Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Archive 150

10131:): the passive voice is really a matter of emphasis, which simply has to be chosen judiciously in each case. Especially bad writers overuse it, and I've seen some people act as if there was a rule against it even when it's appropriate. Some thoughts that might clarify whether or what to add to MOS: I don't think "Writers love Knowledge" is better than "Knowledge is loved by writers". The former slightly emphasizes Knowledge; the latter slightly emphasizes writers; only the former would be appropriate as a slogan. The reversed wording of the passive voice is sometimes unclear or awkward, but the main objection to the passive voice is the obscurity that often results from total omission of the subject. For example, "He heard a bird flush, and he turned and pulled the trigger and saw his friend get wounded." That's George W. Bush's description of Dick Cheney shooting Harry Whittington, using the passive voice to obscure the main fact of the sentence. Another typical bad passive is in rules and specifications like "The bill of materials will be approved by the start of phase one." You probably want to write that so the person responsible knows they're on the hook, and the best way to do that is by mentioning that person explicitly. But passive constructions like "Charles Manson was tried and convicted" or "Harry Whittington was treated for buckshot wounds at a hospital" are fine, because mentioning the subject would only distract from the main fact. — 8092:

more expensive than it is today. In our digital world, we have more visual elements available to enable accurate parsing. For example, we have white space used vertically to separate things, we have indentation of bullet lists, we have an endless palette of special characters and symbols, colour and clickable links. In which case the question about postnominals is whether there is any likelihood that readers will confuse the postnominals as part of the name (is the surname FRS?) or confuse it as part whatever comes next "(1800-1850)" or "was an Icelandic scientist who bred tropical fruit". Since our postnominals are normally links, they are visually quite distinct (colour and clickability) from the name and whatever follows. It's hard to see that people would be confused, and any confusion would surely be resolved by clicking the link. So my "digital world answer" is that we can omit punctuation in the form of commas or parentheses as we have "digital punctuation" to do the same job.

10886:, that was the reason I opened this topic. I see what all the other good writers above are saying: the MoS should not set a rule about preferring the active voice, as they may need to use the passive may voice intentionally. But we're not talking about the good writers. The completely different point is that the MoS should educate the not-so-good writers about the existence of active voice because these writers learn how to write by reading the MoS. With no mention of it, they are using passive voice unintentionally every third sentence, and they don't believe us when we explain active voice to them because there is nothing we can point them to. The lack of mention gives them justification to reply to us that they intend to go on ignoring its existence. 5559:: The first part is fine, though unnecessary (I would hope we shouldn't have to tell someone a semicolon is equivalent to a period and that there'd be no reason to have a comma immediately before other punctuation). The second part is confusing. Using dates as adjectives is fine and also uses the standard comma rules. This treats it as if adjective forms were some exception (especially with those brackets around the commas) when they aren't. Funny how oppose voters can't agree on which part of the suggested new version is wrong, which is all the more reason to keep the current version. 6358:

to mark the simple future, rather than "will," and so on. At best we can try to keep Knowledge as clear as possible to as many readers as possible, and try to be grammatical in as many dialects as possible. As for punctuation, I wouldn't even consider it part of grammar, since it's an artifact of the written language. It is something that should help readers, and shouldn't look ugly. I think using two comas is usually clearer, but then, I think the Oxford comma is usually clearer and more elegant, and the semicolon can be used if we need to distinguish stronger and weaker commas...

5388:". Absent an agreement to change that prescription, it is the guidance, isn't it? If the proposal is intended to remove that prescription, it should be phrased differently to make that clear. That lack of clarity has been my complaint here. I haven't expressed a preference for the MOS to say the comma is optional, and I haven't expressed a preference for the MOS to say it's mandatory. But I think it's a problem if it says it's mandatory and some people deny that it says that. That is a problem. The construction is unlikely to be avoided in all cases. — 330:) it gets treatment as a title, otherwise not. For Bach's 200+ cantatas, there always exist different translations, most of which are never used as titles, because the works are almost always performed and recorded in German. Even the German titles are mostly not a true title but simply the first line of the text, sometimes not making sense without the continuation. Therefore, #1 was chosen of the four possibilities given above. We might think differently about those cantatas that begin with a well-known hymn or Bible quotation. What do you think? -- 4462:". But I think that either we should eliminate this portion of that sentence and say something like "Also, don't put a trailing comma somewhere it isn't warranted, like in an article title or list," or at a minimum it needs to emphasize the earlier word "last" in order to not be misinterpreted. Finally, there is some degree of risk of a conflict with whatever happens at the linked USPLACE discussion, although that kind of seemed to be moving towards an "avoid this particular phrasing" result. Overall, I support this proposal. 9961:

