1947:- Third - I also have to agree with jacobolus with the notion of objections to things in this list (and actions by bots) being largely ignored. I have spent time going through some of the archived discussions - and have barely broken the ice. The number of unique objections and repeating patterns of a lot of those discussions by unique users very clearly demonstrates that at the very least the content of this list for expansion leaves a hell of a lot to be desired. But it gets categorically dismissed by the same handful of people and then archived before any additional discussion can be had on it - only to be started yet again later on by someone else as the previous person had given up their quest. So seems the way with so many obvious Bad Things (tm) on WP - and that's not what "wiki norms" should ever be. I wont go so far as jacobolus in claiming a power trip (that's one I reserve for bad administrators) - but I will say agree with the dismissiveness & ignoring of things brought up here. Stefen's outright rejection of jacobolus' very well researched and stated position under the guise of "bullying" is not only way out of line & completely incorrect - but also exemplifies the dismissive nature against things brought up in counter, here. That's not very cool at all - and is in no way does service to the WP project as a whole.
640:. Discussion with the bot's owner lead me here - and frankly I am a bit shocked to see both the project and some of the content of the list. I have read through this discussion as well as the archived ones mentioned earlier and find the entire premise of it for what are extremely common shorthand tags to be almost nonsensical. Many of these abbreviated templates and tags are in very common use and are not at all a detriment to the project. It makes editors who use them more efficient, educates editors those users who do not, reduces overall character count (which in turn has a compounding effect of reducing what I call tag-fat / tag-bloat by up to 70% across the entire WP project), reduces visual wikicode clutter while reviewing & editing and has been shown to reduce error count while editing. While I could see some benefit by changing some of the more obscure or lesser used abbreviations to lean more towards clarity vs. ambiguity - I do not for things that are far more common like citation needed and better source - among the myriad of other common ones.
884:
efficiency's sake and keeping codesets small and lightweight. Or did you actually put every sub inline with the rest of the code? I think we both know the answer - and for the same reasons you didn't, that same logic applies here - both on the front end for the experienced editor, and for the backend. Streamlining that by the order of magnitude it is present on WP is absolutely an issue. We are talking hundreds of thousands of instances. Sure - maybe you need to look up something once - but it isn't so hard to right-click it to a new tab, or even to hover over it and wait for the target preview to pop up. The latter is even a feature that was implemented at WP not that long ago.
1996:
sections but still largely just interact as readers. The majority of the rest after those get involved in writing articles and care about them, and are annoyed by the steady churn of drive-by grammatical disimprovements and factual inaccuracies added by other editors and unnecessary format twiddling/mangling by bots and scripts but don't have the energy to do anything about it. Etc. Then if you keep going eventually you get to the rarefied few maintainers of this page who think they should unilaterally personally decide how every page's templates should be spelled, and aren't really interested in outside feedback. –
2936:(of which the proposer only listed ~1/3), which present a challenge to novice editors. I remember seeing many different versions used on different pages, sometimes even many different versions on the same page, and naively thinking they did different things. Being confused, and a bit lazy, I decided against placing & modifying them at the time. If there had been fewer variations, it would have been more intuitive. This isn't to say that those however-many #Rs shouldn't exist; they speed up editing for those familiar with them, and should be used freely. However, once someone has edited, they need to relinquish
3269:, and for those reasons, we should use that name in articles. It's also confusing to have multiple names for the same template. If shortcuts are easier to type, there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from using them, and it does not affect those users in any way if those shortcuts are later replaced. These template redirect replacements should only occur alongside other meaningful changes (or if needed following a discussion/move/etc) – they're not intended to be done for the sake of it by bots.
32:
2818:- among a literal endless string of others. No editor or even casual reader of WP (sorry - Knowledge) knows what "MOS" was the first time or even first few times they saw it. But - the opportunities for brevity and learning presented themselves and those quickly became commonplace and globally understood across the project. The same can be said for functional tags as well such as
586:
people with automated tools doing mindless edits without any direct intention, based on some list made by someone else, without any wide-scale consensus. Template naming is hard (cf. the joke "There are only two hard things in
Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things.") but in many cases the use of shortcut name makes the page
1805:– Nearly every item added to this list was someone "deciding for ", without any broader consensus, that a name change should be enforced site-wide. Adding things to this list is much more potentially damaging than removing items from this list. But nobody is knee-jerk preventing new items from being added pending separate discussions. –
1529:
name changes, mucking about with whitespace, converting curly quotes to straight quotes or hyphens to dashes, etc. There's just not enough time in the day even though many of these edits are useless or even (mildly) harmful. Of editors who do, most don't know what the AWB script is, or that it pulls its template normalization list from
1023:
it may not be "that hard" to look up a template, I would prefer to not do that very much, and especially would rather newbie editors not get frustrated with this. Again, if "streamlining" was an "issue", the techs who run the wiki sites would have brought that up well over a decade ago. It is not a significant technical issue, trust.
563:
3092:
more confusing things on/about WP to newcomers than markup abbreviations - and new users (not even editors) eventually learn those too. For the thought to be that new editors presumably already know about HTML markups is flatly unrealistic - especially considering that there have been GUI based html
2837:
If employed in a sensible manner & standard they are easily understood - or understanding can be easily attained, it can be very beneficial. It makes editors who use them more efficient, educates editors and those users who do not, reduces overall character count (which in turn has a ridiculously
2801:
It would be easy to go on a tangent with a lengthy list of other examples - but per the discussion above - we need to start with one thing to illustrate a solid foundation in order to move this effort forward. I will just wrap by saying WP (sorry - Knowledge) as a whole has a foundation of utilizing
716:
broadly applied. Even on the specific ones we would need consensus now, and it is going to burn a LOT of cycles for a lot of people in order to reach said consensus if we are going to do this onsey-twosey. The scrutiny should probably have been done up front if that was the application being used -
585:
If you are reading the source of a specific page and come across a template shortcut name that seems inordinately obscure whose meaning you can't figure out, feel free to change it manually; if other editors object, you can hash it out on the specific talk page. That's not the problem. The problem is
1022:
It is not "verbosity" that I prefer. We typically don't allow over-long template names. "Citation needed" is not "verbose" but rather is bare-bones-descriptive. Also, we aren't coding for other software developers but rather for basically folks off the streets. I am for clarity, not verbosity. While
2970:
New editor friendliness or confusion is very weak reasoning. New editors don't need to use it as the expanded form is still available - but they can easily learn what it means and how it is applied by hovering over it or following the link. By your argument - WP (sorry - Knowledge) should toss out
2736:
is far too long and does contain some that are obscure or otherwise not necessarily clear - there are a few which are easily understood, are very common in use and are also long-standing on WP (sorry - Knowledge) which also make a lot of sense based on both the explanation above, and the first-hand
1750:
be how this list works, whether or not it does precisely today. From what I can tell, the purpose/justification of this list is to normalize template names to reduce the number of trivial variants so we can help readers become familiar with common names and make markup more legible. To that end, we
1533:
which they can edit to remove an annoyance, or that there is a place to complain/discuss here at
Knowledge talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. If you want to test in the opposite direction, feel free to leave the circa entry as I've changed it, instead of knee-jerk reverting, wait a few years,
1528:
It furthermore says (2) "a lack of response to an edit does not necessarily imply community consent. Knowledge is huge and our editors' time is limited." To elaborate with respect to template name conversions: Few editors pay any attention at all to bot-like minor edits doing miscellaneous template
1100:
We are not requiring nor do we want to require anyone type out the whole template name. If they want to type "cn" for expediency, that's quite all right. I even use template abbreviations in some cases. But it also does no harm to expand these to their full name when doing another substantial edit,
1057:
I think that is a highly subjective and likely inaccurate statement. And just because you don't know what it means doesn't mean that you should ignore the opportunity to learn it. "cn" is commonplace now and is likely used by far more than it isn't. Do you mean to tell me that you also prefer to
883:
Ah - but you are not a "regular user" - nor am I. I will say that among code developers you are likely in the minority for preferring verbosity in . Most every other coder I have worked with has preferred short-word subs (sorry - substitutions) and used abbreviated calls to subroutines - again for
808:
As a former software developer and 20-year editor, I support having
English-readable template names for editors' sake, especially new editors. I am for self-explaining code that doesn't require an editor to look something up before understanding what the template is doing. At the same time, I don't
239:
When two templates are merged together or a redirect happens to be a common typo, automatically replacing the name with a standardized variant is still in my opinion somewhat pointless but not really a huge bother. Likewise for templates that are only used sparingly or alone on a line, e.g. at the
2665:
To make "wikitext as clear as possible" what we want to do is pull as much extraneous visual clutter out of the text as possible. Ideally even, the citation needed template parameters (and parameters for other templates appearing in running prose) could also be made more concise. But let's imagine
1922:
administratively reverted or removed at or soon after the time of their creations - even by those who monitor and patrol such new creations. The fact taht 1, 2 or even a handful of people dispute it does not make sufficient ground for reversal, either - especially if you feel that silence is to be
2940:
of that content, for the good of the project, whichever form that may take. Should a bot regularly convert all #Rs to their canonical form? No. Should editors be allowed to convert #Rs semi-automatically as they perform substantive edits? Yes, I think that is beneficial, especially for an example
809:
think these should be expanded unless the AWB or otherwise editor is also making a reader-viewable improvement. I believe this is the rule of the road anyway. As for "tag bloat", that is a technical non-issue, or at least something regular users of the site are not supposed to be concerned about.
