306:
45:
558:
1012:
the template out. Sometimes I go to the trouble of finding explicit references to these points, but I certainly won't feel bad about it if I don't. I have seen plenty of similar behavior from other editors, and I always feel a tiny bit of joy when these templates are eliminated, whether or not a reference was added. In cases where the claim seems controversial and hard to source, I'm as likely to just remove the whole sentence just to get rid of the ugly
517:
413:
395:
275:
673:
1077:– as I said, I remove these in places where I believe them to be inappropriate, but way the templates have been intentionally made to be eyesores to readers and editors often tilts the scale against them in marginal examples. All I'm saying is, people would use these in a different set of places if they were less annoying; the strong incentive is to avoid them wherever possible. –
475:
783:
sections have problems...calling out individual statements as well in such a case isn't the worst idea (especially if you feel there's statements that editors might try to defend as not requiring sourcing), but my view is that by calling out the article entire you've already called out any unsourced content within the article.
925:("2001-07" is the ambiguous example given in the table). Many discussions and an RFC have taken place about it over the years. Citation needed templates are only clutter in the sense that they draw attention to the need for something to be fixed. When a citation is provided, the template (clutter) can be removed. –
1454:
The article contains the phrase "Double quotation marks" that I assume means "quotation marks". Punctuation in US English is defined in a number of authoritative places. I argue that double quotation marks mean "", so placing double quotation marks around 'dog' would appear as ""dog"". In my opinion,
943:
is about the use of dates in the text of wiki articles (including tables, citations, etc.), and doesn't say anything about non-rendering template parameters as far as I can tell. I strongly agree with it that "2001-07" would be an unacceptable format for article text. You are certainly right that the
906:
I think I prefer the unambiguity of having the date spelled out to the potential ambiguity of just having it as numbers. Similarly, "citation needed" is plain
English, while readers may not know what "cn" means. However, I don't feel strongly about this; if other editors believe a numerical format is
680:
Under "when not to use" there is a link reading "list of inline templates" that goes nowhere when I click it. I spent many minutes looking for what I needed, and if this link had done what I expected, from its wording and context, I would have found my answers much more quickly. I assume some editors
1011:
If I come across examples with a template which don't seem solidly justified (e.g. a claim which widely known in the field, or is supported by a source provided by the end of the paragraph or sometimes in the general references, etc.), if I take any action at all I tend to err on the side of taking
782:
It can be, but it's not a requirement. When I'm reading an article that I think needs more citations, I'll tag individual statements if there's only a handful of them, use the template
Jonesey referenced above if only a section or two have multiple issues, and use More citations needed if multiple
1007:
Well for example, I personally try really hard not to add these templates even to somewhat questionable claims because I know how illegible they render both the markup and the output. I might remove the claim, start a talk page conversation, or take the (often significant) trouble to go look up a
612:
template does not display on the mobile version of
Knowledge. That list of inline templates is quite valuable when editing and, when it was "hard-coded" into the documentation, could be consulted easily. Any ideas how to get that navbox to appear regardless of one's device or wikiskin? Thanks! —
1179:– just because many editors are desensitized or indifferent to markup clutter doesn't mean it isn't an issue. Maybe this particular improvement is impossible, but trying to make the syntax more concise where we can is at least worth a shot, considering how many of these there are everywhere. –
879:
It would be great if all of the inline superscript templates worked this way! All of the other similar templates also cause significant amounts of visual clutter to markup source, and anything that could be done to improve that would be awesome. I don't really care about top-of-section or
1058:
to do. The whole point is to make it clear that we're less than certain than usual about the information that's been tagged. By removing them in cases where they're placed appropriately, you're leading readers to believe we have a level of faith in the material that may not be warranted.
893:
is the most common one and is found on a large proportion of
Knowledge articles, so fixing it would make the most significant improvement to Knowledge authors' lives. But if you think there's a better venue for this type of suggestion, I'd be happy to also propose it elsewhere.