italicized, while an individual song is in quotes. This applies even if the song was released as a standalone single, as it remains a short-form work. Same should apply to short-form poems; being published in a standalone pamphlet doesn't make it a long-form work, as an italicized title would indicate. If it is a long-form work that happens to be written in poetic verse, then it should be italicized as a long-form work. But short vs long is the determination, not standalone vs part of a collection.

31: 9778:, which should be italicised since it is book-length, and shorter poems, which should only have quotations around unitalicised titles. I took a cursory look at about 50-60 articles on well-known poems by Eliot, Auden, Wordsworth, Blake, Keats, Whitman, etc., (many of which were originally published as one-poem pamphlets), most of them are not italicised anywhere in the article. Further, almost all of the reliable sources used in those articles do not italicise shorter poem names. 8063:. The presence of the dates and how you punctuate them isn't really relevant as they are a separate "aside". However, in the opening sentence of a Knowledge article, where we are attempting to establish notability, I am not sure that postnominals are an aside. They are part of the notability claim and we can omit the commas completely (whereas the dates of birth/death are not part of the claim of notability and should remain parenthetic). That's my "old world answer". 10368: 5198:. Mandating a restructuring of the prose to avoid a dispute over punctuation is ridiculous. Usually I'm all for strengthening the MOS, but in this case the proscribed wording is perfectly good style. As for it only being a recommendation, people will use this passage in the MOS to justify edit-warring. I would be fine with giving an example and the advice that the punctuation could be justified either way and therefore that we shouldn't argue about it. 10959:

at a number of points for further levels of information. That would remove the daunting aspect and make the guidance more accessible. In many cases we need to convey the important points as readily as possible, while still retaining the fine-grained advice for those who want it. This might also be a way of integrating some of the sub-pages of MOS into the one resource (clickable). But it would be a big task ... possibly taking a team of us six months.

2931:, as opposed to transmitting a "preferred" version. So for instance governmental agencies assign names to facilities which the build, but they are only sources for names which other people have given something, not absolute authorities. In the case of a corporation likewise its name is self-determined and it can be taken as an absolute authority for that name. Perhaps we can alleviate the problem here by coming up with a better word than "official"? 7601:(October 2013), and I do not find a consensus there. Also, the spatially last comment there (without a timestamp) says "Unfortunately, there's no consensus on the pronunciation." Like so many other discussions about the Manual of Style, that one shows a collection of comments about how to pronounce and spell possessives, but no clear consensus. Incidentally, I find the example with "Paris" to be equivalent to the example with "Vilnius". 5498:. To start with, there need to be a recommendation to reword this ungainly hedgehog where possible. So instead of "The April 7, 2011, trial of John Smith brought a capacity crowd.", try "The trial of John Smith on April 7, 2011 in Toledo, Ohio brought a capacity crowd to the courtroom."—whether or not there's a comma after the year. Full dates as pre-noun adjectives can be very clunky. And lots of commas can be very bumpy. 8519: 2979:"Names" would include personal names, but we seem to be referring to all other kinds of names. Don't confuse "official" with "common", however, as these have converse meanings. In fact, MOS:POSS (use the official name) is effectively at odds with WP:COMMONNAME (use the commonly used name) to the extent that they both refer to apostrophes. In practical terms, I think the methodology ought to behave as follows: 5773: 5314:

that this indicates a lack of clarity in the proposed guideline, because the other sentence says that those commas are not optional. The guideline should be clear about whether those commas are optional or not, and the editor who suggested that strange use of square brackets around individual commas seems to think that the proposed wording indicates that they are optional. —

11668:"I'm this one" / "This one's me" / "I'm the one on the far left" / "The one on the far left's me": none is passive in any way that I can think of. For a passive you need a transitive verb; whereas BE only takes a predicative complement (same referent as that of the subject). Thus the ungrammatical *"The secretary is been by Charles", *"Charles is been by the secretary". -- 11700:

Then, consider changing "should appear" to "may appear" since otherwise the whole thing would seem like a redundancy with "emphasis added", if it were ALWAYS necessary to indicate when it was not added. It seems that "emphasis in original" is a somewhat subjective editorial decision based on, whether explicit or not, what the context calls for.