427:
As a general guideline, I propose that shortcuts officially listed on a template documentation page's list of shortcuts (at top right of the page) should generally not ever appear in the automatic replacement list on this page, and as a general rule, "unofficial" shortcut names for templates that
152:
First and foremost, these edits are (at least mildly) disruptive, creating needless churn that clutters up watchlists and is annoying to skim over in diffs. Unlike other kinds of bot edits (say those replacing hyphens with en dashes or curly quotation marks with straight ones) there is no visible
2683:
Another sourced statement, about the ''Illiad''{{Apostrophe}}s poetry {{En dash}} not sure about this one.{{Shortened footnote|Sanchez|2010}}{{Full citation needed|date=March 2020}} Questionable statement.{{Citation needed |date=February 2023}} Something about {{Foreign language text|grc|οἶκος}}
2634:
There are several other templates that would benefit from the same type of treatment, and indeed such a reform would even allow some additional templates to be added to this list, where the various shortcuts were removed from (or weren't added) this list because changing convenient and preferred
1754:
To that end, I think we should be (1) standardizing misspellings, minor variants, templates that were merged together, etc. to whatever the most legible name is, and (2) standardizing obscure and uncommon shortcut names to the most common shortcut name. But there's no particular reason that each
643:
Quite frankly - I am amazed this initiative exists, and even more amazed (and borderline appalled) that this issue has not yet reached consensus. What's next - killing functional wikicode abbreviations like REF and BR tags to their expanded forms? Let's be serious here - and smart about this.
2302:
This applies especially to any template intended for use in the middle of running prose, where the visual clutter of long template names causes a significant interruption to reading/writing. Whether shortcut names are used for templates placed at the top of an article or section makes much less
1205:
I agree with you. Some of these templates can't be sufficiently described by a name and thus may require a lookup. But I think in the general case, the name can well be a sufficient reminder to the editor as to what it does. Also, to repeat myself, I'm not against an editor using a shortcut for
131:
I don't think this is practical, as the page is read and decoded by the AWB software itself (using LoadTemplateRedirects in
Templates.cs). A change to the format would have to be coordinated with an update to the software, and both the page format change and the software update would have to be
1663:
Enough with the wikilawyering. The point is that if something is longstanding and not disputed for a long time, simply removing it appears to go against a natural consensus. This list is for expansion to full template names. Your suggestion for the initial change didn't fall into that use. The
1995:
The vast majority never even try to edit
Knowledge articles. The majority of the rest look and get confused or make some simple edit that gets reverted and never come back. The majority of the rest after those only make minor edits. The majority of the rest after those write a few articles or
1664:
removal, though, amounts to you deciding by yourself that we don't need it. The removal borders on a kind of disruptive editing where you are putting a burden on other editors to go through a process to restore what was already there for a very long time. That's not how this ordinarily works.
2670:
Sourced statement, seems pretty reliable.{{r|smith}} Another sourced statement, about the ''Illiad''{{'}}s poetry – not sure about this one.{{sfn|Sanchez|2010}}{{fcn|2020-03}} Questionable statement.{{cn|2023-02}} Something about {{lang|grc|οἶκος}} ({{tlit|grc|oíkos}}, {{lit|house}}), ]
3065:
The point is that abbreviations are hard to understand for newcomers, and that is not "weak reasoning". Whether or not html mark-up is also hard to understand is irrelevant to this page. One thing being confusing is not a reason to make everything deliberately confusing. And anyway,
1524:
What it says is (1) "Consensus can be presumed until disagreement becomes evident." But actually there has been repeated disagreement about bot-like mass template auto-normalization. That such disagreements were dismissed and swept under the rug doesn't make the result a "consensus"
2635:
shortcut names to long unwieldy canonical names site-wide would be disruptive, but where there is an unhelpful variety of shortcuts in current use that might benefit from being normalized to a single concise shortcut that would be easier for editors to learn and remember. –
3023:
I've already addressed that above, at the previous mention. In addition to my previous reply - it is also in regards to article & discussion text - not markups, tags and templates. If this effort is going to start targeting that - then the first candidates are
1667:
As for your reasoning for removal, it is something to consider but you could have started a discussion section about that, per the usual process. It seems to me that you have been a
Wikipedian long enough to realize that discussion of a likely controversial change
1704:
changes to articles. It does no harm at all to leave items off the list while they are under discussion, because if they are added again in the future some bot-like editor will be enforcing them. By contrast, leaving controversial items on this list results in a
108:
I'm removing the note as it's more appropriate to discuss here. Should we rearrange the rules? It would make the page easier to read and alphabetise if all the templates were aligned on the left-hand side. Would it be possible to get a bot or script to do this?
1755:
template has to be normalized to only a single name, or that the name we normalize to has to be the "main" title of the template rather than a redirect. For example, it would reduce a lot of people's unhappiness with this script if we split the list here for
782:
I get this position, but I maintain we need to stay as friendly to new editors as we reasonably can. I don't mind an editor typing in "cn" for expediency, but if a later (proper) fix expands it later, that's just making it clearer for the newer editors.
424:: drive-by bot-like editors coming to cosmetically twiddle the source based on some arbitrary personal preference of whoever happened to write this list without any interest in the substantive content of the articles or any practical benefit to readers.
1699:
doing controversial and disruptive bot-like edits, so it seems "natural" to me to remove controversial items from this list pending explicit consensus. Changes to this list are not changes to articles per se; instead, removal of items from this list
767:
accounts for a full 100k of those uses. The more useful a redirect is, the more it will be used. I would say if the use ratio for a template is more than about 10%, it should probably stay as a redirect on articles and not be included on this list.
147:
3130:
Lastly, just because you don't know what it means doesn't mean that you should ignore the opportunity to learn it. "cn" is commonplace now and is likely used by far more than it isn't. Do you mean to tell me that you also prefer to type out
2276:
1489:
I'm not a "maintainer" of this list ordinarily. I'm just making sure someone with an itch to scratch isn't simply making a whim deletion as you just did. You should revert this longstanding entry back - remember, there can be consensus from
2682:{{cite book |last=Smith |first=John |year=2000 |title=Factual Statements |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=New York |page=125 |isbn=123-456-789-0 |url=https://archive.org/details/factualstmntssmith2000xyz/page/125/}}</ref: -->
1765:
into two parts, normalizing all of the shortcut names (Facts, Me-fact, CB, Sourceme, Cb, FACT, Proveit, CN, Refnec, Source?, Fact, Refplease, Needcite, Needsref, Ref?, Prove it, Ctn, Cit, Fact?, Need-ref, Citn, Needs-cite) to the name
3249:– I forgot to reply to you last year, but here is my two cents on the whole issue. There is growing consensus that template names use plain English so as to be easily understood by everyone, especially new users. Shortcuts like
1650:
is not really any more reader friendly than the standard abbreviation "c.", but any time anyone writes c. into an article a wannabe bot comes and changes it to a template, so I'm resigned to at least needing the curly braces.
