Template talk:Citation needed/Archive 2

105:. The #if function means that currently existing tags, and any tags added without the cat= paramater, remain unsorted while the #ifexists paramater means that only categories that already exist would be populated, so the categories would have to be created beforehand (I added the paramter in to guard against categories being created because of typos). Ideally the relevant categories would be created and monitored by appropriate WikiProjects, and the list of possible values ("physics", "football" etc) and the categories they relate to could be kept and updated here. The same sort of code could also be added to other similar templates, of course, if it's seen as being useful. Anyway, I thought I'd put it up here first so I can see whether there's a consensus that it would be useful, and see if there's any potential problems I haven't thought of (I've tested the code and it works fine but you never know). -- 3777:, after being deleted in a CfD with an sound consensus, was unilaterally undeleted by a single admin without DRV on the basis that a "related" category had been subject to undeletion in a DRV, and then a new CfD was cut short asserting it to be "obviously" needed (with no explanation why). Then the bot was argued to be needed to clean up the category, and then after incorrectly dating the majority of fact tags on the wiki as February 2007, the new policy of robotically dating fact tags is argued to be OK because in time the correctly dated tags will outweigh the incorrectly dated ones. And it's now argued on the category talk page that the category is needed to implement the automatic tag-dating. And now it's further being argued that accuracy of the dating is "not that important", because in time the accuracy rate will increase. ... 976:;-) Or to be more plain about it, people who grew up in the modern era are generally entirely used to characters aside from g, p, q, etc., all being on the same line, and find it very jarring to see 3 treated as if it were a g. Which (to get back to the topic of this thread) also means we don't find super- or sub-scripts annoying - they serve precisely the purpose they are intended to, namely they set themselves off from the main text and say "I'm something different". If Knowledge were intentionally done in the Georgia font, I do understand how your view could make sense, mind you. I don't think you're crazy, I just think you're arguing a point that is not relevant (to Knowledge, and online media for that matter, as a whole, not just to this template.) — 3767:

is now mandatory, or at least automated. All "citation-needed" tags that were lodged prior to February 2007 are hereby granted amnesty under our new project to more strictly enforce WP:VER (the ones in those approximately 40,000 articles containing fact templates that were lodged in 2005, 2006 and January 2007, which fell through the cracks of our new project). We don't mind if you fail to put a "citation-needed" for those tens of millions of statements that should ideally be cited. But by golly, if you're going to use that template, we're going to keep track of those dates (starting February 2007 of course)."

3758:

citation; yet others indicate an broader POV dispute, etc. Each depends on the topic, context, how many editors are involved, controversial or non-controversial nature of the article or statement(s), and a host of other factors. Some don't deserve to stay one minute, and others ought be left alone as long as it takes, even if it's ten years. Overall, the existence of the template tells us very little, if anything at all, about actual fulfillment of WP:VER, what with the million and a half articles with actual unsourced statements, and tens of millions of actual unsourced statements that arguably

2408:

making them more concise and (with the tooltips) at the same time more informative, meanwhile the principal and quite common complaint is that they are too large/long and interruptive/distracting. Just read this page for examples of those arguments, and see especially the TfD archive linked to in the tag at the top of this page. This isnt' a sudden coup, it's actually been a rather slow-moving, deliberative process; it's a debate that's been self-advertising for a rather long time. All that said, I'm not even insisting on the

3944: 31: 3280:

between article text and the superscripted fact text, and there should not be any newlines in that context. The trailing space was supposedly added to fix the newlines disappearing, but it doesn't. It forces a trailing space, which should be under editor control. As far as I can tell, moving the categories neither improves nor hurts the bracket-wrap issue described below. If this edit doesn't cause any other unknown problems, I would ask the same be done to

3657:

of detritus in order to bring enlightenment to the dim and dark great unsourced masses? Furthermore, the argument that it is beneficial to show how long a fact tag has existed was poorly thought out from the PR angle. Six months from now, when someone looks up Heebie-Jeeebie-Tiddly-Poo and a fact tage is dated to February it'll be pretty damned obvious that we are pisspoor at maintaining articles.

1045: 371: 2416:, just restored and re-debated to the extent anyone has issues, and I even suggested compromise wording, above, which, quite notably, hasn't been responded to at all. Anyway, my Editprotected isn't about my preferred language in the template, it's about process. Your reversion wasn't discussed, and did not reflect consensus-at-that-time. I'm not arguing that "source?" has consensus 3841:

of articles in the "cleanup" category, dating as far back as May 2006. Of our much-ballyhooed editor base, only about 1,000 have 10K edits and another 1,400 have 5K or more, and of those a number are either inactive, have left, or have been perma-banned. In addition, most editors mostly edit articles in which they have an interest. Nope, can't see the dating having any value.

3556:

which is why there are 1600 articles in the January category. The situation is not ideal, but the dates on tags are not "content", they are housekeeping, so not that critical. What is more, as the old tags are removed and new tags dated, both the absolute number and percentage with correct dates will increase.

2380:

disputing. If you want to propose an alternative to the "sources?" text, by all means do so here (as proponents of "sources?" did), but the good-faith edit should be restored until there's agreement that whatever you propose (something new or a revert to "citation needed", whatever) is the way to go. —

3840:

fail to see a compelling argument as to how the dates will help us manage squat. Do you really believe that adding a date will compel someone to do the research to fix it? We still have tens if not hundreds of thousands of article in the "stub" categories, some of them quite old. We have thousands

3656:

I've yet to see a valid argument for the inclusion of the category or putting dates on fact tags. The category "page" (for want of a better term) is a neverending nightmare list of 200 articles per page. Just out of curiosity, does anyone here really think people are going to wade through that pile

3545:

dated) is part of the reason I've chosen to look into how this situation developed. Obviously there are many interwoven issues, some of which plainly will need further comment from the larger community as the wiki moves into the future. I believe I already responded to Kevinkor2 on his talk page and

3134:

The problem is related to the if statement, which is why the behaviour is restricted to namespace 0. Try copying the article (or the Example below) to a blank page in article space and viewing it in preview. Note that the problem happens with the next line begins with a wikilink; if you remove one of

2407:

There's no need to advertise trivial debates, or ones that are active. If people cared about this template they'd be paying attention to it. And it's not like this is a big sudden change; the talk pages of many of the templates in this class have been, for quite some time, consensusizing overall on

2095:

That would be a disaster, on non-material claims we can assume good faith and allow the editor some time to provide the necessary verification. I'm all in favor of pushing for good sourcing, but we should avoid sourcing paranoia. The hierarchy established on this page works fine and is practicable. ~

1342:

Is there any way to format this template so that the date it was added is included. I've run across this template tons of times and had no idea how long it has been there. I know I could go through the history and find when it was added but that can prove difficult, especially if it was added with no

1294:

relatedly-formatted inline templates, for consistency purposes. Last month I did a bunch of work (though incomplete as it turns out - they weren't all listed together on the same Knowledge:-namespace template documentation page, alas) to consistency-fix these templates and would not like to see that

3793:

Para 2 segues from "y'all are going to start keeping track" to "we're going to keep track" - the latter is more accurate - this imposes no "load" on other editors, unless they liked to go through the all-in-one category in alphabetical order. How this "amnesty" clause came into being is a mystery.

3766:

What instead has happened is that in essence, with little or no real discussion of the issues involved, a pronouncement has been made: "OK, Wikipedians, here are your new marching orders. Starting February 2007 y'all are going to start keeping track of these "citation-needed" templates. Date-tagging

3734:

I have to agree with Rich and SMcCandlish. Dating the tags will let us know how long the text has remained uncited and will make it easier to remove text that has remained disputed for too long. So fact tag or fact tag with date? Definitely with date, cos SMcCandlish puts it, it is more helpful than

3689:

It is already "pretty damned obvious that we are pisspoor at maintaining articles". This is part of an attempt to address that, not to hide it. You will already see that some tags are extremely old, these, in my opinion need, need attention. Ideally they are source or removed, but as a reader and

3555:

Apols for misattributing that. In terms of the vast majority, yes it probably is the majority, but by less than you might think. Something like 700 fact tags are added every day so the February total will already be over 15,000. And my concern was that the longer it was left the worse it would be,

3338:

which doesn't seem to specifically mention having categories first.) After this change I saw a citation needed tag wrap. I'm assuming other people will notice this too, and since it's appearing on pages it didn't before, is going to be a complaint. However, at least on Mozilla, was able to fix it by

3279:

This is a request to examine moving the includeonly block before the initial sup, and removing any space between the trailing sup tag and the noinclude that will follow. Putting the categories first avoids a bug with categories eating newlines, as described above, because the category is then placed

2594:

already. Meanwhile "unreferenced" gets the point across, but in a pretty long word. I could live with it, given than it's shorter than "citation needed", and I can't right now think of anything better (other than "source?"; heh.) Hmm... "add cite" or "cite fact", or "cite source"? I really don't

2254:

Disagree on both points. The first one makes no sense to me whatsoever; Knowledge articles do not individually credit their editors, never have, never will, and even most brand-new editors understand that within moments. "Agressive"? It's simply not excessively long-winded. "Unsourced!" would be

1919:

Agreed (with regard to moving, not removing, the brackets), but should be done to every template in this "class" (similarly-formatted inline templates). We need to keep them as consistent as possible. At some point, we should probably simply replace all of them with a meta-template, so that they can

1764:

I don't see any place in the main Template page or at the top of the Talk page which specifies what the syntax is for the date. Is there any value name, like "date ="? Do we specify "YYYY-MM-DD", or "MMMM D, YYYY"? Can we include or remove commas at our pleasure? Given that a robot is now busily