1041:
would seem to be assuming bad faith of the editor who initially placed it? If you can determine who placed it you can reach out to them, or you can start a discussion at the article's Talk page; simply removing it seems to be devaluing the opinion of the editor who placed
1374:
Some people might find syntax-highlighted text easier to process. OTOH, as it is now we could easily change the Usage section back since it's no longer syntaxhighlighted (I just did so now). To have an auto-date with syntaxhighlight you'd have to use
1089:
Thank you for clarifying! You're the first editor who I've seen state that they find the CN tags so obtrusive that they make a point of avoiding using them. If other editors feel that way, they really need to lend their voices to this discussion.
356:, a collaborative effort to improve and manage Knowledge's inline footnote, cleanup and dispute templates. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
992:
That may be an incentive, but in practice I've rarely witnessed such a thing, even among bad-faith or apparently new editors. If you're trying to argue that as a reason for making this change, I'd like to see some recent examples.
1135:
Can you explain why this would be ambiguous? We are specifying a particular month (not a year, not a range of years, not a day). There's no other meaning 2001-02 could have than "February 2001" in that context.
833:
The way the template works currently, readers should be forgiven for thinking that the primary goal is to cause as much of an eyesore as possible to interrupt reading of both the text and the markup source.
814:
681:
are thrown off a track of intended edits at the point at which I persisted, so if there's a fix to be done, I hope someone with the ability will do so. The page is locked for editing for me.
1045:
If I saw you (or anyone) removing a CN tag that seemed justified to me, I would issue a warning to them, especially if they did so without leaving an edit summary explaining their decision.
1207:, you changed the examples in the Usage and Examples sections. They now unchangingly say "July 2024", instead of automatically displaying the current month. Was this intentional?
1403:
tags is taken literally, there is no expansion at all and the only parsing is carried out purely in order to determine which colour, font-style, font-weight etc. to use for each
1322:
meant losing the helpful auto-date. Presumably they thought that would be more helpful than harmful, which if enough people blindly copy-paste the example may not be true. Then
490:
266:
944:
extreme ugliness in both markup and rendered output is a very strong incentive for wiki editors to never use (and remove ASAP with or without providing citations) the
1051:
You're the first person I've seen claim that the CN tag is "disruptive". I'll be curious to see whether other editors come forward in agreement with that perspective.
841:
1460:
880:
top-of-article templates. Since those are not inserted in running text, they are much less of an impediment to reading even if they are unnecessarily verbose.
65:. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
1022:. If the template were less disruptive (in markup, or especially in rendered output), the incentives would be different and behavior might be different.
966:
Editors who remove CN tags without resolving the situation (unless a source isn't reasonably needed) are editing disruptively and should be told such.
684:
Specifically, I suggest that the link point to
Knowledge:WikiProject_Inline_Templates (and in particular to the List of Inline Templates subsection).
1534:
143:
1073:
Sorry, by "disruptive" here I mean "visually interrupt the flow of reading", not the
Knowledge jargon sense of "disrupt the work of the project".
1048:
Obviously if a CN tag has been in place for a significant amount of time, removing the unsourced information is a reasonable course of action.
736:
1025:
On net, I think these poke-a-stick-in-readers'-eyes templates are moderately harmful for
Knowledge as a project and for its readers. YMMV. –
1524:
429:
360:
202:
718:
178:
1437:
1433:
1419:
1365:
1216:
566:
1204:
700:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
1386:
1369:
1347:
626:
106:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
819:
And also, could the date be used as an ordered first parameter in addition to being explicitly specified using the name "date"?
437:
1529:
1455:
this practice began with
English-deficient programmers who didn't know the correct names of 'apostrophe' and 'quotation mark'.
433:
352:
337:
775:
761:
659:
1509:
1220:
742:
I do, especially for specific claims in biographical articles. If a small section contains no references, I usually just put
586:
184:
806:
792:
712:
1143:
1130:
961:
901:
874:
274:
1099:
1084:
1068:
1032:
1002:
987:
975:
934:
916:
1186:
1171:
1008:
source, but if I'm feeling lazy I'll just leave the questionable claim alone, figuring it can be someone else's problem.