2802:
abbreviations where it makes sense - and it is demonstrated at multiple levels throughout. It is even reflected in policies & guidelines as well as top-level resource navigation within the project. Cases in point include
2838:
compounding effect of reducing what I call tag-fat / tag-bloat by up to 70% across the entire WP project), reduces visual wikicode clutter while reviewing & editing and has been shown to reduce error count while editing.
1944:. I even remember that being taught way back in elementary school and later on even in writing classes. If there ever was a based standard for an abbreviation to stand on in the context of this discussion - c. is the one.
1192:
Even templates with a long verbose name aren't immediately obvious and must be explicitly looked up to understand their parameters and behavior. I don't think the use of shortcut names makes an inordinate difference here.
2060:
I do understand there is ambiguity between the words 'transliteration' and 'translation' here, but it seems that ambiguity is largely dispelled by seeing...whether the word is translated or not! Otherwise, that extra
3103:
isn't html. So for that to be OK under that all that guise just doesn't hold water. If the understanding of HTML is irrelevant then there wouldn't be the page and statement that you linked to. Can't have it both
1751:
should be picking the name which seems most useful/legible in each context, and not automatically settling on a single one in any cases where multiple names might be plausibly better in one or another circumstance.
2284:
The name chosen as the change target for each template name written in article markup should be based on whichever name is most legible for a given context while reasonably matching wiki authors' intentions. This
590:
rather than less, because it results in less visual clutter. The "TPN" guideline should be taken as a general rule for infrequently used templates, but is not ideal for those scattered liberally in running prose.
2642:
1720:
I don't see much evidence that this happens in practice. Instead, items are just added at editors' whim. For example the change of "ca" and "ca." to "circa" was added as part of a huge addition to this list in
668:
3072:
most HTML can be included by using equivalent wiki markup or templates; these are generally preferred within articles, as they are sometimes simpler for most editors and less intrusive in the editing window
1691:
There is no "usual process" as far as I can tell. Nor is this general script "longstanding and not disputed". Indeed, every discussion about this in the past has had reasonable complaints that were largely
346:
Thankfully some of the common useful shortcuts aren't butchered up by this page and whatever bots or bot-mimicking humans use it for reference. For instance it would be hugely disruptive to try to replace
2225:
Anything shorter than 'transl' would not, um, translate for typical editors IMHO. How about if we use 'translit' for the purposes of this expansion list, even though it's not the typical full expansion?
2289:
be the canonical title of a template. In particular, I recommend that this script should not normally change template names away from an officially blessed and documented shortcut name, as listed in a
1855:
Me very generously spending a lot of time replying at length to your off-hand dismissals and name calling is not "bullying". You can engage or not with whatever you like, but please cut the rudeness. –
1476:
Personally it seems to me like the creators/maintainers of this list are on a kind of power trip, and aren't interested in listening to the legitimate and clearly expressed concerns of other editors. –
1375:, etc. should have names or shortcuts which are as short as possible because long template names used repeatedly in running prose are incredibly visually distracting and make the source harder to read.
435:
1173:
Indeed. I frequently encounter these abbreviations and can't remember what their purpose is, and have to spend time looking them up. Now imagine what the poor wiki-novice has to go through.
320:
is a good encouragement for other editors to just delete the template altogether (with or without adding a reference), as it becomes a huge eyesore in both the source and the rendered page.
1074:? You didn't know what those were either until the first time you clicked the abbreviated links - or hovered over them. Never reject a free opportunity to learn something fast and easy.
3147:? You didn't know what those were either until the first time you clicked the abbreviated links - or hovered over them. Never reject a free opportunity to learn something fast and easy.
2774:
Limiting the number of redirs (sorry - redirects) to only those which make the most sense would easily address Gonnym's concerns. In addition to the two mentioned above - I would add
1817:
I'm not responding to your wall o' text. You have been here long enough to know what we do in the
Knowledge. I will be awaiting the discussion you start on this change that you want.
442:
156:
But beyond that, these shortcuts reduce the visual clutter which the templates impose. There is a reason that widely used templates / shortcuts end up with very short names like
828:
Just noting that for bots, these changes will/should only be enacted when a substantive edit is also made alongside. Personally I do not think users should be making edits that
446:
52:
41:
2715:
as it is the most commonly-used shorthand, but keep the rest. It's not a hill I feel the need to die on, so if consensus is to keep it on the list I'm fine with that as well.
2299:
box at the top of the template's documentation page or described in the documentation. (For some templates, we may want to extend or prune the list of official shortcuts.)
1836:
There was nothing "patronizing" here. You are seriously running up against wiki norms in obvious bullying tactics, and I don't have to engage with that. That is my right.
1421:
General response: Start an RfC to get a new consensus, if you like. What we're currently doing here doesn't assist with that. Here, it's just banter with no consequences.
3184:
I agree on overchoice - but you making that point makes me think you too have missed probably the most important part of the original proposal - so I will quote it here:
55:
2685:{{cite journal |last=Jones |first=Jane |year=1995 |title=A book about houses |journal=International House Studies |doi=10.5/househouse |bibcode=xyzhouse }}</ref: -->
644:
These abbreviations are not displayed/read portions of the articles - so they do not detract from the articles in any way. Efficiency and brevity are good things.
572:
1206:
expediency, but also I think it's eminently reasonable to expand them (within an overall legitimate edit!) for the sake of other editors, especially new editors.
467:
Those previous discussions look like a bunch of people were annoyed but their concerns were mostly ignored. Was there some broader community input or consensus? –
236:, etc. These are easier to remember the spelling for, easier to write, easier to read after seeing them a few times, and most importantly easier to skim past.
2651:. I find the argument to use made-up unrecognizable names unconvincing. Having the wikitext of a single page as clear as possible is always an improvement.
712:
I am all for discussing specific ones - but the damage is already done on many of the obvious ones and precisely because "we should be replacing redirects"
1968:
1435:
1115:
1037:
1009:
990:
964:
905:
823:
3213:
3000:
2866:
2029:
105:
There is a hidden note in the rules description on the page questioning this and suggesting we reorder the rules as: '''{{Template}}''' ← {{Redirect}}
2933:
945:
919:
777:
742:
707:
495:
474:
462:
3171:
3083:
3060:
3018:
1990:
1440:
I think the reasonable thing to do is for any editor who likes to remove any template from the list here that seems unhelpful. If someone disagrees
717:
not working backwards once already applied - and possibly needing to even UNDO some of the resultant changes. I guess I also should ask why doesn't
580:
2268:
1978:
2078:
1164:
1130:
1095:
141:
2959:
1862:
1850:
1831:
1812:
1686:
1658:
1512:
1483:
1470:
1451:
1404:
1385:
1220:
1200:
420:
is very annoying. It (in this case) doubles the amount of visual clutter for essentially no benefit. These automatic edits are the worst kind of
3235:
2904:
2240:
1631:
is in very widespread use (if not for the history of this script obnoxiously "expanding" it, it would likely even be the majority use). writing
874:
860:
841:
797:
2691:
In my view, if our source markup looks more like the first example and less like the second it becomes much closer to "as clear as possible". –
924:
Apologies for that. Was just responding to Stefan's rather philosophical points for justification with applicable points for reconsideration.
2724:
2210:
2192:
2176:
2158:
2117:
2091:
1880:
The point is that if something is longstanding and not disputed for a long time, simply removing it appears to go against a natural consensus.
3278:
3107:
I do agree with you though - "one thing being confusing is not a reason to make everything confusing". You are spot on... and things like
2698:
2660:
2003:
1709:; once these script-assisted changes are forced through, they are inordinately difficult to reverse and unlikely to be reversed in practice.