403:

Why: 1) The HTML is invalid; "title" does not apply to "sup". Does not work in all browsers in its present invalid state (Safari, for one). 2) This tag can be applied to other things than "text", such as a chart or graph in image form; thus "material" instead of "text". 3) 'title' is useless if it

3850:

Jun 2004, I believe. Also as has been pointed out, depending on the nature of the statement, consideration should be given to removing old unsourced ones, or escalating the hunt for sources. Yes it's a judgement call, but so is any editing. It is also clear as Kenosis says that there is neither a

3509:

Hi Kevin, Good set of ideas, but actually all the articles are done now (with a vanishing small set of exceptions, such as those where people have subst'ed the template, or reverts of SmackBot). If anyone wants to move the dates further back, they can of course do so, Kenosis and others claim that

2678:

here. As for what's wrong with "citation needed", it is overly long and interruptive. See elsewhere on this talk page and on the talk pages of various other templates in this class. There is a general putsch to make them all shorter and concise, and move any verbiage that they need to hover-over

1091:

Absolute agree! Other than I don't think it is ugly at all but signifies "this is an annotation of some kind; if you are not interested in annotation right now, ignore and move on". I can read entire articles without ever once noticing one of these superscripts if I put myself in the frame of mind

94:

I notice the old category got deleted, leaving pages with this tag on currently unsorted. One solution I've been toying with is since the old category was deleted largely because it was growing too large, perhaps it might be an idea to create sub-categories according to subject area, so people with

2841:

Thats the point right there. We're not a primary source and too many people treat wikipedia as it is. If we have information we can't verify, it needs to be tagged in a visible way to indicate to readers that that information hasn't been verified. Shortening it to be "less intrusive" is a waste of

2695:

Let me try to explain the problem that Geni has with "source" (or, at least, the problem I think that Geni has). The "source" of a statement can be taken to refer to whatever prompted the original contributor to write the statement. If I read in book X that there are 3 million people in Melbourne,

966:

A long-delayed post-script: I do have the relevant fonts installed, and I have to say that I find your Georgia example hideous, annoying, pretentious and so old-fashioned as to border on antique. I'm sorry that your design education has led you to believe that such weird mis-sizing and horizontal

3855:

has thought it worth putting the tag on, so it is a reasonable assumption that the majority of editors would agree that it is reasonable to request a cite for the majority of items. Suppose something is tagged "cite needed", at what point do we decide that there is no reasonable chance of a cite

3757:

Partially agreed, but substantially disagreed, as follows. These templates don't tell us anything except that someone placed the template. Some indicate that a fact is contested; others indicate that it's simply questioned; others indicate that an editor has made a "note-to-self" about finding a

2703:

You might think that's nitpicking, but I tend to agree that there is a possibility to misunderstand "source". This is only a small possibility, but on the other hand, "source" is only two letters shorter than "citation". So the question becomes: is saving two letters more important than running a

2379:

Irrelevant. There was consensus at the time that edit was made, to the extent that people following this template even cared enough about the issue to comment. After-the-fact disagreement by latecomers to the discussion shouldn't result in a revert that 50%+ of interested edit here thus far are

603:

bad style. It hasn't been used for styling anything of precisely this sort, ever. There is no professional typographic precedent for this, none at all, and for good reason. It makes running text look like shit at first glance, and distracts the reader's eye to make it frustrating to read. The

2707:

By the way, I think "citation" is also open to misinterpretation. I thought that the main meaning of citation is quotation (i.e., reproducing a piece of text word by word), and I'd use "reference" for what's meant here. But of course, "reference" also has multiple meanings (and I'm not a native

2782:

I think that we should go with something less passive. "Citation needed" sounds like we're asking someone to help improve the article by editing. "Unreferenced" sounds like we're warning the reader that we don't know where this information came from. We should go with the one that encourages

1610:

I've actually started dating tags as SB comes across them. Since the date parameter is undefined in the template it has no effect yet. I can start on the bulk of them and set up the template and category structure, provided people don't mind a "lumpy" start - i.e. lot gets put into Feb 2007.

772:

Manuscript annotations were in the margins and between the lines of carefully spaced letters, not floating above whitespace like a bloody lip over a gap-toothed smile. But that is irrelevant, since this encyclopedia is not a manuscript. There is no precedent for the style of this template in

2761:

It is very short, but using abbreviations is probably an iffy idea; not all users here are native English speakers, and even natives aren't necessarily going to intuit that "ref" means "reference" rather than "referee" or some other "ref" word. Was why I proposed "cite source" (or of course

1963:

a question mark is a bit much (or a bit too little, rather). I could probably get behind something like "source?". Several of these similar inline templates could probably be improved this way. I think that the one about naming specific sources as opposed to weasel-words things like "some

239:

From what I have seen, this happens only when the next paragraph starts with a link. I have been getting around it by replacing the newlines in those situations with BR tags. I put the BR just after the template call and then begin a newline normally, but with only one newline character.

1298:

PS: If it is true that not including the square brackets inside this or that does in fact consistently produce weird wrapping, and that including them fixes this problem, I'm all for the fix, provided it is done to every template in this class, and the change doesn't have other negative

3738:

And in the end, if it comes to that, a few years from now dedicated editors could start going through uncited articles month by month (starting from the earliest) and either help find citations for the text or remove it completely. Huge task, yes, but who'll have thought something like

1410:

Thats what I was thinking. If something like this {{fact|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}} could be added automatically and keep it invisible, I think that would be the easiest but I don't know if that is possible. You could even do that using

3789:

Para 1 "These templates don't tell us anything except that someone placed the template." If that were literally true, they should all be removed. But there is information, if it needs to be finer grained, change the process "Cite needed now!" "cite would be quite nice here"

2420:(though it did when implemented), however it is clearly closer to consensus than the reversion to "citation needed". You've walked into a party, all ready to roll, but so late that everyone else is already getting their coats on to going home, if you get my analogy. :-) — 121:

Argh, so I missed the category link at the bottom of the template, not sure how I managed that. Still, the above could still be inserted as an optional, supplementary means of categorisation. Does anyone have any strong feelings (or feelings of any description) either way?

1729:

I started typing a long explanation of Why It Is a Bad Idea, but lets go simpler: why would anyone think it is a good idea? What "problem" does it solve or address? We can all agree it adds verbosity to the tag, yes? So there needs to be a very good reason for doing this.

2488:

I also don't like "Source?". "Citation needed" is okay, but indeed rather long. An shorter alternative that works for me is "unsourced", or "unreferenced" (to take Geni's concern into account) or "uncited" (though I have my doubt that the last one is proper English). --

3690:

editor I would like to know if something has not been sourced, and for how long. If nothing is done, the "fact" tags will simply accumulate 'til kingdom come. The more difficult problem is how we prevent unsourced statements that are eventually removed reappearing.

1739:

I think adding the date is quite helpful as that way we know how long the the disputed sentence has been uncited and it can be removed if it isn't cited in a reasonable time. And especially as it doesn't show up in the final article I have hardly any concerns about

2234:

Source looks more like it is directed at the person who orinigaly added the text rather than people in generaly. It is also rather agressive. Citation needed looks more like the request is universal and there is much less room for missunderstanding as to what it

577:

features exist in HTML for a reason (and no it's not "bad style"; it's quite common, and has been since long before the Web, for styling annotations of precisely these sorts. Sorry that your browser doesn't provide enough default line spacing to make <sup:

530:

when someone else told me that it was an invalidity in the code. At any rate, the original code definitely did not work in Safari (which probably means it also won't work in Konqueror; same core codebase. The new version is valid code, so no biggie. :-) —

3541:. The difficulty of correcting these errors (that is, correcting the dating of fact-tags within roughly 50,000 articles containing one or more fact-tags as February 2007 irrespective of when they were actually tagged, the vast majority of of which are now 1765:

populating these fields on "fact" tags all over Knowledge, it would be nice to document what the proper syntax is. I just passed up a chance to manually apply a date to a "fact" tag I was putting in an article because I didn't know the right syntax. --

2438:

Guys, for such a widely used template, I think it'll be best if we can get a wider consensus before changing it. As far as I can see just a few users have discussed it on this page and maybe wider community involvement should be sought before changing

2289:(which needs its parenthetical moved into a tool tip, but is otherwise in the same vein). They are all very concise, and they don't say "please" or "wouldn't it be nice if" or "in my personal opinion". If that's "aggressive" then so be it. :-) — 1707:(undent) Respectfully, I must disagree. This is a horrendous idea, and I am concerned that there is no indication that anyone thinks this needs to be discussed on the pump (or similar venue) to gain input from the wider community before proceeding. 1215:

Please include the brackets, at least the first bracket, in the mask of the link if at all possible. As it is, they not only show up black instead of blue, they can display with a line break between the first bracket and the rest of the text, thus:

3514:

that old (since month boundaries, for example, will never be neat), however the rate of addition of articles suggests that a typical "current month" will be around 20,000 at the end, so that the February block is not as oversized as it appears.

2730:

states under burden of evidence the burden lies with them to provide the source if they want it kept in the article, no one else is under any obligation to hunt it down for them, so really the message should in a way read like its directed at

3794:

Older unsourced cites still require sources just as much (or more) than current cites. Perhaps if the first run had used the category "... since Feb 2007" rather than "... from Feb 2007" this wouldn't be a problem. Oh, hang on... it did.