1235:
798:
767:
728:
93:
17:
420:
400:
1464:
87:
101:
693:
597:
577:
724:
124:
1429:
1361:
1212:
746:
173:
62:
607:
598:
317:
75:
73:}} to notify an administrator to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
1353:
164:
56:
855:
197:
643:, this is a controversial design feature that goes back years and apparently we're stuck with it. See
481:
1425:
1393:
1357:
1208:
1016:
948:
525:
128:
50:
1337:
703:, but the in-page section link was left behind. I have adjusted the link. Thanks for the note. –
70:
802:
771:
732:
620:
323:
689:
103:
8:
1505:
1415:
1194:
1183:
1140:
1126:
1081:
1029:
984:
980:
You can tell people whatever you like. I'm just telling you what incentive was created. –
958:
930:
898:
870:
838:
757:
708:
655:
154:
66:
1118:
Whilst "2001-07" might not be ambiguous, "2001-02" and "2006-07" certainly would be. --
169:
1449:
1095:
1064:
998:
971:
912:
788:
634:
615:
583:
539:
150:
289:
1472:
1456:
1383:
1344:
1167:
665:
644:
109:
858:
that operate in the way that you suggest, and if there are none, please show why
685:
640:
104:
1498:
1408:
1404:
1180:
1137:
1119:
1078:
1026:
981:
955:
926:
895:
863:
849:
835:
753:
704:
648:
535:
285:
1518:
723:
Should this template be used in articles or sections already marked with the
572:
80:
1330:
1091:
1060:
994:
967:
908:
784:
425:
428:
of
Knowledge articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the
1380:
1341:
1323:
1163:
1159:
1158:
It seems you have a personal issue with things that aren't an issue. Per
940:
922:
887:
290:
557:
639:
It's not specific to Inline cleanup tags, it's because it's a navbox.
1227:
1200:
496:
nomination withdrawn on procedural technicality (and discussion was
815:
Could a numerical YYYY-MM date format be allowed as an alternative?
287:
111:
1162:
and making life clearer for other editors, I oppose this request.
516:
1037:
To remove the template because it doesn't seem solidly justified
828:
Questionable factual claim.{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}}
412:
394:
291:
1486:
1489:
34 decimal, 22 hex. Contrast ASCII 39 dec, 27 hex, which is
1478:
474:
1379:(and some sort of inline escaping) like what I said above.
1238:, which since they used the tag instead of something like
826:
is dramatically less visual clutter in markup source than
108:
102:
1352:
Is there an advantage to using syntaxhighlight tags over
1054:
Poking the reader in the eye is what these templates are
1490:
1356:? Is it possible to include an auto-date in the tags?
91:. Functionality of the template can be checked using
921:
That date format is ambiguous and is not allowed by
119:
359:Some discussion of this template may take place at
862:one should be different from all of the others. --
570:by a notable professional or academic publication:
1516:
1497:, the apostrophe or single quotation mark. --
1340:, with no explanation beyond "some cleanup".
939:Can you explain what is ambiguous about it?
1230:decided to change all the examples to use
824:Questionable factual claim.{{cn|2024-02}}
316:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
1075:cases where they're placed appropriately
424:, a collaborative effort to improve the
85:Any contributor may edit the template's
1535:Knowledge pages referenced by the press
719:Use with Template:More citations needed
63:heavily used or highly visible template
14:
1517:
907:a net improvement, I won't push back.
370:Knowledge:WikiProject Inline Templates
536:"Artifact: The World Needs Citations"
373:Template:WikiProject Inline Templates
350:This template is within the scope of
305:
303:
552:
511:
469:
299:
39:
26:
322:It is of interest to the following
127:for discussing improvements to the
24:
1525:WikiProject Inline Templates pages
1326:changed just the Usage section to
485:
480:This template was considered for
25:
1546:
526:mentioned by a media organization
446:Knowledge:WikiProject Reliability
883:I'm bringing it up here because
671:
641:Navboxes don't display on mobile
556:
515:
473:
449:Template:WikiProject Reliability
411:
393:
304:
273:
144:Click here to start a new topic.