1187:
1052:
598:
521:
153:
difference to readers, so this is purely a cosmetic change to the source code based on some editors' personal stylistic markup preferences.
3225:
3221:
1530:
2684:({{Transliteration|grc|oíkos}}, {{Literal translation|house}}), ] {{Interlanguage link|Chhù|zh-min-nan|italic=yes}}<ref name=jones: -->
2971:
all forms of abbreviations because it is not friendly for new editors. We can start with the link in your signature, and then move on to
1225:
Whether this is net harmful or helpful depends primarily on the type of template. Templates commonly used in article body copy such as
2104:, now. There are a lot of options—however, I will specifically ask that `tlit` not be automatically substituted with something longer.
504:
I find meaningless names hard to understand and requires a pointless click to go to the template page to see what that template does.
3201:
3159:
3048:
2988:
2854:
2017:
1956:
1152:
1083:
978:
933:
893:
730:
656:
428:
appear commonly in the middle of running prose should be replaced with "official" shortcut names rather than with expanded names. –
118:
2845:
also needs to be considered here as well - but I put more weight on the statements in the proposal and in my followup statements.
1716:
be on editors who want to keep an item on this list to demonstrate consensus before an item is restored. While the page here says
2281:
Here's a straightforward change that I think would non-trivially reduce how many complaints the template renaming feature gets:
2065:
can do a lot to visually clutter non-English-text heavy articles, so I don't think it's a very good auto-redirect by default.
1712:
As such, knee-jerk reversion of item removals, without establishing consensus in discussion, are inappropriate. The burden
2163:
I thought I had added it—not that I would really know for sure, but I'm probably its biggest proponent since I added it.
1044:
Concurred with Stefen. A sizable portion even of more experienced editors doesn't know what something like "bsn" means.
3006:
2744:'s objection makes me think that he missed probably the most important part of the proposal - so I will quote it here:
1120:
3259:
are very hard to understand until you get used to how
Knowledge works. There's a reason why the template was moved to
2303:
difference, since a longer name is not nearly as distracting to anyone reading the source markup, in that context.
2141:
is used often, in my opinion it should be listed explicitly as a shortcut at the top and in the documentation of
2055:
1737:
1518:
1642:
If it were up to me personally, I'd get rid of this template and just replace it with just using the plain text
3136:
1063:
294:
148:
Bots or humans acting like bots should not automatically replace all shortcut template names with expanded ones
17:
3150:
Nobody knows anything about anything until the first time to see it, research it, learn it, try it or use it.
624:
865:
It is, I think I was attempting to respond to my own comment and didn't realise you had snuck in a comment.
832:
replace template redirects, as it would still fall under the AWB's cosmetic edit guidelines (i.e. "don't").
510:
Template names are easiest to remember if they follow standard
English spelling, spacing, and capitalization
3203:
3161:
3050:
2990:
2856:
2614:
2594:
2185:. I don't use this template enough to feel comfortable mucking with the documentation more substantially. –
2182:
2019:
1958:
1154:
1085:
980:
935:
895:
732:
658:
284:
2604:
576:
85:
68:
2293:
1718:"Before adding a rule here, you must ensure that there is consensus in favour of the template renaming"
37:
2560:, and instead should redirect them to some community-preferred one or two common shortcuts, I propose
674:
If there are templates that should not be replaced automatically, they can be removed from this list.
3132:
2815:
1059:
491:
458:
137:
3263:
2916:
2624:
2584:
2554:
2310:
2145:
2008:
This may be the most truthful & accurate comment on a talk page in WP history. 100% agreement.
1780:
1759:
751:
314:
3224:, which are the main ones relevant to my point (but plausibly some others not currently listed at
2834:
common-sense abbreviations be employed at all levels of the project, including tags and templates?
1456:
It sounds like you want to start a conflict rather than seek consensus. That is not the wiki way.
1135:
Thankfully that is simply a (rather short-sighted) essay - not a policy or guideline. Kinda like
453:. I'll be running AWB with general fixes turned off until this discussion reaches a consensus. --
240:
top of a talk page or beginning of a section or something. I don't think anyone cares too much if
3193:
3151:
3040:
2980:
2846:
2197:
Thanks! For some reason, I think I felt self-conscious about adding my own shortcut to this one.
2009:
1948:
1722:
1706:
1444:
should be responsible for starting an RfC. None of this conversion was ever based on consensus. –
1144:
1075:
970:
925:
885:
722:
684:
is one such example, which has a long enough full name that it is less useful than the redirect.
648:
264:
2666:
some possible strings of concrete markup. You tell me which one makes reading the text easier:
450:
1672:
it's done is the norm. I suggest that you restore the entry and we have a proper discussion.
606:
I'd like to resurface this discussion again - which I was only recently made aware of due to
414:
2950:
2895:
1776:
and normalizing all of the miscellaneous misspellings and longer name variants to the name
1494:. Why do you believe that you and only you gets to remove the circa entry? And why is that
487:
454:
244:
133:
1728:
I don't know what you think constitutes "wikilawyering" here. You inappropriately invoked
1378:
Templates used at the top of a section or top of an article can be longer without issue. –
8:
3232:
2842:
2695:
2639:
2494:
2189:
2155:
2088:
2000:
1871:
I have three points in regards to this subthread and will then look to see what is below:
1859:
1809:
1733:
1655:
1480:
1448:
1382:
1197:
718:
595:
471:
432:
2720:
2504:
2205:
2171:
2112:
2073:
1725:
in 2023, and I can't find any evidence that there was a discussion about it whatsoever.
915:
870:
837:
773:
703:
327:
274:
97:
2807:
2788:
2544:
2524:
2514:
2484:
2474:
2454:
2248:
1729:
1491:
541:
323:
When the "standard" name for a template is a reasonably compact shortcut name, as in
1736:, and I am just pointing out that it doesn't say what you implied. (Though the page
3274:
3079:
3014:
2656:
2534:
2434:
2255:
2227:
1986:
1875:
1837:
1818:
1673:
1499:
1457:
1422:
1391:
1207:
1174:
1102:
1024:
996:
951:
847:
810:
784:
517:
114:
2946:
2891:
2464:
2424:
1974:
698:
say "we shouldn't be replacing redirects", but instead discussing specific ones.
3088:
Yes, it is weak reasoning - and very weak reasoning at that. There are lots of
1390:
Which is of course why we can discuss which ones we will not expand. As always.
132:
rolled out across all projects that make use of a "Template redirects" page. --
3229:
3067:
2954:
2899:
2803:
2778:
2692:
2636:
2444:
2414:
2186:
2152:
2085:
1997:
1927:
1856:
1806:
1652:
1615:
1605:
1477:
1445:
1379:
1369:
1349:
1229:
1194:
1136:
592:
481:
468:
429:
404:
361:
1639:
is no harder for source readers to make sense of, and saves on visual clutter.
1537:
As for this specific entry though, (almost?) no authors use the abbreviations
64:
3144:
3140:
2937:
2811:
2764:
2716:
2574:
2404:
2394:
2384:
2198:
2164:
2135:
2125:
2105:
2099:
2066:
1534:
and see how many complaints it gets. I would put my money on zero complaints.
1339:
1329:
1299:
1071:
1067:
911:
866:
833:
769:
699:
562:
553:
505:
337:
254:
31:
1940:
as an example - and unironically that is even how "circa" has been utilized
1799:
Exactly the bounds of that should certainly be up for change and discussion.
1591:
it seems likely that they would prefer to have it normalized (if at all) to
3220:
I only listed the clearly shortcut-length redirects which were included on
2374:
2364:
1906:
1790:
1575:
1551:
1359:
1319:
1289:
1279:
1140:
678:
614:
607:
421:
381:
230:
343:
it's a bit annoying but also not a huge problem to do these replacements.
