This template was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This template was accepted on 23 November 2013 by reviewer Callanecc (talk·contribs).
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
Why does this guy deserve a template of his own?
How many other people in this world have a template dedicated to them on Wikipedia?
instead of showing companies with their dates next to them, which makes the list difficult to read, we should split the "companies" section into two sections: "previous" and "current" ... that would likely be sufficient information to remove the dates entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by This-is-name (talk • contribs) 02:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just played free fire and then met a player from Indonesia whose skills are very good, to be precise in the city of Sorong, West Papua with the nickname Han
I just played free fire and then met a player from Indonesia whose skills are very good, to be precise in the city of Sorong, West Papua with the nickname Han 182.2.204.26 (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People
Beyond partners and his immediate family, shouldn't this template also include close confidants like Jared Birchall or Alex Spiro, maybe even Gwynne Shotwell? They seem more relevant than his ex-girlfriends. jonas (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, for the similar reason we have
WP:OCASSOC for categories. It would actually be more appropriate to lose the ex-girlfriends. They don't need to be navigated to from every page that this navbox is transcluded on either. --woodensuperman 10:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree that the confidants should not be listed, many navboxes which list associates could be ovrerrun with semi-tangential names if this were standard practice. It is appropriate on some navboxes but not all. Long-time girlfriends seem fine, as they are a large part of a person's life (I don't know what woodensuperman is alluding to about being "need to be navigated to from every page" (the navbox is about Elon Musk, which is the central topic of the entries, and there is no requirement for readers to click on every article so-related). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Ms. Riley was married to Mr. Musk. They were husband and wife, not once but twice (which {g)rimes very nice), which is a legal and formal relationship which is recognized as a pair-bonding which has been used on navboxes since they were formed in the dark ages. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not understanding your reasoning, and never have when you go on about this topic. The two entries concern Elon Musk, which is the subject of this navbox. Entries do not have to be related to each other, just to Musk in a major way. I can see the argument for maybe removing one of his girlfriends (depending on time and growth of the relationships, i.e. if they just were a couple for awhile or, more importantly, do they have children together) but removing his two-time wife? If I may ask, where is that type of reasoning coming from? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're linking to a group of articles in a navbox, then they should all be pertinent, which is what points 3 & 5 of
WP:NAVBOX are about. A good navbox keeps to a single, related set of articles, but Musk's romantic partners are (largely) irrelevant to his body of work. So by muddling them all up together the navbox becomes less coherent and the articles become more tangential to one another. His romantic history will be sufficiently discussed in the article, which is likely the only pertinent place these people should be linked from, not the articles about his business dealings, etc., where his lovelife is largely irrelevant. --woodensuperman 12:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Please don't misrepresent to editors the topic you linked at WP:NAVBOX. Only three of the five criteria are needed for inclusion in a navbox, and all three entires for partners meet 1, 2, and 4. The navbox is not just about Musk's body of work (again, ?) but about Elon Musk. Ms. Heard's link may not be needed, but including Musk's wives and the mothers of his children seems appropriate (and more importantly, these relationships have existed on navboxes since the Wikipedia Renassiance). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you're getting three from! Per
WP:NAVBOX: Good navboxes generally follow most or all of these guidelines. Sounds more like four or five to me. --woodensuperman 12:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, this seems to be a misunderstanding of the word "most". Please see the article
over half"), and meeting three out of five criteria comes to 60% (which is well over half, i.e. "most"). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think you're reading that in the spirit of "most or all". Otherwise it would state "three or more" or "a majority". The spirit is that a "good" navbox should be following the guidelines, but there is some leeway for exceptions. --woodensuperman 13:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Most" means Majority. From the article's lead: "A majority is more than half the total.[1] It is a subset of a set consisting of more than half of the set's elements. For example, if a group consists of 31 individuals, a majority would be 16 or more individuals, while having 15 or fewer individuals would not constitute a majority." Again, please read Percentage for further clarity on the meaning of 'most', thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need a fucking lesson in English from you. --woodensuperman 13:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Ms. Heard should be removed from the navbox, and will boldly do so (hopefully without a revert from Amber Heard fans). But beg to differ, from your comments you do need clarification of the word "most" and what it means when used in context. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of "most or all" in this context is that in order to make a good navbox, we should be following the guidelines, but making allowances for exceptions. It is not about statistical definitions.
WP:WIKILAWYERING is not a good look. --woodensuperman 13:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry, but this is the first I've "heard" (to coin a Musk-related pun) of
It doesn't say "half" does it Randy, it says "most or all". Stop being so pedantic, consider the spirit of a good navbox and the intent behind it rather than trying to "win" on a technicality (i.e.
Pointing out the meaning of a common word is not lawyering, unless I'm totally misunderstanding it. Should I purposely ignore changing the meaning of "most" from the dictionary meaning somehow defaulting to something else on Wikipedia? No, "most" means more than half and always will. 60% is most of 100%. The entries under discussion, Musk's notable wives and the mothers of his children, easily meet three of the five criteria to be included on his biographical navbox. These are not loopholes, they are read as a unit, and if the entry meets three of the five criteria it's over the bar. Then it's just an editorial decision to include a link or not on a navbox, where it eventually ends up in a discussion like this. Let's focus on the entries which are being discussed, Musk's wives and mothers of his children. If you believe they do not fit one of more of criterias 1,2, and 4, let's discuss that, and not continue to go round in circles about common definitions within basic math. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
