * Test area — If you need to test an edit but don't want to perform the test on an article.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk, or leave me a note on my talk page.
 * Manual of Style — Suggested content standards.
 * Always Always Always try to maintain neutrality in your contributions.
 * Try not to be anonymous. Sign your comment (like I did this one), by using the tilde '~' symbol: add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of a post to leave your username and the timestamp.
 * Be bold in editing pages.
 * A happy editor is always successful. Have fun!

Cheers and good luck, Ingoolemo   talk  10:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Gackt2.jpg
This image has no information on its source. If you cannot provide information in the next 7 days, Wikipedia policy requires its deletion. Thanks, Ingoolemo   talk  10:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thelordourchrist


text:
Sidesurf

Sidesurf is the term given to roller skaters or inline skaters who skate by placing their heels facing each other but separated by roughly shoulder width. In the sidesurf position, a straight line can be drawn through both heels and toes with the toes pointing away from each other. The motion is similar to being on a snow board however the toes are both turned outwards. Another term used for sidesurfing is "crabbing," as this is similar to the perpendicular style in which a crab moves.

Sidesurfing may be done while skating down hills, just like snowboarding, finding natural side hits because gravity naturally accelerates the skater. However, sidesurfers can learn to propel themselves forwards by rotating their hips from side to side while pushing their skates perpendicular to their direction of motion. It is also used in a variety of other roller skating sports, ranging from roller derby to vertical (aggressive and park) skating. Initially, sidesurfing is quite hard and a lot of practice is required, starting with groin stretches.

A more advanced version of the sidesurf is called the Sidesurf Royale also known as the Heel-heel side Surf. This is a modification of the sidesurf move where the blader sidesurfs with his or her toes off the ground.

There are claims that sidesurf stance was used for slalom cone skating in the early 70's, and that Kenny Means was the first to popularize the style of skating.

title: Sidesurf


text:
SINPO code

SINPO, an acronym for Signal, Interference, Noise, Propagation, and Overall, is a Signal Reporting Code used to describe the quality of broadcast and radiotelegraph transmissions. SINPFEMO, an acronym for Signal, Interference, Noise, Propagation, frequency of Fading, dEpth, Modulation, and Overall is used to describe the quality of radiotelephony transmissions. SINPFEMO code consists of the SINPO code plus the addition of three letters to describe additional features of radiotelephony transmissions. These codes are defined by Recommendation ITU-R Sm.1135, SINPO and SINPFEMO codes.

SINPO code is most frequently used in reception reports written by shortwave listeners. Each letter of the code stands for a specific factor of the signal, and each item is graded on a 1 to 5 scale (where 1 stands for nearly undetectable/severe/unusable and 5 for excellent/nil/extremely strong).

The code originated with the CCIR (a predecessor to the ITU-R) in 1951, and was widely used by BBC shortwave listeners to submit signal reports, with many going so far as to mail audio recordings to the BBC's offices.

SINPO and SINPFEMO are the official signal reporting codes for international civil aviation and ITU-R.

The use of the SINPO code can be subjective and may vary from person to person. Not all shortwave listeners are conversant with the SINPO code and prefer using plain language instead.

SINPO code explained

 * S (Signal strength) : The relative strength of the transmission.
 * I (Interference) : Interference from other stations on the same or adjacent frequencies.
 * N (Noise) : The amount of atmospheric or man-made noise.
 * P (Propagation) : Whether the signal is steady or fades from time to time.
 * O (Overall merit) : An overall score for the listening experience under these conditions.

Each category is rated from 1 to 5 with 1 being 'unusable' or 'severe' and 5 being 'perfect' or 'nil'. Many raters misunderstand the code and will rate everything either 55555 or 11111 when in reality both extremes are unusual in the extreme. '55555' essentially means 'perfect reception akin to a local station' while that is occasionally possible, when talking about long-distance short-wave reception, it is almost never the case.

Another common mistake in rating is presenting an 'O' higher than any previously rated element. By definition, a station cannot present 'perfect' reception if there is any Noise or Interference or Fading present. In other words, it is NOT 'perfect local quality' reception if any of those things are present.

SINPFEMO code
An extension of SINPO code, for use in radiotelephony (voice over radio) communications, SINPFEMO is an acronym for Signal, Interference, Noise, Propagation, frequency of Fading, dEpth, Modulation, and Overall.

Examples of SINPO code applied
In responding to a shortwave reception, the SINPO indicates to the transmitting station the overall quality of the reception.

The SINPO code in normal use consists of the 5 rating numbers listed without the letters, as in the examples below:

 * 54554 – This indicates a relatively clear reception, with only slight interference; however, nothing that would significantly degrade the listening experience.
 * 33433 – This indicates a signal which is moderately strong, but has more interference, and therefore deterioration of the received signal.

Generally, a SINPO with a code number starting with a 2 or lower would not be worth reporting, unless there is no noise, interference or loss of propagation, since it would be likely the signal would be unintelligible.

Although the original SINPO code established technical specifications for each number (i.e., a number 3 in the P column meant a fixed number of fades per minute), these are rarely adhered to by reporters. The 'S' meter displays the relative strength of the received RF signal in decibels; however, this should not be used as the sole indication of signal strength, as no two S meters are calibrated exactly alike, and many lower-priced receivers omit the S meter altogether. References to a "SINFO" code may also be found in some literature. In this case, the 'F' stands for Fading, instead of 'P' for Propagation, but the two codes are interchangeable. It was presumed that the average listener would be more familiar with the meaning of "fading" than "propagation". A simple way to ensure the rating applied is useful is to rate the "O" column first based on the intelligibility of the station. If you can understand everything easily, the station will rate a 4 or higher. If you have to work hard, but can understand everything '3' is the appropriate rating. If you cannot understand everything although you put great effort into it, a '2' is appropriate, and if you cannot understand the programming at all '1' is the appropriate rating.