3270:
3253:
3121:
3111:
3075:
3010:
2926:
2880:
2754:
2741:
2709:
2652:
2564:
2354:
2344:
2334:
2324:
1982:
1934:
1896:
1886:
1770:
1625:
1595:
1585:
1561:
1541:
1309:
1239:
761:
688:
634:
529:
513:
391:
371:
351:
304:
220:
200:
126:
110:
2277:
Minimal concrete proposal: stop rewriting "cn" etc. to "citation needed"
2131:
seems like a good choice. Do you know which shortcut is most common? If
70:
2909:
1269:
1259:
1249:
210:
190:
180:
170:
160:
747:
I don't really buy into the "damage has already been done" statement.
1124:
1046:
102:
Currently, rules are formatted as: {{Redirect}} → '''{{Template}}'''
1571:, which explains the shortcut name). But if anyone does ever write
910:
Let's not get too bogged down in the philosophical arguments here.
66:
2316:, so let's use it as a minimal concrete proposal as a case study:
2681:
Sourced statement, seems pretty reliable.<ref name=smith: -->
2084:
I wonder if an even more concise abbreviation could be found. –
3186:"and instead should redirect them to some community-preferred
2746:"and instead should redirect them to some community-preferred
1101:
so that more editors can readily see what they are all about.
538:
attribute. This template is dependent on the target having a
71:
694:
might also fall into that category. I do not think we should
3228:
should also be redirected to some blessed shortcut name). –
2732:. While the current list of redirs (sorry - redirects) for
1746:– This seems incorrect to me, or at least, seems like it
995:
Where I come from, it's called misspelling, Pikard. heh.
534:
that can make some shortcuts more 'readable' by adding a
1882:" That's a bit ironic. Abbreviated template tags like
3093:
editors out there for no less than 2 decades. Also <
1646:
in the source, since a hover displaying the Latin word
1557:
for the template ordinarily written using the shortcut
3127:
and the like should not be made confusing as a result.
1621:
they could easily have just done so. The abbreviation
846:
You're absolutely right, but isn't that what I said?
2306:
One of the most commonly modified template names is
512:. If the watchlist annoys you, then just ignore it.
25:
1973:It's not surprising that you don't see posts from
1740:is quite reasonable, relevant, and worth reading.)
1521:, doesn't say anything like what you are implying.
610:running against pages I am watching and expanding
2886:is a less-user-friendly option to new editors.
1744:This list is for expansion to full template names
1977:who don't care, and only see the posts from the
1732:as a way to cut off discussion, a very lawyerly
2580:). Longer redirect names, such as for example
2794:as I also see them in very common use and is
79:This page has archives. Sections older than
3226:Knowledge:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects
3222:Knowledge:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects
2671:{{ill|Chhù|zh-min-nan|italic=y}}.{{r|jones}}
1695:I propose that we should err on the side of
1531:Knowledge:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects
721:apply here (yes - even to templates/tags) ?
2320:This script should stop rewriting any of
387:should be replaced with the abbreviation
950:Who is "Stefan"? I am the Stefen Tower.
2620:, etc. could continue to be changed to
14:
89:when more than 4 sections are present.
630:, and of course the very commonplace
508:(another unclear shortcut name) says
400:But replacing e.g. every instance of
2798:clear in how they are to be applied.
1611:– after all if they wanted to write
647:So is consensus - so let's get some.
397:, if they need replacement at all.)
23:
969:Ironically - I'm abbreviating. :)
24:
3290:
2922:provides standardization against
2760:(but it could also or instead be
2570:(but it could also or instead be
83:may be automatically archived by
2841:All that being said - I believe
30:
1942:in print long before WP existed
1738:Knowledge:Silence and consensus
1519:Knowledge:Silence and consensus
441:There are previous discussions
3137:Knowledge:Conflict of Interest
2705:I would be okay with removing
1918:existed for a long time, were
1064:Knowledge:Conflict of Interest
367:everywhere (while we're here,
18:Knowledge talk:AutoWikiBrowser
13:
1:
1568:
2183:Template:Transliteration/doc
2079:21:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
2056:`transl` → `transliteration`
7:
3188:one or two common shortcuts
2748:one or two common shortcuts
10:
3295:
3007:WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!
1912:(among many, many others)
1121:WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!
757:is called 500k times, but
486:Not that I'm aware of. --
3279:07:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
3236:22:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
3214:20:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
3172:13:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
3133:Knowledge:Manual of Style
3084:23:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
3061:15:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
3019:14:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
3001:18:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
2960:20:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
2905:17:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
2867:17:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
2816:Knowledge:Manual of Style
2737:accounts of many editors.
2725:17:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
2699:18:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
2661:14:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
2643:02:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
2269:22:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
2241:22:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
2211:01:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
2206:
2193:01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
2177:00:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
2172:
2159:00:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
2118:22:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
2113:
2092:22:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
2074:
2030:16:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
2004:19:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
1991:14:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
1969:14:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
1923:interpreted as consensus.
1863:03:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
1851:02:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
1832:00:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
1813:00:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
1687:22:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1659:22:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1643:
1636:
1632:
1513:21:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1484:21:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1471:21:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1452:20:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1436:19:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1405:21:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1386:20:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1221:19:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1201:19:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1188:19:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1165:13:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
1131:22:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1116:19:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1096:18:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1060:Knowledge:Manual of Style
1053:18:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1038:19:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
1010:19:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
991:19:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
965:19:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
946:19:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
920:18:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
906:18:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
875:18:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
861:18:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
842:17:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
824:17:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
798:19:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
778:19:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
743:19:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
708:17:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
669:16:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
142:08:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
119:08:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
2181:I added the shortcut to
1803:you deciding by yourself
599:16:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
581:16:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
522:16:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
1723:special:diff/1141545200
1707:Knowledge:Fait accompli
496:07:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
475:07:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
463:07:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
436:06:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
86:Lowercase sigmabot III
526:There is a template,
295:Infobox golf facility
1786:. And similarly for
1567:(which renders like
625:better source needed
546:template. Compare:
451:the list was blanked
3195:--Picard's Facepalm
3153:--Picard's Facepalm
3042:--Picard's Facepalm
2982:--Picard's Facepalm
2848:--Picard's Facepalm
2615:unreferenced inline
2595:reference necessary
2011:--Picard's Facepalm
1950:--Picard's Facepalm
1734:appeal to authority
1146:--Picard's Facepalm
1077:--Picard's Facepalm
972:--Picard's Facepalm
927:--Picard's Facepalm
887:--Picard's Facepalm
724:--Picard's Facepalm
650:--Picard's Facepalm
290:gets replaced with
285:Infobox golf course
270:gets replaced with
250:gets replaced with
2934:69 other redirects
2830:and the like. Why
2605:citation requested
1486:
2808:Knowledge:Welcome
2294:template shortcut
2262:s among the rest!
2234:s among the rest!
1844:s among the rest!
1825:s among the rest!
1680:s among the rest!
1506:s among the rest!
1475:
1464:s among the rest!
1429:s among the rest!
1398:s among the rest!
1214:s among the rest!
1181:s among the rest!
1109:s among the rest!
1031:s among the rest!
1003:s among the rest!
958:s among the rest!
854:s among the rest!
817:s among the rest!
791:s among the rest!
573:Trappist the monk
93:
92:
3286:
3268:
3262:
3258:
3252:
3126:
3120:
3116:
3110:
3073:
2958:
2931:
2925:
2921:
2915:
2903:
2885:
2879:
2793:
2787:
2783:
2777:
2769:
2763:
2759:
2753:
2714:
2708:
2686:
2672:
2629:
2623:
2619:
2613:
2609:
2603:
2599:
2593:
2589:
2583:
2579:
2573:
2569:
2563:
2559:
2553:
2549:
2543:
2539:
2533:
2529:
2523:
2519:
2513:
2509:
2503:
2499:
2493:
2489:
2483:
2479:
2473:
2469:
2463:
2459:
2453:
2449:
2443:
2439:
2433:
2429:
2423:
2419:
2413:
2409:
2403:
2399:
2393:
2389:
2383:
2379:
2373:
2369:
2363:
2359:
2353:
2349:
2343:
2339:
2333:
2329:
2323:
2315:
2309:
2298:
2292:
2266:
2264:
2254:already exists.