43:
582:(N.Y.: Viking, hardback 2011 (
578:The Better Angels of Our Nature
854:Please give examples of other
725:Template:More citations needed
713:17:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
694:16:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
13:
1:
1530:WikiProject Reliability pages
1477:Double quotation marks means
141:Put new text under old text.
1401:...</syntaxhighlight: -->
807:15:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
793:14:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
776:15:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
762:00:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
737:22:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
599:Template:Inline cleanup tags
353:WikiProject Inline Templates
7:
1510:20:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1465:20:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1354:Template:Template link null
580:: Why Violence has Declined
534:Kerry Howley (March 2008).
149:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
1551:
1438:19:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
1420:18:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
1387:18:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
1370:18:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
1348:18:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
1221:17:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
669:
1239:
1187:07:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1172:06:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1144:07:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1131:07:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1100:14:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1085:14:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1069:14:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1033:03:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1003:01:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
988:22:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
976:20:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
962:19:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
935:14:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
917:13:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
902:09:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
875:08:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
842:02:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
432:, where you can join the
418:This template is part of
406:
376:Inline Templates articles
343:
330:
179:Be welcoming to newcomers
33:Skip to table of contents
1400:<syntaxhighlight: -->
1232:<syntaxhighlight: -->
51:Template:Citation needed
32:
1338:Special:Diff/1237750529
1259:{{citation needed|date=
660:23:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
627:22:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
421:WikiProject Reliability
361:the project's talk page
174:avoid personal attacks
79:to add usage notes or
267:Auto-archiving period
1236:this series of edits
752:at the top of it. –
747:unreferenced section
604:For some reason the
488:. The result of the
452:Reliability articles
69:, editors may use {{
1426:Firefangledfeathers
1394:Firefangledfeathers
1358:Firefangledfeathers
1209:Firefangledfeathers
701:section was removed
608:Inline cleanup tags
563:This page has been
524:This page has been
363:, rather than here.
438:list of open tasks
318:content assessment
185:dispute resolution
146:
18:Template talk:Fact
856:cleanup templates
593:
592:
587:978-0-670-02295-3
551:
550:
510:
509:
468:
467:
464:
463:
460:
459:
388:
387:
384:
383:
298:
297:
165:Assume good faith
142:
118:
117:
38:
37:
16:(Redirected from
1542:
1501:
1494:
1482:
1476:
1411:
1402:
1398:Anything inside
1397:
1378:
1335:
1329:
1321:
1320:
1317:
1314:
1311:
1307:
1304:
1301:
1297:
1294:
1290:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1278:
1275:
1272:
1271:CURRENTMONTHNAME
1269:
1265:
1262:
1258:
1255:
1252:
1248:
1245:
1242:
1233:
1195:Date in examples
1122:
1021:
1015:
953:
947:
892:
886:
866:
853:
829:
825:
751:
745:
675:
674:
651:
638:
625:
623:
618:
611:
560:
553:
543:
519:
512:
487:
477:
470:
454:
453:
450:
447:
444:
415:
408:
407:
397:
390:
389:
378:
377:
374:
371:
368:
367:Inline Templates
345:
344:
338:Inline Templates
332:
331:
309:
308:
307:
300:
292:
278:
277:
268:
120:
112:
61:because it is a
47:
46:
40:
27:
21:
1550:
1549:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1515:
1514:
1499:
1492:
1480:
1470:
1452:
1409:
1399:
1391:
1376:
1333:
1327:
1318:
1315:
1312:
1309:
1305:
1302:
1298:
1295:
1292:
1288:
1285:
1282:
1279:
1276:
1273:
1270:
1266:
1263:
1260:
1256:
1253:
1250:
1249:syntaxhighlight
1246:
1243:
1240:
1231:
1197:
1177:aren't an issue
1120:
1019:
1017:Citation needed
1013:
951:
949:citation needed
945:
890:
884:
864:
847:
827:
823:
822:Something like
817:
749:
743:
721:
678:
677:
672:
668:
649:
632:
621:
616:
614:
605:
602:
547:
546:
540:Reason Magazine
533:
529:
451:
448:
445:
442:
441:
375:
372:
369:
366:
365:
294:
293:
288:
265:
191:
190:
160:
129:Citation needed
114:
113:
107:
44:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1548:
1538:
1537:
1532:
1527:
1513:
1512:
1451:
1450:Quotation Mark
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1389:
1196:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1052:
1049:
1046:
1043:
1023:
1009:
881:
816:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
780:
779:
778:
720:
717:
716:
715:
670:
667:
664:
663:
662:
601:
596:
591:
590:
573:Pinker, Steven
571:
561:
549:
548:
545:
544:
530:
523:
522:
520:
508:
507:
498:overwhelmingly
478:
466:
465:
462:
461:
458:
457:
455:
416:
404:
403:
398:
386:
385:
382:
381:
379:
357:
348:
341:
340:
335:
328:
327:
321:
310:
296:
295:
286:
284:
283:
280:
279:
193:
192:
189:
188:
181:
176:
167:
161:
159:
158:
147:
138:
137:
134:
133:
132:
116:
115:
110:
105:
100:
99:
71:edit protected
48:
36:
35:
30:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1547:
1536:
1533:
1531:
1528:
1526:
1523:
1522:
1520:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1496:
1488:
1484:
1474:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1406:
1395:
1390:
1388:
1385:
1382:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1346:
1343:
1339:
1332:
1325:
1237:
1229:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1188:
1185:
1182:
1178:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1145:
1142:
1139:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1117:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1057:
1053:
1050:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1031:
1028:
1024:
1018:
1010:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1000:
996:
991:
990:
989:
986:
983:
979:
978:
977:
973:
969:
965:
964:
963:
960:
957:
950:
942:
938:
937:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
919:
918:
914:
910:
905:
904:
903:
900:
897:
889:
882:
878:
877:
876:
872:
868:
861:
857:
851:
846:
845:
844:
843:
840:
837:
831:
820:
808:
804:
800:
796:
795:
794:
790:
786:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
764:
763:
759:
755:
748:
741:
740:
739:
738:
734:
730:
726:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
697:
696:
695:
691:
687:
682:
666:Link problem?
661:
657:
653:
646:
642:
636:
631:
630:
629:
628:
624:
619:
609:
600:
595:
588:
585:
581:
579:
574:
569:
568:
562:
559:
555:
554:
541:
537:
532:
531:
527:
521:
518:
514:
513:
505:
503:
499:
493:
492:
483:
479:
476:
472:
471:
456:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
422:
417:
414:
410:
409:
405:
402:
399:
396:
392:
391:
380:
364:
362:
355:
354:
349:
347:
346:
342:
339:
336:
334:
333:
329:
325:
319:
315:
311:
302:
301:
282:
281:
276:
272:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
199:
195:
194:
186:
182:
180:
177:
175:
171:
168:
166:
163:
162:
156:
152:
151:Learn to edit
148:
145:
140:
139:
136:
135:
130:
126:
122:
121:
98:
96:
95:
90:
89:
82:
78:
77:
76:documentation
72:
68:
64:
60:
58:
52:
49:
42:
41:
34:
31:
29:
28:
19:
1453:
1198:
1176:
1074:
1055:
1038:
859:
832:
821:
818:
799:83.168.137.1
768:83.168.137.1
729:83.168.137.1
722:
683:
679:
645:phab:T124168
635:SpikeToronto
603:
594:
576:
564:
501:
500:in favor of
497:
495:
489:
430:project page
419:
358:
351:
324:WikiProjects
313:
270:
196:
123:This is the
92:
86:
84:
74:
59:from editing
55:permanently
54:
1473:Gggustafson
1457:Gggustafson
1280:CURRENTYEAR
1226:Looks like
1160:MOS:DATESNO
954:template. –
941:MOS:DATESNO
923:MOS:DATESNO
565:cited as a
486:2006 July 1
443:Reliability
426:reliability
401:Reliability
1519:Categories
686:Al Begamut
589:)), p. 113
491:discussion
436:and see a
434:discussion
94:test cases
81:categories
1495:character
1483:character
1205:this edit
1181:jacobolus
1138:jacobolus
1079:jacobolus
1027:jacobolus
982:jacobolus
956:jacobolus
927:Jonesey95
896:jacobolus
850:Jacobolus
836:jacobolus
754:Jonesey95
705:Jonesey95
187:if needed
170:Be polite
131:template.
