Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

WP:ATC and splitting large navigation templates

At the insistence of another editor to begin a discussion about this, I argue that:

(1) We should include a criterion for good navigation templates based upon the WP:ATC explanatory essay sections "Do multiple templates on this article give the same information?" and "Do we have two or three templates where one would do?". The criterion is as follows: "The majority of the articles included are not included in a different template." This is a simple and defensible heuristic for identifying navigation templates that mostly overlap and should probably be merged following the recommendations of the WP:ATC essay.

(2) I also recommend that the following language be included following the list of criteria for good navigation templates: "If a large navigation template can be split into smaller navigation templates that would still satisfy most or all of the criteria for good navigation templates, then that should probably be done." This is just an extension of the language that expresses a preference for smaller templates: "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles; templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use."

Both of these proposals seem to me to be fairly straightforward and logical extensions of the current policy and the explanatory essay. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This editor, CommonKnowledgeCreator, is edit warring by returning the language under discussion over repeated reverts. The language is controversial, and should be discussed at length with honesty as to intent. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why saying that templates that mostly overlap should be merged is controversial considering that an existing explanatory essay (WP:ATC) recommends doing so. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Please understand that essays are not guidelines or policy, they are opinions of one or more editors. To move essay language into the actual guideline/policy page needs full discussion and consensus. The edit war attitude of attempting to shoehorn the language into the page by repeatedly adding it after revert is not the pathway for something like this. Please self-revert this time, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Please understand that essays are not guidelines or policy, they are opinions of one or more editors. To move essay language into the actual guideline/policy page needs full discussion and consensus. Nope. WP:PGCHANGE explicitly states: "Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other page. It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain consensus in advance." WP:ESSAY states: "Although essays are not policies or guidelines, many are worthy of consideration. Policies and guidelines cannot cover all circumstances... [and the] difference between policies, guidelines, and some essays on Wikipedia may be obscure." The previous quote links to the WP:PGE essay that states: "There is no bright line between what the community chooses to call a 'policy' or a 'guideline' or an 'essay' or an 'information page'... [and] some essays and supplemental pages are widely accepted as part of the Wikipedia gestalt, and have a significant degree of influence during discussions." The WP:ATC essay's policies recommendations about non-overlapping templates is perfectly defensible since it reduces clutter. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Amendment to Proposal (2): The following language following the list of criteria for good navigation templates should be: "Per WP:NAV-WITHIN, Large large navigation templates that can be split into smaller navigation templates that still satisfy most or all of the criteria for good navigation templates should probably be split, and where this is not possible, collapsable autocollapsed child navboxes within the template should be created." -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't play this game with you, you have not reverted your edits and I can't right now or would go over 3rr. Please revert so this attempt-to-exhaust discussion can actually occur. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not playing a game; I'm just following existing content policy and guidelines that follows already-existing community consensus per WP:NOTBUREAU. As I already noted, WP:PGCHANGE explicitly states: "Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other page. It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain consensus in advance." Also, WP:NAV-WITHIN explicitly states: "[Navigation templates] should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value. For navigating among many articles, consider... [splitting] them into multiple, smaller templates on each sub-topic." I'm willing to have a discussion, and I don't mind ready through lengthy comments, but you have not provided any persuasive reasons why what I've added to the policy based on the reasoning of the WP:NENAN, WP:ATC, and WP:NAV explanatory essays should be removed. Their reasoning is perfectly defensible and consistent with the existing WP:NAVBOX policy and decidedly help explicate the policy. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Apparently this has to be explained simply. You changed a guideline. It was reverted. The next step is to discuss the major change, explain in with examples, and obtain consensus. You've taken another route, one I followed for awhile but can't anymore because of 3RR. You now are throwing unlinked essay language around as policy, and because of the walls-of-text here and elsewhere, combined with mixing up essays with guidelines, I'm not really sure what you want to achieve. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