3772:

All this was done with no feedback from the larger community, not from WP:BOT, not from WP:VER, not from anybody in the community really, except for several on this page that regarded automatic fact-tag dating as a good idea. Recall that

2162:; the 2nd class would allow all of them to be styled the same, while the first would allow them to be styled independently. Or perhaps the "inline-template" class should be applied at a higher level. But anyway, you get the idea. — 3585:

involved at present. I don't at the moment have the method to calculate the total number of fact templates involved in those 50,000 articles which were dated "February 2007", but it appears likely that in excess of 65% that are now

872:

The main goal of a typographer setting running text is to make reading smooth and natural by avoiding blobs of dark type and gaps of white-space; it's called preserving the colour of the page. In good-quality type, for example,

3261:

Yes, it seems related. So is there any problem with putting the categories first? A fact tag should, after all, follow a statement without a newline before it, so it shouldn't run into display issues like trailing newlines.

1848:

Thank you for noticing that, Gimmetrow. When the span includes the base link, the span's tooltip is overwritten by the base link tooltip. In my case, all the links were getting "Knowledge:Citing sources" as their tooltip.

1163:

tags. Since the space is not inside any div or span set within this template, it doesn't appear to be necessary, and it has undesireable consequences on at least one page. I'm asking that the space between the </sup:

755:? It exists in all versions of HTML, but peppering an article's text with dozens of extra phrases in bold font, which are not part of the text, will make it less readable. Because it exists is no reason to misuse it. 2347:

Req. editprotected revert of last edit by Geni, on the basis that it is supported by 2 (Geni, 1ne), and opposed by 3 (Tacitly: SMcCandlish, Trialsanderrors; implicity: Scott Davis — pre-Geni ver. "looks OK to me",

3601:

For what its worth, it sounds great to me. The fact that some of the dates will be wrong for a while is really of no consequence at all. At least they have a date that is an upward bound - that is we know the

2503:

Hmm... "unsourced" would work for me, but there's already a template called that, and I fear it would thus be confusing. "Unreferenced" also conveys the message but is still a bit. Making it a new subtopic. —

2153:

Agreed, but should be done to every template in this "class" (similarly-formatted inline templates). We need to keep them as consistent as possible. That is, for any Template:Foo of this sort, it should have a

3797:

Para 3 is about process. DragonsFlight brought the undeletion up at ANI where it has a large audience than DRV, and has since DRV'd it as well (there is no URV). If anyone wants to nominate it for CfD, they

2938:

fact is used when there is doubt about information, but usually not if the information is just ridiculous. Then you'd remove it. Even if you don't doubt it, if you think people could doubt it, you should tag

102: 3359:

There is probably some popular browser that will still break the span block between the bracket and text. Could someone verify how this version of the span tag works? In any event I agree with SMcCandlish

1286:

itself, or the intended effect fails in at least one major browser (let's see if anyone can guess who it's made by), despite the more efficient intended code being valid CSS/XHTML. It's just one of those

2048:

That isn't too bad, though I wonder if its even necessary since WP:V seems to have been rewritten to give me the impression that any unsourced info should just be nuked until a source has been provided.--

1997:

Because it doesn't stick out as something that needs citation. the point of this tag is to draw attention to the fact that the piece of information is questioned and lacking citation. It is meant to be

732:

As an editorial annotation, this should be simply put on the line, at body-text size, in square brackets. The brackets clearly indicate its nature, and the blue link text makes it stand apart from the

209: 918:

This template goes against all of this. It draws the eye from all over the page, and makes the page spotty and pock-marked if used several times. And it's a poor substitute for using the talk page.

2007:

Also, little question mark links like that are already used for something; I just saw one next to a Japanese word; didn't follow it, but I'm guessing it is to an audio file of the pronunciation. —

814:

so why limit ourselves to the constraints and style of the print medium? Traditional print encyclopedias don't use navboxes or include external link sections or accept reader submissions either. --

325:

why shorten it? I say make it blink, in an 18pt font. This is our last line of defence against the ever-looming "Knowledge is unreliable" verdict, so make sure readers see it and understand it.

2584:

OK, so Jitse proposes "unreferenced" or "unsourced". I really like "unsourced" better, but it would be confusing and would almost certainly lead to mistemplating, because of the existence of

2259:

tags. They are not supposed to be mollycoddling; they are to indicate that an article has a serious problem and that it needs to be fixed. A possible compromise might be "cite source". Cf.

1128:

the venue for this discussion. If someone wants to do away with this use of superscripting, that is a far-ranging Knowledge-wide issue with numerous ramifications that must be brought up the

810:

I find the superscripting nicely non-obtrusive compared with the alternatives. Putting it on level with the main text is potentially confusing to readers. As for what print encyclopedias do,

2821:

It's not ideal, and I agree its too long, but I think its the best option we have cos I don't think any of the above proposed variations make the two objectives of this template clear (i.e.

3400: 1942:

On the deletion debate, someone suggested that it should be replaced with a simple superscript question-mark to make it less obtrusive. I'm not sure this isn't an avenue worth pursuing. —

1270:

WRT those two edits just mentioned, the self-revert was done at my behest, after someone reverted an identical edit by me to a related template, and explained why. It turns out that the

579:

fit in seamlessly (mine, Safari, doesn't either), but that's a browser issue (or, in truth, it could be a Knowledge stylesheet issue, I think.) Maybe bring it up at the Village Pump? —

885:, in Times). Likewise, superscripts are only used for short reference numbers, or asterisks and daggers, to pull them out of the flow of the text, but without leaving a large white gap. 1069:

I prefer the sup tag in that it makes the notice rather difficult to miss. If the tag is "ugly" then that is a good thing as unsourced passages are rather "ugly" in a textural sense.

177: 141:

I think the best way to create topic-specific lists would be through the PNA mechanism, which uses a bot to keep updated per-topic lists of articles with various problems. See e.g.

1374:

Well, you could probably have an invisible tag, one that shows up in the actual tag itself, but not in the article (ie: {{fact|January 2007}}). I know some bots go around and date

3343:

tried to address this by moving the no-wrap to the sup tag, but that doesn't work. Going through the history, I didn't see a version which tried the following for the superscript:

951:

Superscripts are not some new element of the web medium—what's not being paper have to do with this? That's a strawman argument for abandoning the principals of good typography.

1964:

scientists" (I forget the name of the template) was recently shortened in precisely this way (or there is ongoing and largely favorable discussion on its talk page to do so). —

3590:

labeled. And so the earlier argument was that they needed to be dated and categorized, and now the argument is that it's "not that critical" that they be dated properly? ...

2476:

Keep it at "Citation needed". "Source?" looks too unprofessional. And that's beside the point that having to use this template is unprofessional, but it simply is necessary.

3801:

This really should not be a problem, it is a simple change that imposes no workload on anyone, and if it proves not to be useful, can be backed out in about five minutes.

2314:

Wouldn't worry about it for now, until after the dust settles; then the page can be moved to where it needs to live at, and we can juggle the redirs. Already made one from

3577:

Hold on a second. I have a lot of respect for the detail work Rich Farmbrough has done around the wiki. But there are some genuine issues here. Firstly, the category is "

665:

Actually, superscripted annotations have been done for centuries, since long before printing even existed (i.e. in the manuscript age). And please watch your language per

2806:

expresses that well and also tells anyone who is reading the article that the text is not cited and not entirely reliable (maybe hovering over should say something like "

2796:

I think one of the ideas of the tag is to ask whoever inserted the text or whoever is reading it to cite the source if possible. "Unreferenced" doesn't exactly say that.

1837:

Regarding the wrapping - does it make any difference if the span is opened and closed as part of the link cover text, or whether the span includes the base link as well?

1783:

I spend a bit of time clearing up mis-applied dates, mis-spelled months, etc. (and since these are often manual fixes, I know I can make these mistakes too <grin: -->

1343:

edit summary. This could also allow us to find old templates quickly and remove the unsourced statement. I don't know how practical this is but it seems to make sense.~

696:" reference, for many years now. Let's not get silly. Lastly: Again, If you have a problem with the handling of super- and sub-scipts in Knowledge, take it up with at 229:

that, if it is next before an end-of-line, makes it swallow all immediately following whitespace, thus making the next paragraph amalgamate with the previous paragraph.

2579: 1650:

I've put the logic in the template and created the first month cats, I'll run the beginning of the collation sequence so that the subcats show on the main cat page.

255: 3926: 343:

Wow, I had no idea that this template which has stood for at least several months is being edited. BTW, {{citation needed}} also works. Here's what it looks like:

3068: 1576:) would be willing to add this to his current jobs. I will also try and find someone who could add it to the code so that it also goes to categories by date, like 604:

blink "feature" exists in HTML too, but painting a serious article with it using the 40-gallon drum and the wide roller isn't the reason it exists in HTML either.