125:talk page
67:consensus
57:protected
1434:contribs
1424:Thanks.
1366:contribs
1308:wikitext
1217:contribs
1056:supposed
676:Resolved
482:deletion
314:template
198:Archives
155:get help
1092:DonIago
1061:DonIago
995:DonIago
968:DonIago
909:DonIago
797:thanks
785:DonIago
766:thanks
622:Toronto
271:60 days
88:sandbox
1502:rose64
1412:rose64
1381:Anomie
1342:Anomie
1324:Gonnym
1313:inline
1296:nowiki
1286:nowiki
1283:}}<
1264:nowiki
1254:nowiki
1164:Gonnym
1123:rose64
1039:to you
867:rose64
652:rose64
567:source
320:scale.
1487:ASCII
1485:, or
1405:token
1299:: -->
1293:</
1289:: -->
1267:: -->
1261:</
1257:: -->
1251:|<
1203:. In
699:That
617:Spike
494:was "
312:This
203:Index
183:Seek
1506:talk
1504:🌹 (
1491:the
1479:the
1461:talk
1430:talk
1416:talk
1414:🌹 (
1407:. --
1377:#tag
1362:talk
1303:lang
1244:#tag
1228:JPxG
1213:talk
1201:JPxG
1199:Hey
1168:talk
1127:talk
1125:🌹 (
1096:talk
1065:talk
999:talk
972:talk
931:talk
913:talk
871:talk
869:🌹 (
860:this
803:talk
789:talk
772:talk
758:talk
733:talk
709:talk
690:talk
656:talk
654:🌹 (
647:. --
584:ISBN
502:keep
172:and
1500:Red
1410:Red
1336:in
1331:tlx
1234:in
1184:(t)
1141:(t)
1121:Red
1082:(t)
1042:it.
1030:(t)
985:(t)
959:(t)
899:(t)
865:Red
839:(t)
650:Red
484:on
53:is
1521::
1508:)
1463:)
1436:)
1432:/
1418:)
1368:)
1364:/
1334:}}
1328:{{
1319:}}
1291:}}
1277:{{
1274:}}
1268:{{
1241:{{
1219:)
1215:/
1170:)
1129:)
1098:)
1067:)
1020:}}
1014:{{
1001:)
974:)
952:}}
946:{{
933:)
915:)
891:}}
888:cn
885:{{
873:)
830:.
805:)
791:)
774:)
760:)
750:}}
744:{{
735:)
727:?
711:)
692:)
658:)
610:}}
606:{{
575:,
538:.
506:".
269::
263:15
261:,
259:14
257:,
255:13
253:,
251:12
249:,
247:11
245:,
243:10
241:,
237:,
233:,
229:,
225:,
221:,
217:,
213:,
209:,
205:,
153:;
97:.
83:.
1493:'
1481:"
1475::
1471:@
1459:(
1428:(
1396::
1392:@
1384:⚔
1360:(
1345:⚔
1316:=
1310:|
1306:=
1300:|
1247::
1211:(
1166:(
1136:–
1094:(
1063:(
997:(
970:(
929:(
911:(
894:–
852::
848:@
834:–
801:(
787:(
770:(
756:(
731:(
707:(
688:(
637::
633:@
542:.
528::
504:)
440:.
326::
239:9
235:8
231:7
227:6
223:5
219:4
215:3
211:2
207:1
200::
157:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.