What I wish to achieve is changing the letter of the WP:NAVBOX policy so that it provides more objective guidance to editors based on the reasoning of the explanatory essays for the policy so that the policy can be used to end pointless disputes where editors have to write multiple lengthy comments to editors who do not wish to follow the principles of the policy and the rationale behind it since the language of the policy only implicitly suggested what the explanatory essays make explicit. The changes to the policy also reflect what multiple other editors have explicitly expressed in the other discussions we've been engaged in other talk pages. Wikipedia community decision-making is decidedly decentralized and uncoordinated. I don't know why you cannot give up on your vision for how Wikipedia ought to be, but you do not own the project and have routinely engaged ownership behavior (WP:OWNBEHAVIOR)—which would include your last comment. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, ownership accusation, the last refuge. Try replacing "maintaining" with "ownership" for a better descriptor. Please revert your changes won in an edit war and then discuss the wording and get consensus, and please do so simply and with less words. "A" changed to "B" because..., thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, ownership accusation, the last refuge. Try replacing "maintaining" with "ownership" for a better descriptor. In our context, there is no distinction between "maintaining" and "ownership" because you are determined to "maintain" particular revisions to the extent where you call for reverting the contributions of editors that are consistent with existing content policy simply because you do not prefer them. That is "ownership" behavior per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

In this one, exchange "existing content policy" with "unofficial editor essays" and you may be close. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

CommonKnowledgeCreator, you have edit-warred (I still can't revert, 3RR) into including "The majority of the articles included are not also included in a single, separate template." Please explain, for example, what this would do to many sports navboxes which list winning teams from year to year, i.e. {{1927 New York Yankees}} and {{1928 New York Yankees}}. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think what would happen in the example that you've cited is pretty obvious: the templates could be merged into a single navigation template about the broader sports dynasty because when a team sports organization wins multiple championships during a specified period of time they are conventionally referred to as such, and this usually owes to the nucleus of players on the team roster as well as the team's coaching staff that largely overlaps from season to season. Such consolidation could be done quite easily and with no loss to navigability because all of the entries would be retained in the broader template. Instead, the example that you've cited is actually a good example of why having templates where the majority of the entries overlap does not enhance navigability and just creates clutter. But I say only "could be" because it's not a requirement that navigation templates satisfy all of the criteria and only a majority of the criteria. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

That's why this doesn't work. The 1927 Yankees and 1928 Yankees are two different teams, but have overlapping entries. Your idea of 'Sports dynasties' also doesn't work, because its, well, unworkable and would, in the case of the Yankees, have to include teams from over many decades. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope. You need to pay closer attention to the example that you've cited and the language of the criterion that I added. While 22 of the 31 32 entries in the {{1927 New York Yankees}} template overlap with the 33 entries in the {{1928 New York Yankees}}, only 11 of the 29 12 of the 30 entries in the {{1923 New York Yankees}} template overlap with the 31 32 entries in the {{1927 New York Yankees}} template and the only 10 of the 36 entries in the {{1932 New York Yankees}} template overlap with the 33 entries in the {{1928 New York Yankees}} template. But as I said before, the criterion is a recommendation rather than a requirement since it is not required that navigation templates satisfy all of the criteria for good navigation templates and only a majority of the criteria. What would reduce clutter in your example would be to remove the New York Yankees main article from the championship team templates, and as a general rule, good navigation templates should only minimally include articles that are included in multiple templates and includes no articles that are included in more than 5 separate templates. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't get blocked.... policy quote so it's clear ..."Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system." Moxy🍁 02:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and I've followed the WP:1RR rule contrary to what User:Randy Kryn may say. In my discussions with him, he routinely makes false statements about and characterizations of my editing and comments while he has typically engaged in ownership behavior per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. I have done what I can in this dispute to not violate any conduct policies, and if User:Randy Kryn's behavior has effectively required me to violate the letter of one, it has been to enforce the letter or principles an existing content policy—which I believe is authorized under WP:5P5. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You really are a piece of work, to coin a phrase. You've cast aspersions on me quite a few times in several different venues and I haven't complained, freedom of speech and all that. How about, as a way forward, this section be closed (it's wandered from the topic) and you open a new section with one of your proposals, presented simply with wording you've polished in the last few days on the page, and go from there. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That would be fine with me, but in order to move forward, you need to stop making accusations that I'm violating policies where I'm not, actually take the time to read my comments, and to not ghost the discussion so that we can actually create a consensus about this. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject.
2. The subject of the template should be mentioned in the lead section or body text of every article.
3. The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent.
4. There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.
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.
6. Excluding the article about the subject, there are at least five articles included.
7. The majority of the articles included are not also included in one or more separate templates.
8. Except where it would prevent the template from being complete, articles included in multiple other navigation templates or infoboxes are excluded.
9. External links are excluded, while red links are only included to keep the template from being incomplete and not where Wikipedia would become something other than an encyclopedia if articles were created from the red links. and are not included where if articles were created from the red links, it would lead to Wikipedia would becoming become a dictionary, a directory, a repository, a newspaper, a crystal ball, a manual or guidebook, a publisher of original thought, a soapbox or means of promotion, an official journal, legal code, or law report, or an indiscriminate collection of information.