3510:

it is easy to find the dates from history - I think "easy" is a relative term here. The names of the dated categories are supposed to reflect that the tags are

2337: 2100: 2090: 2043: 2027: 1931: 1536: 1527: 1511: 1502: 1486: 1473: 1202: 170: 3851:

perfect correspondence between stmts that most need citing and those with the tag, nor an ordering of need that will put the tagged items at the top. However

3537:

I did not make the claim that it is easy to find the older dates using the history, I believe that was another commentator on the issue in the current DRV for

3532: 1749: 197: 3071: 2717: 2515: 1734: 1724: 1507:

I can be bold and change to "Source?" and shorten the yellow tag, but adding the date to the yellow tag is beyond my pay grade. Anyone with more expertise? ~

1182: 1147: 1031: 590: 357: 3550: 2654: 2610: 2052: 987: 975:

viewpoint. I would certainly use the typesetting you illustrate if I were attempting to immitate the appearance of a church flyer from 1903, however. : -->

3370: 3321: 3141: 3098: 1331: 277: 264:

This has happened to me in two articles today. An admin with good knowledge of Wikicode should check this template's code out and try to fix the problem. –

184: 95:

kowledge and expertise in that area can look into referencing the articles. The way this could be achieved is by adding the following code to the template:

3922: 2773: 2756: 2498: 2471: 2138:

Could someone add a class attribute to the span tag? Something like class="fact" or class="citation needed", so that it can be customized or highlighted.—

1887: 1457: 1313: 1084: 3062: 2309: 2127: 2061:

scriptive, and deleting all non-sourced material on sight is not in fact actual consensus practice on WP (except as regards material under the purview of

1693: 1261: 1111: 843: 805: 715: 642: 233: 3752: 3628: 3617: 3424: 3268: 3127: 2735: 2018: 2002: 1853: 1843: 558: 272: 157: 2787: 2483: 2305:

I don't follow Geni's argument. Should we consider this a quasi-page move request, since this template is really about nothing but this/these word/s? ~

2219: 2195: 2173: 3781: 3409: 2857:

How about "Please cite a suitable references which meets Knowledge's criteria as a reliable source of this information"? Oh wait, it's not April yet.

2846: 2571: 1643: 542: 3895: 3669: 2836: 2690: 2665: 2431: 2402: 2391: 2363: 2300: 1605: 338: 115: 3916: 3594: 2999: 2372: 823: 1611:

Otherwise I can do the same but only date as I come across them. Getting the date right is not mega hard, but I don't have resource to do it now.

503:

It is possible that it doesn't work on all browsers, because I understand MSIE 6 has poor support for title attributes which are not on a elements.

491: 2965: 2946: 404:

simply reiterates the link text without explicating it. 4) Easier to read/understand this template if category stuff is put at the end. 5) Using

309: 149: 132: 2119:

When a new reader(not an editor) comes to Knowledge, the citation needed tag explain exactly what the issue is to them, I think it is good as is.

1711: 1478:

I'd rather have it in the tag so it's easy to check if the tag is old enough that the claim may be removed. The text itself could be shortened to

1059:

This template uses the "sup" tag, which makes its effects on the page extremely ugly. Perhaps it should simply be set to "small" or something. --

3934: 2700:, then book X is the source. If book Y also has this information. then book Y is not strictly speaking the source for the statement that I added. 1882: 1444: 1405: 467: 2726:

I as well see nothing wrong with Citation needed, and it should be directed at the initial editor, or any editor attempting to ad the material,

2555: 3778: 3625: 3591: 3547: 265: 3735:

harmful. Not adding the date to simply hide how long the thing has been uncited is totally against the principles of Knowledge, in my opinion.

2249: 1172: 2931:

Specify is used if the statement you've made is a bit too general. The tag is also outdated. Basically its used to prevent people from using

1913: 1562: 2239: 1415:

but since there are around 48,000 pages that use this template I don't know if that would be the best option (although people with serious

226: 3774: 3538: 3501: 3384: 3306: 3253: 3227: 3187: 1773: 163: 3084:

The space inside the template didn't change this. In fact, removing the space after the template in the article causes the odd behavior

3041: 1975: 1368: 561: 3913: 2369: 2246: 2147: 1759: 142: 89: 1558:(unindent) New version looks OK to me. The date idea could be useful too if someone can work out how to make it work automatically. -- 101:

What this would do is create an optional cat= parameter that people could use, so {{fact|cat=physics}} would add the relevant page to

3183:

Aha! The ] code is eating following newlines if followed by a wikilink! In Example 2, the two lines should be separate paragraphs: --

3711:

Further to Kevin's original proposal, there's no reason people can't change the template to "date=unknown" if it floats their boat.

2158:

in it, in the same position (note I say "template-foo", not "foo"; any given "foo" might already be in use as a class. Better yet:

3051:, someone removed the space. I think they may've done this to other similar templates too. Sounds like it needs to go back in. — 3023:

but that is incorrect behavior for the template in the first place and many people will not think to try adding a single space. —

3021: 3018: 2352:), so no consensus to revert, and the pre-Geni version was not opposed by anyone when it was discussed prior to implementation. — 1241: 3994: 3989: 3984: 3972: 2638: 424: 81: 76: 71: 59: 3461: 3120: 2661:"cite source" still looks like it is directed at the intial editor. Personaly I fail to see anything wrong with citation needed. 1863:

I wonder if it would be worth asking the developers for some kind of built-in user-editable javascript pop-up functionality? —

2886:. Some editors think the date is unhelpful. I have invited them to discuss here, rather than just talking with me about it. 2674:, template or otherwise, that appears inside an article's text is "directed at the initial editor". The entire concept simply 1909:

and the closing bracket. The brackets could be moved into the no-wrap span or the formatting could be changed to . Opinions? ~

3221:

Seems the problem is having the categories after the superscript. Putting them before fixes this problem, no spaces required.

1867: 1832: 1063: 2925: 1891: 1123:

inline cleanup/dispute templates, as well as other annotation templates such a footnotes and ref citations use <sup: -->

319: 299: 250: 3624:

So in other words it's now a new wiki-wide policy, starting February 2007, which will improve its accuracy over time. ...

2599:

to me. But on the assumption that it's going to meet resistance, I'm trying to help find non-Quixotic alternatives... —

3378: 363: 220: 1449:

It could be added to the link title (that's the yellow tag which appears if you hover over the link, it currently says:

1136:

be resolved on the talk page of some random template that happens to be following the already-established convention. —

2229: 1462:

That seems a little obtrusive, but no big objection. I'd personally rather see it in the source code only, instead. —

2635:

At this point, I'd be happy(-ish) with "cite source", "needs source", "add souce", "needs cite", in descending order.

1191:. This change broke something. If the change was made to other similar templates, will need reversion there, too. — 2650: 436: 384:{{#if: {{NAMESPACE}} || ] }}<sup title="The text in the vicinity of this tag needs citation." class="noprint": --> 3015: 1096:

because I saw it on the news and want to know more about the animal; when I'm not being an encylcopedia user but an

193:

Thanks for pointing this out. I was not aware of this until now. Amazing what you can miss if you don't go looking.

3335: 2208:

like-formatted - they keep diverging, and in fact replace as much of them as possible with single meta-template. —

3930: 2752: 1990: 1951: 1820:: At the same time as we update the tooltip, could we also fix the wrapping problem? I have an implementation at 1153: 3089: 2951:

Thanks, Crossmr. Then may i suggest removing item 1, since it's outdated, or replacing it with a mention of the

2917:

2. if it is not doubtful, you may use or tag to ask for better citation in order to make the article complete.

3912:

Breaks when used in table by overlapping with text in an adjacent cell, at least in my browser (Firefox). See

3907: 3331: 2560:

Fine, really. I was making a point about process, and no one seems to get it, so I'll just drop the issue. —

2450:" is kind of too long, but usually its only added to one or 2 sentences. If more than that need citations the 1158: 3960: 3856:

being forthcoming? A difficult question, but one which we cannot even address without some form of dating.

1337: 47: 17: 2814:. Specially since someone who doesn't know what it means may well go ahead and click it and get confused by 3014:

Something is wrong with this template. Take sentences that are supposed to be separated by two line breaks,

2704:

small risk that the text is misunderstood? (I've no opinion either way, just trying to explain the issue).

557:

The superscript stuff makes lines in a paragraph oddly spaced. Its really bad style, and should be fixed.

3284: 2133: 1596: 1435: 1359: 1124:. This is a rehashed topic (see above), and I'm marking it "Resolved" here because this is emphatically 627:

Mzajac, do you have some alternative in mind? I'm inclined think the superscript code is perfect myself.

408:

to prevent linebreaking is klugey; do it with CSS instead. 6) The category code should be includeonly'd.

3340: 1252: 1248: 3951: 3414: 3009: 1804: 38: 3546:

Rich's talk page. Good regards everybody (except for the bot, which i'm peeved at at the moment). ...

3861: 3806: 3716: 3695: 3640: 3561: 3520: 3420: 2891: 2862: 2621: 1789: 1674: 1655: 1616: 1901:

In line breaks, the tag currently gets split into two lines either between the open bracket and the

881:

if you have Georgia font installed) are used to avoid the darker rectangle of titling figures (e.g.

3879:

Kenosis: Your points are excellent, although I fear the autarchs who imposed the policy will never

2800: 1896: 1810: 347: 246: 3361: 3116: 2877: 773:

competent typography since Johannes Gutenberg. None. It is a ham-fisted example of poor design.

754:, as a deprecated reference. But that distracts you from my point, then how about <strong: --> 1937: 1825: 1416: 3317: 3294: 2955: 2713: 2494: 1875: 1225: 1060: 552: 500:

Title is a core attribute, allowed in almost any element, including sup in HTML 4.01 and XHTML.

354: 230: 2646: 2201: 2057:

In that case, WP:V needs a revert; guidelines should not be prescriptive as to practice, but

1378: 432: 210:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive130#CFD vs. DRV: action review requested

576:

of the inline templates of this sort, footnotes, reference citations, etc. The <sup: -->

501: 3858: 3803: 3713: 3692: 3637: 3558: 3517: 2888: 2859: 2618: 2306: 2097: 2024: 1910: 1786: 1731: 1708: 1671: 1652: 1613: 1573: 1533: 1508: 1483: 1454: 1237: 3464:, it would be useful to have fact dating/nondating under control of an article's editors. 3401:

Knowledge:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20#Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements

1959:

Ick! I don't have a problem with a) making it shorter, and b) using a question mark, but

1037: 1016:

If you have a problem with Knowledge usage of super- and/or subscript, bring it up at the

8: 3436: 3406: 3365: 3301: 3263: 3222: 3136: 3093: 2749: 2539:

Editprotected change not carried out at this time - there's no clear consensus to do so.