4282:: although this will no doubt reduce the number of contentious wordings/phrases, I think there will still be occurrences of the compound construction, unfortunately specifically in titles, where it's harder to reword without making it into a sentence. I might add that I think it was a good call to name the article on the WTC attacks " 10669:

poor writing in the form of passive voice into every third sentence, even those sentences that would have benefited from active voice, because the MOS doesn't teach anyone of its existence. This exact situation has come up during reviews. For all we know, there are other GA and FA reviews taking place in which this often occurs. For

9216:

pronounced. In writing, they are represented by appending something to a word (and other ways not relevant here). Punctuation's different level is already indicated by its being punctuation. What is the reason for indicating that again by a change of font, separating it from the word it attaches to? On this theory, when would you

11978:), and most of those guides list those WP: shortcuts instead of the MOS: shortcuts. I think the Comp Sci MOS might have a few too many MOS: shortcuts, and the idea of 'JESUS' redirecting to the MOS defined by WikiProject Judaism is interesting. Has any of these WikiProject MOS topics been covered in the 'real'/centralised MOS? 8360:

educated people, don't know what "i.e." and "e.g." stand for, and often get them confused, a good rule of thumb is to write out "that is" or "for example". When I worked as a technical writer in the 1990s, we followed that rule; even then, it was clear that the meanings of "i.e." and "e.g." had fallen out of common knowledge. —

3371:, the issue of what is to be treated as "style" rather than "substance" in a name is a contentious one. In many cases (e.g. hyphens vs. en-dashes, capitalization of English names of species), it has been agreed repeatedly that Knowledge should "correct" style to conform to the general rules of the MoS in the same way that (as 11632:) can be inverted as you say (thanks to "specifying BE"); neither way around is it passive. (If "The prince is me" were indeed some syntactic derivative of "The role of the prince is played by me", then why not *"A spear-carrier is me"?) You're right to refer to the given versus the new, and to complexities; note that 7574:. These changes are important, not in themselves, but because they impact on a lot of articles. Our goals in drafting a project-wide MoS are to promote consistency and clarity. I see my changes have now been reverted. Does anyone here wish to seriously quibble with the consensus we reached? Should this be a matter for 763:(ecx2) Exactly -- the title of the work -- and we really shouldn't exclude sculpture. We may need either or both of "accepted English title" and helpful translation. Do we present these two different things in different ways (e.g bold for the accepted English title, but not for the helpful translation)? Should we? -- 8290:. The comma should not come before the parentheses, thus #4 is wrong. Removing the parentheses, per #5 or #7, would resolve the issue but introduce inconsistency with the usual formal for biographical articles, which is undesirable. #6 is wrong as no style guide places post-nominals in parentheses (AFAIK). 3880:). MOS could be apportioned by the day, by the week, or by the month, so that it could be read in its entirety in one year. Of course, some editors may have enough self-motivation to read all of it without using a schedule. Alternatively, some may prefer to set for themselves the easier goal of reading 6479:. It does have the disadvantage that the example does not end an a place name or date in order to illustrate the comma being pre-empted by other punctuation, but we don't necessarily need an example to illustrate this common-sense point, otherwise we could substitute the following alternative example: 5265:" seems to say the bracketed commas are mandatory. If they are mandatory, why are they in brackets? The proposal is confusing (and so is this discussion in general – perhaps because of the way "support" and "oppose" comments are separated from each other in a way that prevents interactive discussion). — 11185:

Maybe it's different here in the land of igloos, but I never learned about it in high school.. or if I did it was brief and slipped my mind long ago. And what I've been taught, at least in my engineering technical report class, is to always use the active voice when it doesn't muck up the flow of the

10649:

What's more, the constraints of writing Knowledge articles sometimes require us to use the passive voice. Suppose our source says "Mackay was fired in January 2014". How can we convert that into the active voice? We don't know if his line manager fired him, or the chief executive did, or the chairman