If the collection of articles does not meet these criteria, the articles are likely loosely related. A list, category, or neither, may accordingly be more appropriate. Large navigation templates that can be split into smaller navigation templates that still satisfy three-fourths or all of the criteria should probably be split, and where this is not possible, autocollapsed child navboxes within the template should be created.

-- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, if Criteria 3 and 5 were eliminated since they're not objective criteria, I'd recommend that good navboxes follow all of the remaining 7 criteria. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Essays are not guidelines, and it seems you are asking to endorse many essays into the present page. Can you please just clearly list one or two of the changes that you want to make which differ from the present language. The list that you include above is different than the present criteria, but you do not indicate what is changed by your proposal. The wording may look similar but some of the changes are rather large (i.e., you took the word "usually" out of the current language), so let's visually compare them here before criticizing or endorsing, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Essays are not guidelines, and it seems you are asking to endorse many essays into the present page. WP:ESSAY states: "Although essays are not policies or guidelines, many are worthy of consideration. Policies and guidelines cannot cover all circumstances... [and the] difference between policies, guidelines, and some essays on Wikipedia may be obscure." The previous quote links to the WP:PGE essay that states: "There is no bright line between what the community chooses to call a 'policy' or a 'guideline' or an 'essay' or an 'information page'... [and] some essays and supplemental pages are widely accepted as part of the Wikipedia gestalt, and have a significant degree of influence during discussions." The proposal incorporates the principles of only 4 explanatory essays, and the essays provide more detailed explanations for the reasoning behind 5 of the 7 of the criteria and some of the language that is already included in the current revision of the guideline as of this writing. The differences from the current revision as of this writing are as follows:

1. Criterion 1 is changed to include a piped link to the WP:ATC essay section "Do we really need this template at all?" since the section explains the reasoning behind why templates need well-defined, singular, and coherent subjects with objective criteria for article inclusion.
2. Criterion 2 is changed to includes a piped link to the WP:NAV essay section "Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles" since the section explains the reasoning of why the subject of the template should be mentioned in every article included in the template, and the wording of the criterion is changed to "The subject of the template should be mentioned in the main text the lead section or body of every article" for greater clarity and consistency with language of MOS:LAYOUT.
3. Criterion 4 is changed to include a piped link to the WP:NENAT essay since the essay explains both why there should be a Wikipedia article about the subject of the template but also why having a Wikipedia article on the subject template is not a sufficient justification alone for a template to be created.
4. Criterion 7 is changed from "The majority of the articles included are not also included in a single, separate template" to "The majority of the articles included are not also included in one or more separate templates" following the reasoning of the WP:ATC essay sections "Do we have two or three templates where one would do?" to reduce template clutter.
5. Add a criterion that recommends that "Except where it would prevent the template from being complete, articles included in multiple other navigation templates or infoboxes are excluded" with a piped link to the WP:ATC essay section "Do multiple templates on this article give the same information?" that explains the reasoning of why having multiple templates on individual articles produces clutter.
6. Add a criterion that recommends that "External links are excluded, while red links are only included to keep the template from being incomplete and not where Wikipedia would become something other than an encyclopedia if articles were created from the red links." and are not included where if articles were created from the red links, it would lead to Wikipedia would becoming become a dictionary, a directory, a repository, a newspaper, a crystal ball, a manual or guidebook, a publisher of original thought, a soapbox or means of promotion, an official journal, legal code, or law report, or an indiscriminate collection of information" with piped links to the WP:NAV-WITHIN and WP:EXISTING sections of the WP:NAV essay that explains why red links should generally not be included in navigation templates and external links should always be excluded and to the various to the WP:NOT policy article sections that explain what would happen if red links were created from articles included in navigation templates indiscriminately.
7. Increase the ratio of satisfied criteria necessary to be considered a good navigation template to two-thirds or three-fourths. If Criteria 3 and 5 are eliminated because they are not objective criteria, require that all criteria be satisfied.
8. Possibly eliminate Criteria 3 and 5 because they are not clearly objective criteria, and if they are eliminated, increase the ratio of satisfied criteria necessary to be considered a good navigation template to two-thirds and change "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles" to "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of related articles" to retain a requirement for relatedness per WP:NAV. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Criteria 6 and 7 in the current revision of the guideline ("6. Excluding the article about the subject, there should usually be at least five articles included"; "7. The majority of the articles included are not also included in a single, separate template") and the template splitting recommendation that links to WP:NAV-WITHIN ("Large navigation templates that can be split into smaller navigation templates that still satisfy most or all of the criteria should probably be split, and where this is not possible, autocollapsed child navboxes within the template should be created") were retained by User:Moxy here. Unless you have further objections to those two criteria and the splitting recommendation, I take this to be an implicit statement that User:Moxy is not opposed to their inclusion. Moxy, correct me if I am wrong. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