1987: 1948: 1838: 1821: 1256: 1179: 1167: 790:

Well if ham figured in my diet I'd be searching for some sandwich bread right about now.

682: 330: 241: 181: 2990:

template. It already links to the WEASEL words article so that may be what you mean. --

3743:

will have managed to ban so many open proxies from editing and disrupting Knowledge? --

3430: 3246: 3031: 2905: 2588: 2480: 1721: 1229: 1210: 1072: 793: 630: 455: 2910:

I don't understand the difference between items 1 and 2 on the template page, namely:

1669:

This is now included in SmackBot's standard run, but will take some time to catch up.

3313: 2709: 2490: 2315: 2079:

is in extremely broad actual usage, I think the point kind of settles itself. :-) —

1688:

I must say, this is a fantastic idea and the fact that it's now automated is great.

178:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#CFD_vs._DRV:_action_review_requested

3609: 3606:

that they might have been added - and that is more helpful than harmful, by far. —

3054: 2984: 2932: 2765: 2682: 2642: 2602: 2563: 2507: 2455: 2423: 2383: 2355: 2329: 2292: 2283: 2211: 2165: 2082: 2035: 2010: 1967: 1923: 1635: 1519: 1494: 1465: 1398: 1323: 1305: 1290:

Also, if the formatting is changed in this template, is should probably be made in

1194: 1139: 1103: 1023: 979: 957: 835: 819: 811: 779: 707: 610: 582: 534: 509: 484: 428: 294: 130: 113: 98:{{#if:{{{cat|}}}|{{#ifexist:Category:{{{cat|}}} articles needing references|]}} }} 2942:

citequote is for when you put a quote in article and forget to include a source.--

2921:

I'd appreciate a clarification: when should i use , when should i use and when ?

1809:

I have an update to the tooltip for including the date, with an implementation at

3740: 2549: 2319: 2191: 2143: 1593: 1577: 1559: 1432: 1394: 1356: 1233: 1093: 1009: 701: 670: 480: 285: 194: 3959:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

971:"good" design, but I assure you that not everyone agrees with this in fact very 474:

Edit made. Being a Safari man myself made that particularly easy to verify. ;-)

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3744: 3498: 3250: 3184: 3124: 2991: 2828: 2815: 2811: 2745: 2463: 1982: 1943: 1864: 1850: 1829: 1770: 1741: 1129: 1053: 1017: 697: 666: 326: 305:

Nah, too informal. It would have to be at least. Which is 1 letter shorter. --

2810:" and clicking it too should make that clear instead of simply redirecting to 2069:

assumption is debatable, Jimbo statements on the matter notwithstanding.) As

1451:

The material in the vicinity of this tag needs references to reliable sources.

3884: 3658: 3391: 3024: 2477: 2323: 2121: 2073: 2062: 1718: 1689: 1569: 1412: 1077: 798: 678: 674: 635: 460: 415: 1320:

What action if any was taken with regard to this topic's edit suggestion? —

2974: 2943: 2843: 2732: 2263: 2204:

to identify and maintain all of these like-formatted templates (or, rather

2049: 1999: 972: 874: 167: 3721: 3700: 3645: 3566: 3525: 2896: 2867: 2784: 2727: 2273: 2187: 2139: 1794: 968: 954: 815: 776: 607: 527: 506: 316: 306: 291: 146: 123: 106: 3092:

On the other hand, having the space creates odd spacing in normal text.

658:

Formatting a short phrase, in italics, in brackets, as a superscript is

599:

Formatting a short phrase, in italics, in brackets, as a superscript is

3457: 2962: 2922: 2626: 2540: 1679: 1660: 1621: 1584: 1423: 1389: 1347: 475: 3119:, the paragraph breaks disappear. However, when I remove the space in 3330:(Note: Putting the categories first was previously done by Omegatron 2697: 2670:

I still don't understand this "directed at the initial editor" bit.

2662: 2399: 2236: 1766: 3237:{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#if:{{{date|}}}|]|]}}]}}</includeonly: --> 2446:" its like asking the guy it added the text where he got it from. " 1480:

This claim needs references to reliable sources (tagged 2007-02-02)

3135:

the wikilinks, the fact tag before it works fine without a space.

3866: 3811: 2616:"Need cite" or "need ref" are probably the shortest we can get. 2326:, and imagine this relationship would be reversed pretty soon.— 1632:

Re: "lumpy" — no objection here - we have to start somewhere. —

3211: 3205: 3169: 3163: 3157: 3312:

Done. Let's wait and see whether there are any complaints. --

2827:(ii) Tell anyone who is reading that it may not be reliable -- 2200:

Works for me. It strikes me that we should probably set up a

3453: 3020:

This is remedied by adding a single space after the template,

3115:

I don't understand the behavior. When I remove the space in

2914:

1. if it is likely true, but needs specificity, you may use

3869: 3814: 3724: 3703: 3648: 3635:

Exactly, except it's not "policy", it's more of a project.

3569: 3528: 3460:, and a few other articles, you revert it. As you noted at 2899: 2870: 2629: 1797: 1784:), so I am quite happy for people to leave it to the bot. 1682: 1663: 1624: 3489:

Research the page history for the first appearance of the

3364:

that all the related templates should be coded similarly.

2368:

And there's also no consensus to have it say 'sources?'.

162:

Could someone please explain to me what we gain having a

3017:

add the template and suddenly the line breaks disappear.

3581:

with unsourced statments." There are some 50,000 such

1419:

would love that). It seems bot should probably do it.~

208:

Incident in question has been archived. New location:

3467:

I suggest we adopt one of three possible compromises:

2595:

understand what the objection to "source?" is - seems

1100:

I pay quite a lot of attention to the superscripts. —

3914:

Comparison of operating systems#Technical_information

3462:

User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Automated fact-tag tagging

2462:

tag should be added to the whole article/section. --

1014:

this is not the forum for the issue you are raising.