2253:
2247:
2238:
2236:
2208:
2203:
2174:
2169:
2150:
2144:
2140:
2134:
2130:
2124:
2115:
2110:
2103:
2076:
2071:
2064:
1939:
1933:
1911:
1905:
1901:
1895:
1891:
1885:
1848:
1846:
1829:
1827:
1795:
1789:
1785:
1779:
1775:
1769:
1764:
1758:
1684:
1682:
1645:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1624:
1620:
1614:
1610:
1604:
1600:
1594:
1590:
1584:
1580:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1560:
1556:
1550:
1546:
1540:
1510:
1508:
1468:
1466:
1433:
1431:
1402:
1400:
1374:
1368:
1364:
1358:
1354:
1348:
1344:
1338:
1334:
1328:
1324:
1318:
1314:
1308:
1304:
1298:
1294:
1288:
1284:
1278:
1274:
1268:
1264:
1258:
1254:
1248:
1244:
1238:
1234:
1228:
1218:
1216:
1185:
1183:
1129:
1127:
1113:
1111:
1051:
1049:
1035:
1033:
1007:
1005:
962:
960:
858:
856:
821:
819:
795:
793:
766:
760:
756:
750:
693:
687:
683:
677:
639:
633:
629:
623:
619:
613:
565:
560:
551:
545:
537:
533:
485:
419:
413:
409:
403:
396:
390:
386:
380:
376:
370:
366:
360:
356:
350:
342:
336:
332:
326:
319:
313:
309:
303:
299:
293:
289:
283:
279:
273:
269:
263:
259:
253:
249:
243:
235:
229:
225:
219:
215:
209:
205:
199:
195:
189:
185:
179:
175:
169:
165:
159:
130:
88:
72:
34:
26:
3294:
3293:
3289:
3288:
3287:
3285:
3284:
3283:
3266:
3264:Citation needed
3260:
3256:
3250:
3247:Strongly oppose
3207:
3165:
3124:
3118:
3114:
3108:
3071:
3054:
2994:
2945:
2929:
2923:
2919:
2917:citation needed
2913:
2890:
2883:
2877:
2860:
2791:
2785:
2781:
2775:
2767:
2761:
2757:
2751:
2734:citation needed
2712:
2706:
2680:
2669:
2627:
2625:citation needed
2621:
2617:
2611:
2607:
2601:
2597:
2591:
2587:
2585:needs citations
2581:
2577:
2571:
2567:
2561:
2557:
2555:citation needed
2551:
2547:
2541:
2537:
2531:
2527:
2521:
2517:
2511:
2507:
2501:
2497:
2491:
2487:
2481:
2477:
2471:
2467:
2461:
2457:
2451:
2447:
2441:
2437:
2431:
2427:
2421:
2417:
2411:
2407:
2401:
2397:
2391:
2387:
2381:
2377:
2371:
2367:
2361:
2357:
2351:
2347:
2341:
2337:
2331:
2327:
2321:
2313:
2311:citation needed
2307:
2296:
2290:
2279:
2263:
2259:
2256:
2251:
2245:
2235:
2231:
2228:
2199:
2165:
2148:
2146:transliteration
2142:
2138:
2132:
2128:
2122:
2106:
2097:
2067:
2062:
2058:
2023:
1975:silent majority
1962:
1937:
1931:
1909:
1903:
1899:
1893:
1889:
1883:
1845:
1841:
1838:
1826:
1822:
1819:
1793:
1787:
1783:
1781:citation needed
1777:
1773:
1767:
1762:
1760:citation needed
1756:
1681:
1677:
1674:
1628:
1622:
1618:
1612:
1608:
1602:
1598:
1592:
1588:
1582:
1578:
1572:
1564:
1558:
1554:
1548:
1544:
1538:
1507:
1503:
1500:
1465:
1461:
1458:
1430:
1426:
1423:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1372:
1366:
1362:
1356:
1352:
1346:
1342:
1336:
1332:
1326:
1322:
1316:
1312:
1306:
1302:
1296:
1292:
1286:
1282:
1276:
1272:
1266:
1262:
1256:
1252:
1246:
1242:
1236:
1232:
1226:
1215:
1211:
1208:
1182:
1178:
1175:
1158:
1139:(and of course
1125:
1123:
1110:
1106:
1103:
1089:
1047:
1045:
1032:
1028:
1025:
1004:
1000:
997:
984:
959:
955:
952:
939:
899:
855:
851:
848:
818:
814:
811:
792:
788:
785:
764:
758:
754:
752:citation needed
748:
736:
691:
685:
681:
675:
662:
637:
631:
627:
621:
617:
611:
558:
549:
539:
535:
527:
488:John of Reading
479:
455:John of Reading
417:
411:
407:
401:
394:
388:
384:
378:
374:
368:
364:
358:
354:
348:
340:
334:
330:
324:
317:
315:Citation needed
311:
307:
301:
297:
291:
287:
281:
277:
271:
267:
261:
257:
251:
247:
241:
233:
227:
223:
217:
213:
207:
203:
197:
193:
187:
183:
177:
173:
167:
163:
157:
150:
134:John of Reading
124:
100:
98:Format of rules
84:
73:
67:
46:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3292:
3282:
3281:
3243:
3242:
3241:
3240:
3239:
3238:
3218:
3217:
3216:
3205:
3182:
3181:
3180:
3179:
3178:
3177:
3176:
3175:
3174:
3163:
3148:
3128:
3105:
3052:
2992:
2963:
2962:
2907:
2869:
2858:
2839:
2835:
2799:
2772:
2738:
2727:
2703:
2702:
2701:
2689:
2688:
2687:
2675:
2674:
2673:
2632:
2631:
2278:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2261:
2233:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2057:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2021:
1981:who complain.
1979:vocal minority
1960:
1945:
1924:
1872:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1843:
1834:
1824:
1800:
1797:
1752:
1741:
1726:
1710:
1693:
1679:
1665:
1640:
1637:{{circa|1500}}
1535:
1526:
1522:
1505:
1498:a power trip?
1463:
1428:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1397:
1376:
1213:
1180:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1156:
1118:
1108:
1087:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1030:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1002:
982:
957:
937:
897:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
853:
816:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
790:
734:
660:
604:
603:
602:
601:
583:
569:
568:
567:
556:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
265:Book reference
149:
146:
145:
144:
99:
96:
91:
90:
78:
75:
74:
69:
65:
63:
60:
59:
48:
47:
35:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3291:
3280:
3276:
3272:
3265:
3255:
3248:
3245:
3244:
3237:
3234:
3231:
3227:
3223:
3219:
3215:
3212:
3209:
3208:
3202:
3200:
3197:
3196:
3191:
3189:
3183:
3173:
3170:
3167:
3166:
3160:
3158:
3155:
3154:
3149:
3146:
3142:
3138:
3134:
3129:
3123:
3113:
3106:
3101:
3096:
3091:
3087:
3086:
3085:
3081:
3077:
3069:
3064:
3063:
3062:
3059:
3056:
3055:
3049:
3047:
3044:
3043:
3037:
3032:
3027:
3022:
3021:
3020:
3016:
3012:
3008:
3004:
3003:
3002:
2999:
2996:
2995:
2989:
2987:
2984:
2983:
2978:
2974:
2969:
2968:
2967:
2966:
2965:
2964:
2961:
2956:
2952:
2948:
2944:
2941:like this.