CommonKnowledgeCreator, please don't rush these revisions, editors need plenty of time to come upon this sectiono and analyze and comment on the many major changes you've suggested. Haven't gotten to this as yet myself, as it will take quite a bit of time and I've been doing other edits when online. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I've waited a week for you to reply, during which you've been actively editing. You have had more than enough time to respond, and you appear to be the only editor who appears to have has a problem with what has been proposed. While this does not violate the letter of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, because your ghosting of the discussion has had the effect of preserving a particular revision of an article, it is effectively ownership behavior. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I asked to discuss one change at a time, but you again throw up wholesale changes all at once which would result in multiple long wall-of-text discussions at the same time. Please pick one change, write it out: "Change xxx to xxx", and then discuss. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

oppose All those rules are not a substitute for common sense. This pure rule creep, not something that benefits templates. The Banner talk 22:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:CREEP recommends that substantive additions to policy or guidelines only be made to deal with real problems. Template creep and oversized templates are real problems and pervasive ones. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Dropped #7, for reasons given in the edit summary. I think the underlying, unnamed issue here is "excessive overlap among templates"—that's a goal worth addressing, and I think we could probably come to an agreement about better wording, if we thought about it. Mathglot (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose all per The Banner. Rule creep, trying to shoehorn every essay into policy, and one person's restrictions spread over the entire page all at once does nothing to improve Wikipedia and confuses the intentions. If you must continue, please choose one change, spell it out simply, and discuss. It seems that you wish to restrict rather than enhance, and I'm not clear on where this pile of sticks ends up once it lands and what the editor wishes to do with them (if I understand this proposal they seem focused on size and on influencing and restricting already existing well-designed navboxes). Existing language has guided navbox construction for many years, and adding further "dos and don'ts" all at once does little more than provide restrictive tools for things which do not need further restrictions. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose all. These essays do point out best practice, but exceptions still should apply. Yes, okay, most navboxes with fewer than a handful of links do get deleted, but this is best left for common sense. This discussion is a real muddle to be honest, and as Randy Kryn says, best to deal with each of these issues one by one if there is any merit in these changes at all. I would recommend that CommonKnowledgeCreator does not amend the guideline further until clear consensus for any change has been reached. --woodensuperman 11:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The Banner, woodensuperman, Randy Kryn: Common sense is not a substitute for traffic codes, rules of the road, regulations for preventing collisions at sea, and standards for sea marks and marine navigation aids. There is no inherent advantage to left-hand traffic or right-hand traffic, but one-way traffic is preferable to bidirectional traffic in an individual lane of a road and priority to the right is the rule for narrow waterways. Likewise, there is no inherent advantage to traffic signs using the metric system, the imperial system, or the U.S. customary system so long as it done so consistently within a jurisdiction and the information on the signs is accurate. Given that this discussion is about navigation templates and per WP:NOTFREESPEECH, I'd argue that this analogy is more than appropriate.