567:You'd have to take that up at a much higher level. 444:I can confirm what SMcCandlish is saying about the 3339:putting the brackets inside the span tag. I think 145:. I will add this to my todo list for the bot. -- 397:{{#if: {{NAMESPACE}} || ] }}</includeonly: --> 3883:your points. I think I know how Galileo felt. 3479:for facts where we do not know an accurate date. 2442:Personally I agree with Geni that when you say " 1092:to ignore them (like when I'm genuinely reading 3397:, ought to exist at all has been restarted as: 704:bystanders on a random template's talk page. — 411:Cf. all of the other templates in this series; 2808:this text is not cited and may not be reliable 1813:. Any comments or objections to this update? 1824:. If you need to test these changes, look at 290:I think it can and should be shortend to . - 3048: 1161:introduced a space between the </sup: --> 103:Category:Physics articles needing references 3846:Cleanup used to go back as far as at least 3775:Category:Articles with unsourced statements 3539:Category:Articles with unsourced statements 3385:Category:Articles with unsourced statements 1073: 794: 631: 456: 158:Category:Articles with unsourced statements 3445:by adding the current month, resulting in 2186:and so on. I think that would work best.— 1779:Hi, the syntax is "|date=Monthname YYYY", 1078: 799: 636: 461: 143:Knowledge:Pages needing attention/Genetics 2883: 2783:participation in improving the article. 2349: 2184:class="template-specify inline-template" 1532:Done. let's wait for the firestorm... ~ 421:is the only one that isn't consistent. 3441:Currently, Rich, your bot is expanding 3249:: "Don't remove whitespace before ]".-- 2935:words. i.e. "Many people believe this". 1188: 571:of things on Knowledge use <sup: --> 14: 3957:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3497:I recommmend the first alternative. -- 3452:Kenosis, whenever you see this on the 2322:is already used by something else) to 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2180:class="template-fact inline-template" 1384:tags and the like, so it wouldn't be 1012:. Please stop. For the third time, 3938: 2160:class="template-foo inline-template" 25: 2970:Italyb there is already a template 2398:where did you advertise the debate? 23: 3123:, the correct behavior results. -- 1717:Why do you think it's a bad idea? 90:A possible means of categorisation 24: 4008: 3942: 3493:tag to give it the correct date. 2980:which I believe may replace the 2842:time and opposite its purpose.-- 1224:On my computer, this happens on 1043: 692:exist in HTML, other that as a " 369: 29: 1980:Why not , to match <ref: --> 310:04:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 300:03:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC) 234:22:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 13: 1: 3935:21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC) 3896:22:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 3782:23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 3753:22:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 3670:21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 3629:21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 3618:15:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 3595:21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 3551:01:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 3533:00:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC) 3502:17:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 3410:16:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC) 3072:21:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 3063:09:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 3042:20:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 3000:16:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 2966:15:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 2947:15:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 2926:15:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 2847:14:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 2837:03:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 2788:23:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2774:23:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2757:06:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2736:18:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 2718:02:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC) 2691:23:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC) 2672:Nothing anywhere on Knowledge 2666:17:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 2255:"agressive". These tags are 1920:all be maintained at once. — 1774:20:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 1750:16:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 1735:13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1725:13:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1712:13:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 1388:hard to do, I don't think... 1247:Is this related to the issue 1203:09:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 1183:06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC) 1173:03:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC) 1032:21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 844:21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 824:21:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 806:21:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 716:13:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 643:10:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 591:08:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 562:03:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 543:22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 492:04:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 468:03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 452:tag not working universally. 358:23:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC) 150:18:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 18:Template talk:Citation needed 3350:<sup class="noprint": --> 3241:{{/doc}} </noinclude: --> 3238:<sup class="noprint": --> 2878:Addition to template (ctd..) 2655:13:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC) 2611:06:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC) 2572:19:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 2556:18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 2516:06:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC) 2499:02:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC) 2484:13:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 2472:06:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 2432:04:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 2403:02:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 2392:16:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 2373:16:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 2364:12:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 2338:12:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 2310:09:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 2301:06:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 2250:03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 2240:03:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 2220:08:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 2196:20:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 2174:05:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 2148:14:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC) 2101:21:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 2091:19:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 2053:18:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 2044:10:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 2028:08:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 2019:10:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 2003:06:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 1976:05:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 1932:05:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 1914:01:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 1694:02:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 1644:19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 1606:16:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC) 1563:02:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 1537:00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 1528:00:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC) 1516:Sounds like a good start. — 1512:21:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 1503:10:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 1487:08:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 1474:05:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC) 1458:01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 1445:09:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC) 1406:06:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 1369:06:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC) 1332:12:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 1314:05:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 1262:05:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 1242:04:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 988:05:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 399:{{/doc}} </noinclude: --> 394:<sup class="noprint": --> 387:{{/doc}} </noinclude: --> 339:17:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 278:00:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 256:04:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC) 7: 3447:{{Fact|date=February 2007}} 3379:The existence of a category 1052:Wrong venue; take it up at 967:mis-spacing of numerals is 378: 364:Template code needs an edit 320:09:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 221:This template needs editing 198:23:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 185:00:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 171:23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC) 10: 4013: 3486:to the top of the article. 3383:The discussion of whether 3371:23:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC) 3334:and was later changed per 3322:06:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 3307:03:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC) 3269:04:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC) 3254:21:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC) 3228:21:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC) 3188:21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC) 3142:21:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC) 3128:20:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC) 3099:16:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC) 2824:(i) Ask someone to cite it 2580:What about "unreferenced"? 2230:Source vs. citation needed 2128:23:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1892:18:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC) 1868:23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 1854:23:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 1844:23:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 1833:23:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 1568:Well, I guess I'll see if 1251:tried to address, but was 1148:00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 1112:00:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC) 1085:23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 1064:22:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 1041: 367: 164:category with 21,008 pages 133:12:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 116:21:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 3067:I've readded the space. 