2939:
2935:
2928:
2918:
2911:
2908:
2906:
2901:
2897:
2893:
2889:
2882:
2876:
2875:
2873:
2870:
2868:
2865:
2862:
2861:
2855:
2853:
2850:
2849:
2844:
2840:
2836:
2833:
2829:
2825:
2821:
2817:
2813:
2809:
2805:
2800:
2797:
2790:
2780:
2773:
2771:
2766:
2756:
2749:
2743:
2739:
2735:
2731:
2728:
2726:
2722:
2718:
2711:
2704:
2700:
2697:
2694:
2690:
2679:
2678:
2676:
2668:
2667:
2664:
2663:
2662:
2658:
2654:
2650:
2647:
2646:
2645:
2644:
2641:
2638:
2626:
2616:
2606:
2596:
2586:
2576:
2566:
2556:
2546:
2536:
2526:
2516:
2506:
2496:
2486:
2476:
2466:
2456:
2446:
2436:
2426:
2416:
2406:
2396:
2386:
2376:
2366:
2356:
2346:
2336:
2326:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2312:
2304:
2300:
2295:
2288:
2282:
2270:
2267:
2265:
2250:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2239:
2237:
2224:
2212:
2209:
2204:
2202:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2191:
2188:
2184:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2175:
2170:
2168:
2162:
2161:
2160:
2157:
2154:
2147:
2137:
2127:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2116:
2111:
2109:
2101:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2090:
2087:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2077:
2072:
2070:
2031:
2028:
2025:
2024:
2018:
2016:
2013:
2012:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2002:
1999:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1967:
1964:
1963:
1957:
1955:
1952:
1951:
1946:
1943:
1936:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1916:
1908:
1898:
1888:
1881:
1878:- you said, "
1877:
1873:
1870:
1864:
1861:
1858:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1849:
1847:
1835:
1833:
1830:
1828:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1811:
1808:
1804:
1801:
1798:
1792:
1782:
1772:
1761:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1742:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1724:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1708:
1703:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1685:
1683:
1671:
1666:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1657:
1654:
1649:
1641:
1627:
1617:
1607:
1597:
1587:
1577:
1563:
1553:
1543:
1536:
1532:
1527:
1523:
1520:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1511:
1509:
1497:
1493:
1488:
1487:
1485:
1482:
1479:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1469:
1467:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1450:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1434:
1432:
1420:
1406:
1403:
1401:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1384:
1381:
1377:
1371:
1361:
1351:
1341:
1331:
1321:
1311:
1301:
1291:
1281:
1271:
1261:
1251:
1241:
1231:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1219:
1217:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1199:
1196:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1186:
1184:
1172:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1159:
1153:
1151:
1148:
1147:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1128:
1122:
1119:
1117:
1114:
1112:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1084:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1050:
1043:
1039:
1036:
1034:
1021:
1011:
1008:
1006:
994:
993:
992:
989:
986:
985:
979:
977:
974:
973:
968:
967:
966:
963:
961:
949:
948:
947:
944:
941:
940:
934:
932:
929:
928:
923:
922:
921:
917:
913:
909:
908:
907:
904:
901:
900:
894:
892:
889:
888:
882:
876:
872:
868:
864:
863:
862:
859:
857:
845:
844:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
826:
825:
822:
820:
807:
799:
796:
794:
781:
780:
779:
775:
771:
763:
753:
746:
745:
744:
741:
738:
737:
731:
729:
726:
725:
720:
715:
711:
710:
709:
705:
701:
697:
690:
680:
673:
672:
671:
670:
667:
664:
663:
657:
655:
652:
651:
645:
641:
636:
626:
616:
609:
600:
597:
594:
589:
584:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
557:
555:
548:
547:
543:
531:
525:
524:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
497:
493:
489:
483:
478:
477:
476:
473:
470:
466:
465:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
439:
438:
437:
434:
431:
425:
423:
416:
406:
398:
393:
383:
373:
363:
353:
344:
339:
329:
321:
316:
306:
296:
286:
276:
266:
256:
246:
237:
232:
222:
212:
202:
192:
182:
172:
162:
154:
143:
139:
135:
128:
123:
122:
121:
120:
116:
112:
106:
103:
95:
87:
82:
77:
76:
62:
61:
58:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
43:
39:
33:
28:
27:
19:
3246:
3210:
3204:
3198:
3194:
3187:
3185:
3168:
3162:
3156:
3152:
3099:
3094:
3089:
3057:
3051:
3045:
3041:
3035:
3030:
3025:
2997:
2991:
2985:
2981:
2976:
2972:
2942:
2887:
2871:
2863:
2857:
2851:
2847:
2843:WP:NOTBROKEN
2831:
2827:
2823:
2819:
2795:
2750:, I propose
2747:
2745:
2733:
2729:
2648:
2633:
2305:
2301:
2286:
2283:
2280:
2257:
2229:
2200:
2166:
2107:
2068:
2059:
2026:
2020:
2014:
2010:
1965:
1959:
1953:
1949:
1941:
1919:
1914:
1913:
1879:
1839:
1820:
1802:
1747:
1743:
1717:
1713:
1701:
1696:
1675:
1669:
1647:
1601:rather than
1501:
1495:
1459:
1441:
1424:
1393:
1209:
1176:
1161:
1155:
1149:
1145:
1104:
1092:
1086:
1080:
1076:
1026:
998:
987:
981:
975:
971:
953:
942:
936:
930:
926:
902:
896:
890:
886:
849:
829:
812:
786:
739:
733:
727:
723:
719:WP:NOTBROKEN
713:
695:
665:
659:
653:
649:
646:
642:
608:User:SdkbBot
605:
588:more legible
587:
509:
426:
422:bikeshedding
415:Section link
399:
345:
322:
300:. Replacing
238:
155:
151:
107:
104:
101:
94:
80:
51:
36:
3070:does state
1926:- Second, @
1876:StefenTower
1635:instead of
1633:{{c.|1500}}
1581:instead of
1517:That page,
245:Mainarticle
2947:Tom.Reding
2910:Overchoice
2892:Tom.Reding
2495:needs-cite
1730:WP:SILENCE
1492:WP:SILENCE
559:{{WP|TPN}}
3230:jacobolus
2975:tags and
2938:ownership
2740:Reading @
2693:jacobolus
2637:jacobolus
2505:refplease
2187:jacobolus
2153:jacobolus
2086:jacobolus
2063:iteration
1998:jacobolus
1928:Jacobolus
1857:jacobolus
1807:jacobolus
1748:shouldn't
1653:jacobolus
1525:position.
1478:jacobolus
1446:jacobolus
1380:jacobolus
1195:jacobolus
1058:type out
593:jacobolus
482:Jacobolus
469:jacobolus
447:from 2016
443:from 2010
430:jacobolus
328:Mousetext
275:cite book
3034:and <
2973:ref /ref
2832:wouldn't
2717:Primefac
2545:prove it
2525:sourceme
2485:needcite
2475:needsref
2455:need-ref
2287:need not
2249:translit
2201:Remsense
2167:Remsense
2108:Remsense
2069:Remsense
1702:prevents
1692:ignored.
912:Primefac
867:Primefac
834:Primefac
770:Primefac
700:Primefac
542:Nutshell
81:730 days
38:Archives
3206:Engage!
3164:Engage!
3068:WP:HTML
3053:Engage!
2993:Engage!
2859:Engage!
2804:WP:WELC
2789:source?
2784:and/or
2730:Support
2535:proveit
2515:source?
2435:me-fact
2258:Stefen
2230:Stefen
2022:Engage!
1961:Engage!
1840:Stefen
1821:Stefen
1676:Stefen
1644:c. 1500
1502:Stefen
1460:Stefen
1425:Stefen
1394:Stefen
1210:Stefen
1177:Stefen
1157:Engage!
1137:WP:DTTR
1105:Stefen
1088:Engage!
1027:Stefen
999:Stefen
983:Engage!
954:Stefen
938:Engage!
898:Engage!
850:Stefen
813:Stefen
787:Stefen
735:Engage!
696:broadly
661:Engage!
3271:MClay1
3145:WP:COI
3141:WP:MOS
3076:MClay1
3039:tags.
3029:, <
3011:MClay1
2872:Oppose
2812:WP:MOS
2742:Gonnym
2653:Gonnym
2649:Oppose
2465:refnec
2096:I use
1983:Gonnym
1670:before
1072:WP:COI
1068:WP:MOS
564:WP:TPN
554:WP:TPN
536:title=
514:Gonnym
506:WP:TPN
449:after
445:, and
333:-: -->
127:Mclay1
111:MClay1
3104:ways.