Some listeners may not know how to distinguish between the 'I' which indicates interference from adjacent stations, and the 'N' which describes natural atmospheric or man-made noise; also for some listeners, the rating for 'Propagation' may not be completely understood. As a result of this confusion, many stations suggest the SIO code – a simpler code which makes the limitations noted above not relevant. Despite this, some books and periodicals maintain the SINPO code is the best for DX reporters.

History
SINPO is said to have evolved from the BBC's RAISO format (full version: RAFISBEMVO, which measured:

title: SINPO code


text:
Talk:J. Herschel (crater)

Satellite Craters
Why are J. Herschel A and J. Herschel G not listed in the table of satellite craters?

I changed them. I think they're typos for J. Herschel B and J. Herschel D. Eroica 08:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually 'J. Herschel A' should have been 'Horrebow A'. It's fixed now. Thanks. — RJH 16:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. Herschel (crater). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061223151347/http://www.lpod.org/?m=20060618 to http://www.lpod.org/?m=20060618

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:J. Herschel (crater)


text:
Toe Rag Studios

Toe Rag Studios is an analogue recording studio located in Hackney, London, England.

History
The studio was founded in 1991 by Liam Watson and Josh Collins in the Shoreditch area of London. In 1997, the business relocated to Hackney due to rising overheads. Although the studio didn't open exclusively in the analogue market, it was formed to eventually only use analogue equipment (despite the cost), as "there were loads of [cheap digital studios] opening up all the time and then closing down every week because they didn't really offer anything unique".

Facilities
Toe Rag offers clients music production using eight-track multitrack recording technology, and all recording media is magnetic tape.

Equipment
Recording is centred on an EMI REDD.17 mixing console (originally from Abbey Road Studios) and Studer A80 tape machine, as well as microphones by Neumann, Reslo and STC. Monitoring is performed through Lockwood Major loudspeakers. Vintage backline includes Vox and Fender amplifiers, and instruments include Farfisa and Hammond organs, as well as a 1965 Ludwig drum kit.

As well as hardware, the studio's live room was specially built to maximise the acoustic properties. In addition to this, the studio makes use of echo chambers.

Notable clients

 * A-Bones
 * Action Swingers
 * Nic Armstrong
 * The Before & After
 * The Bishops
 * Billy Childish
 * Clocks
 * Hugh Cornwell
 * The Cribs
 * Colorama
 * Dan Sartain
 * The Datsuns
 * Didier Wampas & Bikini Machine
 * Dog Ugly
 * Electric Wizard
 * The Ettes
 * François Evans
 * The Flaming Stars
 * Galley Beggar
 * Holly Golightly
 * The Hugs
 * James Hunter
 * The Jekylls
 * The Kaisers
 * The Kills
 * The Liberty Takers
 * Bobby Long
 * Madness
 * Metronomy
 * Pete Molinari
 * My Drug Hell
 * The Mystreated
 * Neils Children
 * Spitfire
 * Strip Kings
 * Supergrass
 * Tame Impala
 * Television Personalities
 * Temples
 * Toybloïd
 * Uncle Acid & the Deadbeats
 * The Undertones
 * Vibrosonic
 * The Wave Pictures
 * The White Stripes
 * Wolf Alice
 * The Wytches
 * The Zutons

title: Toe Rag Studios


text:
Satibarzanes

Satibarzanes (Old Persian: *Šyātibr̥zaⁿs; Ancient Greek: Satibarzánēs; died 330 BC), a Persian, was satrap of Aria under Darius III, king of Persia.

In 330 BC, Alexander the Great, marching through the borders of Aria on his way from Hyrcania against the Parthians, was met at a city named Susia by Satibarzanes, who made submission to him, and was rewarded for it by the restoration of his satrapy. In order to prevent the commission of any hostilities against the Arians by the Macedonian troops which were following from the west, Alexander left behind with Satibarzanes forty horse-dartmen, under the command of Anaxippus. These, however, together with their commander, were soon after murdered by the satrap, who excited the Arians to rebellion, and gathered his forces together at the city of Artacoana.

On the approach of Alexander, he fled to join the traitor Bessus; and the city, after a short siege, was captured by the Macedonians. Towards the end of the same year (330 BC), Alexander, heard that Satibarzanes had again entered Aria with 2000 horses, supplied by Bessus, and had excited the Arians to another revolt. According to Arrian, upon this, he sent a force against him, led by Artabazus, Erigyius, Caranus, and Andronicus of Olynthus. In a battle which ensued, and of which the issue was yet doubtful, Satibarzanes came forward and defied any one of the enemy's generals to single combat. The challenge was accepted by Erigyius, and Satibarzanes was slain.

title: Satibarzanes


text:
User talk:Damo 24

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Ingoolemo  talk  10:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Damo 24


text:
User talk:Jdwhite

Clocks
Hi. You probably noticed, but the AfD for this article closed as a keep. The sentiments of the closing admin mirror mine to the letter, but what I would like to say is well done again for working on it and fighting for it and I hope there are no hard feelings. Please do keep an eye on it in case anyone lists it again in February! Good luck and keep up the good work! Bubba hotep 15:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of QSheet

The article QSheet has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Tagged for notability since 2011. No improvements being made. Orphan. Dead link to only possible reference.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~KvnG 01:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jdwhite