3049:#Extraneous space at end 1165:and <includeonly: --> 1162:and <includeonly: --> 1881:done, to version at ]. 1826:User:Kevinkor2/FactTest 1760:Syntax of date addition 1282:, rather than with the 1154:Extraneous space at end 166:that miss citations? -- 3908:Minor formatting error 3762:be sourced in writing. 3245:This seems related to 3216: 3174: 2744:How about "no ref"? -- 812:Knowledge is not paper 685:, etc. NB: Actually, 3955:of past discussions. 3688:<Reset indent: --> 3198: 3150: 2884:#Addition to template 2641:comment was added by 1811:User:Sigma_7/Sandbox1 1338:Addition to template 1008:You are bordering on 427:comment was added by 42:of past discussions. 3387:, used primarily by 3236:<includeonly: --> 3117:the original article 2156:class="template-foo" 2023:I'm in favor of . ~ 1274:must be done with a 526:My bad; should have 396:<includeonly: --> 225:This template has a 2245:I agree with Geni. 2134:Add class attribute 1822:User:Kevinkor2/Fact 1189:#Incorrect behavior 832:Zzzzzzzzzzzzz... — 3431:Template talk:Fact 3415:SmackBot Kevinkor2 3285:Verify credibility 3276:{{editprotected}} 3240:<noinclude: --> 3010:Incorrect behavior 2696:and I add this to 1230:Stephen A. Douglas 961:2006-12-12 21:45 Z 783:2006-12-12 20:55 Z 614:2006-12-12 10:36 Z 513:2006-12-11 17:22 Z 398:<noinclude: --> 386:<noinclude: --> 4000: 3999: 3967: 3966: 3961:current talk page 3088:, with the space 2658: 2554: 2344:{{editprotected}} 2316:Template:Sourceme 2192:Queen WikiProject 2144:Queen WikiProject 2126: 1994: 1993:(01/28 01:07 EST) 1986:2007-01-28 06:07 1955: 1890: 1599: 1587: 1438: 1426: 1362: 1350: 1278:contained by the 1240: 1166:tags be removed. 962: 822: 784: 615: 514: 440: 355:AstroHurricane001 337: 276: 254: 231:Anthony Appleyard 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4004: 3981: 3969: 3968: 3946: 3945: 3939: 3893: 3890: 3887: 3667: 3664: 3661: 3616: 3613: 3612: 3492: 3485: 3478: 3474: 3471:Manually change 3448: 3444: 3396: 3390: 3353: 3299: 3293: 3289: 3283: 3242: 3121:my personal copy 3090:in the template. 3061: 3058: 3057: 3038: 3034: 3028: 2989: 2983: 2979: 2973: 2960: 2954: 2805: 2799: 2772: 2769: 2768: 2689: 2686: 2685: 2636: 2609: 2606: 2605: 2593: 2587: 2570: 2567: 2566: 2552: 2548: 2543: 2514: 2511: 2510: 2460: 2454: 2430: 2427: 2426: 2390: 2387: 2386: 2362: 2359: 2358: 2336: 2333: 2332: 2299: 2296: 2295: 2288: 2282: 2278: 2272: 2268: 2262: 2218: 2215: 2214: 2185: 2181: 2172: 2169: 2168: 2161: 2157: 2120: 2089: 2086: 2085: 2078: 2072: 2042: 2039: 2038: 2032:Works for me! — 2017: 2014: 2013: 1985: 1974: 1971: 1970: 1954:(01/24 21:26EST) 1946: 1930: 1927: 1926: 1897:Line break issue 1886: 1880: 1874: 1642: 1639: 1638: 1604: 1603: 1592: 1585: 1526: 1523: 1522: 1501: 1498: 1497: 1491:Works for me! — 1481: 1472: 1469: 1468: 1452: 1443: 1442: 1431: 1424: 1404: 1401: 1383: 1377: 1367: 1366: 1355: 1348: 1330: 1327: 1326: 1312: 1309: 1308: 1236: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1146: 1143: 1142: 1110: 1107: 1106: 1080: 1075: 1056: 1047: 1046: 1030: 1027: 1026: 986: 983: 982: 960: 884: 880: 842: 839: 838: 818: 801: 796: 782: 714: 711: 710: 688: 638: 633: 613: 589: 586: 585: 541: 538: 537: 512: 490: 487: 463: 458: 451: 447: 422: 420: 414: 407: 400: 388: 373: 372: 352: 346: 329: 270: 268: 244: 128: 111: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4012: 4011: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4003: 4002: 4001: 3977: 3943: 3910: 3891: 3888: 3885: 3665: 3662: 3659: 3614: 3608: 3607: 3490: 3483: 3476: 3472: 3446: 3442: 3421:Rich Farmbrough 3417: 3394: 3388: 3381: 3352:]]</sup: --> 3349: 3297: 3291: 3287: 3281: 3239:]]</sup: --> 3235: 3059: 3053: 3052: 3036: 3032: 3026: 3012: 2987: 2981: 2977: 2971: 2958: 2952: 2908: 2880: 2803: 2801:Citation needed 2797: 2770: 2764: 2763: 2687: 2681: 2680: 2676:does not happen 2637:—The preceding 2607: 2601: 2600: 2591: 2585: 2582: 2568: 2562: 2561: 2550: 2541: 2512: 2506: 2505: 2458: 2452: 2448:Citation needed 2428: 2422: 2421: 2388: 2382: 2381: 2360: 2354: 2353: 2334: 2328: 2327: 2320:Template:Source 2307:trialsanderrors 2297: 2291: 2290: 2286: 2280: 2276: 2270: 2266: 2260: 2232: 2216: 2210: 2209: 2183: 2179: 2170: 2164: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2136: 2124: 2098:trialsanderrors 2087: 2081: 2080: 2076: 2070: 2040: 2034: 2033: 2025:trialsanderrors 2015: 2009: 2008: 1972: 1966: 1965: 1947:20070125T022608 1940: 1938:Less obtrusive? 1928: 1922: 1921: 1911:trialsanderrors 1905:or between the 1899: 1878: 1872: 1807: 1762: 1732:KillerChihuahua 1709:KillerChihuahua 1640: 1634: 1633: 1582: 1581: 1578:Template:wikify 1574:Rich Farmbrough 1534:trialsanderrors 1524: 1518: 1517: 1509:trialsanderrors 1499: 1493: 1492: 1484:trialsanderrors 1479: 1470: 1464: 1463: 1455:trialsanderrors 1450: 1421: 1420: 1399: 1392: 1381: 1375: 1345: 1344: 1340: 1328: 1322: 1321: 1310: 1304: 1303: 1255:shortly after? 1234:Septentrionalis 1219:citation needed 1213: 1199: 1193: 1192: 1156: 1144: 1138: 1137: 1108: 1102: 1101: 1094:Clouded leopard 1057: 1051: 1049: 1044: 1040: 1028: 1022: 1021: 984: 978: 977: 882: 878: 840: 834: 833: 712: 706: 705: 686: 587: 581: 580: 555: 539: 533: 532: 485: 478: 449: 445: 423:—The preceding 418: 412: 405: 395:]]</sup: --> 393: 385:]]</sup: --> 383: 376: 375: 370: 366: 350: 348:citation needed 344: 288: 266: 223: 160: 124: 107: 99: 92: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4010: 3998: 3997: 3992: 3987: 3982: 3975: 3965: 3964: 3947: 3909: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3892:sch 3886:Jim 3877: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3769: 3763: 3736: 3729: 3728: 3708: 3707: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3666:sch 3660:Jim 3654: 3653: 3652: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3495: 3494: 3487: 3480: 3477:{{fact|date=}} 3416: 3413: 3407:Dragons flight 3380: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3351:</span: --> 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3325: 3324: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3011: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 2940: 2936: 2919: 2918: 2915: 2907: 2904: 2879: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2825: 2819: 2791: 2790: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2762:"source?"). — 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2705: 2701: 2581: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2440: 2412:wording being 2377: 2376: 2375: 2345: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2303: 2252: 2231: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2135: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2122: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2055: 2046: 1939: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1898: 1895: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1806: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1761: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1339: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1300: 1296: 1288: 1265: 1264: 1217: 1212: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1180:Kirill Lokshin 1155: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1042: 1039: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 763: 762: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 687:<blink: --> 663: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 620: 619: 618: 617: 594: 593: 554: 553:No superscript 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 519: 518: 517: 516: 495: 494: 471: 470: 392: 382: 368: 365: 362: 361: 360: 341: 313: 312: 287: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 259: 258: 222: 219: 217: 215: 214: 213: 212: 203: 202: 201: 200: 188: 187: 182:Dragons flight 159: 156: 155: 154: 153: 152: 136: 135: 97: 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4009: 3996: 3993: 3991: 3988: 3986: 3983: 3980: 3976: 3974: 3971: 3970: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3953: 3948: 3941: 3940: 3937: 3936: 3932: 3928: 3924: 3923:ArmedBlowfish 3919: 3917: 3915: 3897: 3894: 3882: 3878: 3871: 3868: 3864: 3863: 3860: 3854: 3849: 3845: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3839: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3816: 3813: 3809: 3808: 3805: 3800: 3796: 3792: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3780: 3776: 3770: 3768: 3764: 3761: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3751: 3750: 3747: 3742: 3737: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3726: 3723: 3719: 3718: 3715: 3710: 3709: 3705: 3702: 3698: 3697: 3694: 3687: 3671: 3668: 3655: 3650: 3647: 3643: 3642: 3639: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3627: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3611: 3605: 3600: 3596: 3593: 3589: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3571: 3568: 3564: 3563: 3560: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3549: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3530: 3527: 3523: 3522: 3519: 3513: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3500: 3488: 3481: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3465: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3450: 3439: 3438: 3433: 3432: 3427: 3426: 3422: 3412: 3411: 3408: 3404: 3402: 3398: 3393: 3386: 3372: 3369: 3368: 3363: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3342: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3305: 3304: 3296: 3295:verify source 3286: 3277: 3270: 3267: 3266: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3252: 3248: 3243: 3229: 3226: 3225: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3215: 3213: 3209: 3207: 3203: 3202: 3189: 3186: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3173: 3171: 3167: 3165: 3161: 3159: 3155: 3154: 3143: 3140: 3139: 3133: 3129: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3100: 3097: 3096: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3073: 3070: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3056: 3050: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3039: 3030: 3022: 3019: 3016: 3001: 2998: 2997: 2994: 2986: 2976: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2964: 2957: 2956:weasel-inline 2950: 2949: 2948: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2934: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2924: 2916: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2903: 2901: 2898: 2894: 2893: 2890: 2885: 2872: 2869: 2865: 2864: 2861: 2856: 2848: 2845: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2835: 2834: 2831: 2826: 2823: 2822: 2820: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2802: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2789: 2786: 2781: 2780: 2775: 2767: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2754: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2737: 2734: 2729: 2725: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2708:speaker). -- 2706: 2702: 2699: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2684: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2664: 2660: 2659: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2634: 2633: 2631: 2628: 2624: 2623: 2620: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2604: 2598: 2590: 2573: 2565: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2553: 2547: 2544: 2538: 2535: 2517: 2509: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2482: 2479: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2470: 2469: 2466: 2461: 2457: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2425: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2401: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2385: 2378: 2374: 2371: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2357: 2351: 2346: 2343: 2339: 2331: 2325: 2324:Template:Fact 2321: 2317: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2308: 2304: 2302: 2294: 2285: 2275: 2265: 2258: 2253: 2251: 2248: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2238: 