3102:: -->
3097:: -->
3038:: -->
3033:: -->
3028:: -->
2796:quite
2540:, or
2425:fact?
2415:facts
2260:Tower
2232:Tower
1930:used
1842:Tower
1823:Tower
1678:Tower
1648:circa
1616:circa
1606:circa
1504:Tower
1462:Tower
1427:Tower
1396:Tower
1370:slink
1350:tmath
1212:Tower
1179:Tower
1141:WP:TR
1107:Tower
1029:Tower
1001:Tower
956:Tower
852:Tower
815:Tower
789:Tower
410:with
405:slink
362:circa
357:with
310:with
53:Index
42:index
16:<
3275:talk
3143:and
3139:vs.
3135:and
3100:/ref
3098:<
3080:talk
3031:/ref
3024:<
3015:talk
3005:See
2955:dgaf
2951:talk
2900:dgaf
2896:talk
2824:/ref
2814:for
2810:and
2806:for
2779:ref?
2765:fact
2721:talk
2677:vs.
2657:talk
2575:fact
2445:ref?
2405:FACT
2395:fact
2385:citn
2136:tlit
2126:tlit
2100:tlit
1987:talk
1915:have
1902:and
1796:etc.
1714:must
1442:they
1340:mvar
1330:nobr
1300:harv
1126:Sdkb
1070:and
1066:vs.
1062:and
1048:Sdkb
916:talk
871:talk
838:talk
830:only
774:talk
704:talk
577:talk
518:talk
492:talk
459:talk
377:and
338:abbr
255:main
138:talk
115:talk
3233:(t)
3095:ref
3090:far
3026:ref
2932:'s
2820:ref
2770:)."
2696:(t)
2640:(t)
2550:to
2440:,
2390:,
2375:cit
2365:ctn
2190:(t)
2156:(t)
2151:. –
2089:(t)
2001:(t)
1920:not
1907:bsn
1874:- @
1860:(t)
1810:(t)
1791:bsn
1697:not
1656:(t)
1576:ca.
1552:ca.
1547:or
1496:not
1481:(t)
1449:(t)
1383:(t)
1360:ill
1320:fl.
1290:efn
1280:sfn
1198:(t)
1143:).
714:was
679:ill
620:to
615:bsn
596:(t)
472:(t)
433:(t)
382:ca.
280:or
231:sfn
3277:)
3267:}}
3261:{{
3257:}}
3254:cn
3251:{{
3192:.
3125:}}
3122:c.
3119:{{
3117:,
3115:}}
3112:cn
3109:{{
3082:)
3074:.
3036:br
3017:)
3009:.
2979:.
2977:br
2930:}}
2927:cn
2924:{{
2920:}}
2914:{{
2912:-
2884:}}
2881:cn
2878:{{
2874::
2828:br
2826:,
2822:,
2792:}}
2786:{{
2782:}}
2776:{{
2768:}}
2762:{{
2758:}}
2755:cn
2752:{{
2723:)
2713:}}
2710:cn
2707:{{
2659:)
2628:}}
2622:{{
2618:}}
2612:{{
2610:,
2608:}}
2602:{{
2600:,
2598:}}
2592:{{
2590:,
2588:}}
2582:{{
2578:}}
2572:{{
2568:}}
2565:cn
2562:{{
2558:}}
2552:{{
2548:}}
2542:{{
2538:}}
2532:{{
2530:,
2528:}}
2522:{{
2520:,
2518:}}
2512:{{
2510:,
2508:}}
2502:{{
2500:,
2498:}}
2492:{{
2490:,
2488:}}
2482:{{
2480:,
2478:}}
2472:{{
2470:,
2468:}}
2462:{{
2460:,
2458:}}
2452:{{
2450:,
2448:}}
2442:{{
2438:}}
2432:{{
2430:,
2428:}}
2422:{{
2420:,
2418:}}
2412:{{
2410:,
2408:}}
2402:{{
2400:,
2398:}}
2392:{{
2388:}}
2382:{{
2380:,
2378:}}
2372:{{
2370:,
2368:}}
2362:{{
2360:,
2358:}}
2355:CB
2352:{{
2350:,
2348:}}
2345:cb
2342:{{
2340:,
2338:}}
2335:CN
2332:{{
2330:,
2328:}}
2325:cn
2322:{{
2314:}}
2308:{{
2297:}}
2291:{{
2252:}}
2246:{{
2149:}}
2143:{{
2139:}}
2133:{{
2129:}}
2123:{{
2102:}}
2098:{{
1989:)
1938:}}
1935:c.
1932:{{
1910:}}
1904:{{
1900:}}
1897:c.
1894:{{
1892:,
1890:}}
1887:cn
1884:{{
1794:}}
1788:{{
1784:}}
1778:{{
1774:}}
1771:cn
1768:{{
1763:}}
1757:{{
1629:}}
1626:c.
1623:{{
1619:}}
1613:{{
1609:}}
1603:{{
1599:}}
1596:c.
1593:{{
1589:}}
1586:c.
1583:{{
1579:}}
1573:{{
1569:c.
1565:}}
1562:c.
1559:{{
1555:}}
1549:{{
1545:}}
1542:ca
1539:{{
1373:}}
1367:{{
1365:,
1363:}}
1357:{{
1355:,
1353:}}
1347:{{
1345:,
1343:}}
1337:{{
1335:,
1333:}}
1327:{{
1325:,
1323:}}
1317:{{
1315:,
1313:}}
1310:c.
1307:{{
1305:,
1303:}}
1297:{{
1295:,
1293:}}
1287:{{
1285:,
1283:}}
1277:{{
1275:,
1273:}}
1267:{{
1265:,
1263:}}
1257:{{
1255:,
1253:}}
1247:{{
1245:,
1243:}}
1237:{{
1235:,
1233:}}
1227:{{
918:)
873:)
840:)
776:)
765:}}
762:cn
759:{{
755:}}
749:{{
706:)
692:}}
689:cn
686:{{
682:}}
676:{{
638:}}
635:cn
632:{{
628:}}
622:{{
618:}}
612:{{
579:)
561:→
552:→
544:}}
540:{{
532:}}
530:WP
528:{{
520:)
494:)
461:)
418:}}
412:{{
408:}}
402:{{
395:}}
392:c.
389:{{
385:}}
379:{{
375:}}
372:ca
369:{{
365:}}
359:{{
355:}}
352:c.
349:{{
341:}}
335:{{
331:}}
325:{{
318:}}
312:{{
308:}}
305:cn
302:{{
298:}}
292:{{
288:}}
282:{{
278:}}
272:{{
268:}}
262:{{
260:,
258:}}
252:{{
248:}}
242:{{
234:}}
228:{{
226:,
224:}}
221:cn
218:{{
216:,
214:}}
208:{{
206:,
204:}}
198:{{
196:,
194:}}
188:{{
186:,
184:}}
178:{{
176:,
174:}}
168:{{
166:,
164:}}
158:{{
140:)
117:)
3273:(
3211:•
3199:•
3190:"
3169:•
3157:•
3078:(
3058:•
3046:•
3013:(
2998:•
2986:•
2957:)
2953:⋅
2949:(
2943:~
2902:)
2898:⋅
2894:(
2888:~
2864:•
2852:•
2719:(
2655:(
2630:.
2207:诉
2173:诉
2114:诉
2075:聊
2027:•
2015:•
1985:(
1966:•
1954:•
1651:–
1270:r
1260:*
1250:!
1240:`
1230:′
1193:–
1162:•
1150:•
1093:•
1081:•
988:•
976:•
943:•
931:•
914:(
903:•
891:•
869:(
836:(
772:(
740:•
728:•
702:(
666:•
654:•
591:–
575:(
571:—
550:]
516:(
490:(
484::
480:@
457:(
211:r
201:`
191:!
181:n
171:y
161:t
136:(
129::
125:@
113:(
56:1
44:)
40:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