The current criteria of WP:NAVBOX does not establish sufficient basic standards for navigation templates to follow because two of the criteria are simply too subjective to enforce and the other three criteria do not directly address the non-hypothetical and pervasive problems of template clutter and oversized templates. It is would better for WP:NAVBOX to do so because navigation template quality would broadly improve if there were enforceable rules for them and would have the collateral benefit of reducing the frequency of editing conflicts. More importantly, the additional criteria that I have proposed are not requirements. In fact, none of the criteria are requirements since the policy requires that only a majority of the criteria be satisfied rather than all of them. As such exceptions can always continue to exist.

The explanatory essays have a lot of good recommendations that should be made into explicit policy. Other than WP:NENAT, the essays have been on Wikipedia for more than 10 years and many editors have made contributions to them other than the creators of the pages. Collapsable child navboxes and hiding templates are quick-fix, sweep-under-the-rug work-arounds to template clutter and oversized templates rather than something that actually addresses the problems. The only solution is to come up with enforceable policy and guideline language that makes it clear when templates should be split, merged, and deleted based upon the logical structure of navigation templates.

Additionally, this discussion would not be a muddle or even be occurring if User:Randy Kryn did not demand that I spell out every last change to codify best practices articulated by the explanatory essays into explicit policy (as well as relatively minor changes to clarify existing language). Additionally, User:woodensuperman other editors who share User:Randy Kryn view that essays are not policies and guidelines will not follow the best practices that you acknowledge the essays outline. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I got news for you: essays are not policies or guidelines but more opinions. But when you state that additional criteria are not requirements, there is no need to add them. Not at all. The Banner talk 16:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I got news for you: essays are not policies or guidelines but more opinions. User:Randy Kryn has stated this multiple times, so your restatement of it is hardly news to me. There is a need to add additional criteria because navbox quality would improve if there was enforceable policy language that followed standards and best practices based on the logical structure of navboxes. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should take the criticism on board. If we just count the votes, it is 3 opposes (four if you take in Randy Kryn as you have mentioned) and only the proposer who thinks it is a good idea. The Banner talk 16:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY requires that decision-making on Wikipedia should not be made through voting. While WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS does say that common sense should be used to form consensus but only in concert with existing policy and sources, and WP:PGCHANGE does permit best practices to be included in existing policy by bold edits. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any content-related arguments instead of links to more pages? The Banner talk 23:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd also add that there is a distinction that you and Randy Kryn have ignored between essays and explanatory essays per WP:SUPPLEMENTAL. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any content-related arguments instead of links to more pages? The Banner talk 23:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

While no links were included, all of the shortcuts I cited above are policy-related and WP:PGCHANGE and WP:SUPPLEMENTAL are content policies. As such, all of my arguments content-related. Conversely, per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, you have cited no content policy that precludes what I've recommended in the proposal and yourself have only used the language of the WP:CREEP essay that is not an explanatory essay. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

"The supplemental template does not indicate a "higher status" within the community for an essay, but is used to denote that the essay in question has wide acceptance to be linked from said policy or guideline page. See Template:Supplement for more information." Moxy🍁 01:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

What policy is your quotation cited from? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:SUPPLEMENTAL note "a".... It's also on many other project pages. disclosure Moxy🍁 03:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

If an existing policy says that only explanatory essays rather than essays in general may be linked, then that's fine. I will strike the parts of the proposal to do otherwise, and leave the other parts of the proposal for discussion. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It's clear all the above is going nowhere....you best course of action is suggesting one change and see if that garners any traction. Clearly the current approach isn't working...... I suggest your next proposal gives examples as in why a change is warranted or should be implemented. Moxy🍁 03:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Bugs bounty

Bugs bounty I want to learn 2409:40E4:2E:5CEA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This is not the place to learn it. Try their website. Mathglot (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Uses on furniture

How can we use hook & loop fasteners on furniture? Raisingtwins (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Raisingtwins (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Splitting relatively small groups into subgroups in navboxes

Would anyone like to weigh in at Template talk:Alexander McQueen#Splitting the collections? --woodensuperman 12:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)