2221: 2213: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2167: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2129: 2125: 2118: 2117: 2102: 2099: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2084: 2075: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2054: 2051: 2047: 2045: 2037: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2026: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2012: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2001: 1996: 1995: 1992: 1989: 1984: 1981:references? — 1979: 1978: 1977: 1969: 1962: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1953: 1950: 1945: 1933: 1925: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1894: 1893: 1889: 1884: 1877: 1876:editprotected 1870: 1869: 1866: 1855: 1852: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1842: 1841: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1812: 1799: 1796: 1792: 1791: 1788: 1782: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1772: 1768: 1751: 1748: 1747: 1744: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1733: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1723: 1720: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1710: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1686: 1684: 1681: 1677: 1676: 1673: 1668: 1667: 1665: 1662: 1658: 1657: 1654: 1649: 1645: 1637: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1626: 1623: 1619: 1618: 1615: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1602: 1598: 1595: 1591: 1588: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1561: 1538: 1535: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1521: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1510: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1496: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1485: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1467: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1456: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1441: 1437: 1434: 1430: 1427: 1418: 1417:editcountitis 1414: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1402: 1396: 1391: 1387: 1380: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1365: 1361: 1358: 1354: 1351: 1333: 1325: 1319: 1315: 1307: 1301: 1299:consequences. 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1263: 1260: 1259: 1254: 1253:self-reverted 1250: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1222: 1220: 1204: 1196: 1190: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1181: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1171: 1170: 1160: 1149: 1141: 1135: 1132:, and cannot 1131: 1127: 1122: 1119: 1113: 1105: 1099: 1095: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1083: 1081: 1076: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1062: 1055: 1033: 1025: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 989: 981: 974: 970: 965: 964: 963: 959: 956: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 876: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 845: 837: 831: 825: 821: 817: 813: 809: 808: 807: 804: 802: 797: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 781: 778: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 753: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 717: 709: 703: 699: 695: 691: 684: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 661: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 644: 641: 639: 634: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 616: 612: 609: 602: 598: 597: 596: 595: 592: 584: 575: 570: 566: 565: 564: 563: 560: 544: 536: 529: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 515: 511: 508: 502: 499: 498: 497: 496: 493: 488: 482: 477: 473: 472: 469: 466: 464: 459: 443: 442: 441: 438: 434: 430: 426: 417: 409: 401: 389: 379: 359: 356: 349: 342: 340: 336: 334: 328: 324: 323: 322: 321: 318: 311: 308: 304: 303: 302: 301: 298: 297: 293: 279: 274: 269: 263: 262: 261: 260: 257: 252: 248: 243: 238: 237: 236: 235: 232: 228: 218: 211: 207: 206: 205: 204: 199: 196: 192: 191: 190: 189: 186: 183: 179: 175: 174: 173: 172: 169: 165: 151: 148: 144: 140: 139: 138: 137: 134: 131: 129: 127: 120: 119: 118: 117: 114: 112: 110: 104: 96: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3978: 3956: 3950: 3920: 3911: 3880: 3857: 3852: 3847: 3837: 3802: 3771: 3765: 3759: 3748: 3745: 3722:25 February 3712: 3701:25 February 3691: 3646:25 February 3636: 3603: 3587: 3582: 3578: 3567:24 February 3557: 3542: 3526:24 February 3516: 3511: 3496: 3466: 3451: 3440: 3434: 3428: 3418: 3405: 3399: 3382: 3366: 3348: 3336:this request 3314:Jitse Niesen 3302: 3278: 3275: 3264: 3244: 3234: 3223: 3210: 3204: 3200: 3199: 3168: 3162: 3156: 3152: 3151: 3137: 3094: 3085: 3047:Yeah, up at 3013: 2995: 2992: 2920: 2909: 2897:16 February 2887: 2881: 2868:14 February 2858: 2832: 2829: 2807: 2710:Jitse Niesen 2679:tooltips. — 2675: 2671: 2617: 2596: 2583: 2545: 2536: 2491:Jitse Niesen 2467: 2464: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2256: 2233: 2205: 2137: 2066: 2058: 1998:obtrusive.-- 1960: 1941: 1906: 1902: 1900: 1871: 1862: 1839: 1817: 1808: 1795:24 February 1785: 1780: 1763: 1745: 1742: 1740:verbosity.-- 1706: 1670: 1651: 1612: 1600: 1589: 1557: 1439: 1428: 1385: 1379:Unreferenced 1363: 1352: 1341: 1295:work undone. 1291: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1257: 1226:this version 1223: 1218: 1214: 1168: 1157: 1133: 1130:Village Pump 1125: 1120: 1097: 1070: 1061:Tony Sidaway 1058: 1018:Village Pump 1013: 952: 875:text figures 791: 774: 751: 698:Village Pump 693: 689: 683:WP:CONSENSUS 659: 628: 605: 600: 573: 572:, including 568: 559:24.254.87.52 556: 504: 453: 450:<sup: --> 448:code in the 410: 402: 390: 380: 377: 332: 314: 295: 289: 224: 216: 161: 125: 108: 100: 93: 65: 43: 37: 3949:This is an 3610:SMcCandlish 3588:incorrectly 3543:incorrectly 3055:SMcCandlish 2766:SMcCandlish 2683:SMcCandlish 2643:SMcCandlish 2627:8 February 2603:SMcCandlish 2564:SMcCandlish 2508:SMcCandlish 2424:SMcCandlish 2384:SMcCandlish 2356:SMcCandlish 2330:SMcCandlish 2293:SMcCandlish 2212:SMcCandlish 2202:WikiProject 2166:SMcCandlish 2083:SMcCandlish 2036:SMcCandlish 2011:SMcCandlish 1968:SMcCandlish 1924:SMcCandlish 1680:5 February 1661:5 February 1636:SMcCandlish 1622:5 February 1560:Scott Davis 1520:SMcCandlish 1495:SMcCandlish 1466:SMcCandlish 1324:SMcCandlish 1306:SMcCandlish 1195:SMcCandlish 1140:SMcCandlish 1104:SMcCandlish 1024:SMcCandlish 980:SMcCandlish 969:objectively 836:SMcCandlish 708:SMcCandlish 583:SMcCandlish 535:SMcCandlish 429:SMcCandlish 315:how about 176:Please see 36:This is an 3862:Farmbrough 3807:Farmbrough 3717:Farmbrough 3696:Farmbrough 3641:Farmbrough 3562:Farmbrough 3521:Farmbrough 3484:{{nobots}} 3458:Pragmatism 2892:Farmbrough 2863:Farmbrough 2622:Farmbrough 2537:(deindent) 1790:Farmbrough 1675:Farmbrough 1656:Farmbrough 1617:Farmbrough 1238:PMAnderson 1211:Formatting 973:subjective 694:Deprecated 662:bad style. 406:  227:misfeature 195:Carcharoth 3995:Archive 5 3990:Archive 4 3985:Archive 3 3979:Archive 2 3973:Archive 1 3499:Kevinkor2 3437:Kevinkor2 3367:Gimmetrow 3341:this edit 3303:Gimmetrow 3265:Gimmetrow 3251:Kevinkor2 3224:Gimmetrow 3201:Example 2 3185:Kevinkor2 3153:Example 1 3138:Gimmetrow 3125:Kevinkor2 3095:Gimmetrow 3086:right now 2906:vs. vs. 2746:Random832 2698:Melbourne 2589:Unsourced 2065:and even 1983:Random832 1944:Random832 1865:Omegatron 1851:Kevinkor2 1840:Gimmetrow 1830:Kevinkor2 1287:things... 1258:Gimmetrow 1249:this edit 1169:Gimmetrow 1159:this edit 657:Re: : --> 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3921:Thanks, 3867:1 March 3865:, 15:02 3836:Rich: I 3812:1 March 3810:, 15:25 3741:WP:PROXY 3720:, 21:57 3699:, 21:53 3644:, 21:56 3583:articles 3579:articles 3565:, 10:46 3524:, 00:23 3512:at least 3491:{{fact}} 3473:{{fact}} 3443:{{fact}} 3069:Picaroon 2895:, 09:49 2866:, 16:02 2651:contribs 2639:unsigned 2625:, 10:09 2478:Garion96 1903:citation 1883:CMummert 1793:, 00:28 1719:Garion96 1690:W3stfa11 1678:, 23:12 1659:, 17:24 1620:, 16:44 1570:Smackbot 1134:possibly 1079:Netscott 1048:Resolved 1010:trolling 800:Netscott 700:, don't 690:does not 671:WP:CIVIL 637:Netscott 528:verified 462:Netscott 437:contribs 425:unsigned 374:Resolved 251:contribs 3952:archive 3853:someone 3779:Kenosis 3746:snowolf 3626:Kenosis 3592:Kenosis 3572:(GMT). 3548:Kenosis 3531:(GMT). 3425:Kenosis 2993:snowolf 2985:specify 2944:Crossmr 2902:(GMT). 2844:Crossmr 2830:snowolf 2816:WP:CITE 2812:WP:CITE 2733:Crossmr 2731:them.-- 2632:(GMT). 2597:perfect 2465:snowolf 2456:sources 2444:Source? 2410:source? 2284:Dubious 2257:dispute 2050:Crossmr 2000:Crossmr 1818:Comment 1805:Tooltip 1781:however 1743:snowolf 1685:(GMT). 1666:(GMT). 1627:(GMT). 1054:WP:PUMP 955:Michael 777:Michael 702:yell at 667:WP:COOL 660:exactly 608:Michael 601:exactly 507:Michael 286:Shorten 267:Lantoka 168:Ligulem 39:archive 3872:(GMT). 3817:(GMT). 3727:(GMT). 3706:(GMT). 3651:(GMT). 3604:latest 3435:From: 3247:T10381 3212:Line 2 3206:Line 1 3170:Line 3 3164:Line 2 3158:Line 1 2933:weasel 2873:(GMT). 2785:Jkelly 2481:(talk) 2235:means. 2206:almost 2188:miketm 2140:miketm 2063:WP:BLP 1907:needed 1800:(GMT). 1722:(talk) 1272:nowrap 1178:Done. 1098:editor 877:(e.g. 816:tjstrf 752:exists 750:Blink 679:WP:NPA 675:WP:AGF 446:title= 317:Zunaid 307:tjstrf 147:Beland 126:Daduzi 109:Daduzi 3838:still 3790:etc.. 3760:ought 3454:Truth 3332:here, 2963:Itayb 2961:tag? 2923:Itayb 2542:Proto 2350:above 2178:Like 1767:Jdlh 1586:Jklin 1572:(aka 1425:Jklin 1390:EVula 1349:Jklin 883:12345 879:12345 733:text. 569:Loads 476:EVula 353:or . 16:< 3931:mail 3927:talk 3870:2007 3859:Rich 3815:2007 3804:Rich 3798:can. 3725:2007 3714:Rich 3704:2007 3693:Rich 3649:2007 3638:Rich 3570:2007 3559:Rich 3529:2007 3518:Rich 3482:Add 3429:Cc: 3419:To: 3392:fact 3362:here 3318:talk 3290:and 3208:. ] 3029:acan 2900:2007 2889:Rich 2882:See 2871:2007 2860:Rich 2728:WP:V 2714:talk 2663:Geni 2647:talk 2630:2007 2619:Rich 2495:talk 2414:kept 2400:Geni 2237:Geni 2123:InBC 2074:Fact 2067:that 1961:only 1888:talk 1828:. -- 1798:2007 1787:Rich 1771:Talk 1683:2007 1672:Rich 1664:2007 1653:Rich 1625:2007 1614:Rich 1583:Joe 1482:. ~ 1453:).~ 1422:Joe 1395:talk 1346:Joe 1276:span 1187:See 1038:Ugly 1020:. — 820:talk 481:talk 433:talk 416:Fact 391:New: 381:Old: 273:talk 247:Talk 242:Will 3881:get 3848:Aug 3475:to 3025:coe 2975:who 2939:it. 2439:it. 2418:now 2370:1ne 2264:Who 2247:1ne 1580:.~ 1413:AWB 1397:// 1393:// 1386:too 1292:all 1284:sup 1280:sup 1228:of 1164:--> 1126:not 1121:All 578:--> 574:all 483:// 479:// 327:dab 296:Boy 292:Roy 180:. 3933:) 3918:. 3889:62 3749:D4 3663:62 3615:Éc 3456:, 3449:. 3423:, 3403:. 3395:}} 3389:{{ 3320:) 3300:. 3298:}} 3292:{{ 3288:}} 3282:{{ 3214:. 3172:. 3166:. 3160:. 3040:— 3037:lk 2996:D4 2988:}} 2982:{{ 2978:}} 2972:{{ 2959:}} 2953:{{ 2833:D4 2804:}} 2798:{{ 2755:) 2716:) 2653:) 2649:• 2592:}} 2586:{{ 2546::: 2497:) 2468:D4 2459:}} 2453:{{ 2287:}} 2281:{{ 2279:, 2277:}} 2274:or 2271:{{ 2269:, 2267:}} 2261:{{ 2194:- 2190:- 2182:, 2146:- 2142:- 2077:}} 2071:{{ 2059:de 1988:UT 1949:UT 1885:· 1879:}} 1873:{{ 1849:-- 1769:| 1746:D4 1692:/ 1403:// 1382:}} 1376:{{ 1302:— 1232:. 1221:] 1050:– 958:Z. 780:Z. 681:, 677:, 673:, 669:, 611:Z. 510:Z. 489:// 439:). 435:• 419:}} 413:{{ 351:}} 345:{{ 249:- 122:-- 3963:. 3929:| 3925:( 3316:( 3060:ツ 3035:a 3033:t 3027:l 2818:. 2771:ツ 2753:c 2750:t 2748:( 2712:( 2688:ツ 2657:. 2645:( 2608:ツ 2569:ツ 2551:► 2513:ツ 2493:( 2429:ツ 2389:ツ 2361:ツ 2335:ツ 2318:( 2298:ツ 2217:ツ 2171:ツ 2088:ツ 2041:ツ 2016:ツ 1991:C 1973:ツ 1952:C 1929:ツ 1641:ツ 1601:) 1597:C 1594:T 1590:( 1525:ツ 1500:ツ 1471:ツ 1440:) 1436:C 1433:T 1429:( 1400:☯ 1364:) 1360:C 1357:T 1353:( 1329:ツ 1311:ツ 1216:[ 1200:ツ 1145:ツ 1109:ツ 1082:) 1074:→ 1071:( 1029:ツ 985:ツ 953:— 841:ツ 803:) 795:→ 792:( 775:— 713:ツ 640:) 632:→ 629:( 606:— 588:ツ 540:ツ 505:— 486:☯ 465:) 457:→ 454:( 431:( 335:) 333:ᛏ 331:( 275:) 271:( 253:) 245:( 50:.

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

Index