10557:

problem when people use the passive voice to avoid mentioning notable things (which is the issue that is more important to building an encyclopedia). Editors can insert vagueness and omission of agency in both the active and passive voices. When people use the passive voice in other contexts, such as

9549:

each other in a way that makes asking which "trumps" the other irrelevant. So... If two policy/guideline pages seem to conflict, then we need to have a centralized discussion and discuss how to resolve the apparent conflict. It would help to have some specific examples of how and where the conflict

9021:

Just as you described, it's about the fonts and built-in kerning information... It also makes more sense to me to italicize the trailing punctuation, just to prevent any possible ugliness. A good (and current) example are libraries doing rendering of TTFs on Linux, as they tend to produce much less

8881:

About "independent status" vs. "independent statuses", I favor the singular here, though probably there is still better wording. The reason is, the independence in question is of each word in relation to the other. "Statuses" suggests that the independence of each word is, er, independent of its, er,

6233:

Many writers express their displeasure at putting a comma after the year when the expression serves as an adjective, because "it looks funny." Perhaps so. But this seems to be the rule, and it does make sense. The year is serving in apposition to the month and day, and thus requires commas before and

5741:

the serial elements listed, an impossible task, but rather exhorts them to be diligent in their effort. The benefit of including this form of caution lays the foundation of a difficult writing task, without stifling a writer's creative flexibility to endeavor attaining the difficult standard. It also

3306:

for example. Most reputable publishers are going to exercise some editorial discretion in deciding whether to include the period in "Mrs." and the apostrophe in "Macquarie's"; some will follow what's carved in stone, some will follow what's in the park brochures, and some will follow common usage of

11355:

Strunk and White—whom User:Hoary calls "those two old farts" —give only three points and ignore the surface mechanics. For example, if there's already passive voice in the vicinity, you're more likely to avoid repeating that grammar (since it's grammatically "marked", not "unmarked"). And if the use

10954:

My own feeling is that a distinction somehow has to be drawn between a style guide and a how-to-improve-your-writing resource (as it largely has been). MOS is already pretty long. Perhaps there's a better place for this type of good-writing advice? Or perhaps exercises should be the focal point (but

10950:

But more generally, do editors who need to improve their writing actually read MOS, and if they do, is it the right context for that type of improvement? (There's a kerfuffle going on right this moment about one established editor who steadfastly refuses to engage with concerned fellow editors about

10863:

My perception is that it is one of the problems we face in trying to upgrade the writing level in articles. I also notice that bad writers tend to be bad across the board; the same writer who carelessly uses passive when active would be better, is also likely to overuse "however", to say things were

10778:

be mention of the active–passive issue in MOS, we'd first need to sort out the situations in which each is preferred. Even then, any guideline on the matter should be expressed in advisory rather than prescriptive terms (I say this because I suspect those situations are pretty complex to enumerate).

8874:

About italicizing the comma at the end of a word in italics: I started doing that a long time ago when I noticed that my browser put an icky space at the transition from roman to italic text instead of kerning. Today's browser's don't foul that up so badly, but I see that Safari still adds spurious

8257:

2 and 3 (no commas at all or commas between the name and every set of postnoms, but not afterwards) are both completely correct and commonly used. The others are not. However, the postnoms should not be in small caps, as discussed elsewhere. That is not commonly used anywhere. Basically, there is no

6357:

In response to your edit summary, it's obvious from Knowledge, from academic writing, etc. that there is no consensus about English grammar; there are publishers who will pile nouns upon each other, and there have long been writers who use "of" to introduce purpose, rather than "to," who use "shall"

183:

The cantata is best known by its name in German, so the article title should be in that language and should come first. It is useful to the reader to know what the German words mean so a translation should be provided. The question is whether the English translation is a title or just a translation.

10958:

If we're looking to put energy into improving MOS, my inclination would be not to write piecemeal expansions but to completely restructure it (on a sandbox page until ready) into a hierarchy for each section, so that readers first encounter summary points in each section—very rationed—and can click

10736:

I concur with John. On a collaborative encyclopedia that any fool with Internet access can edit, there are going to be some poor writers and some poor writing. Since skilled writers can't pull rank on poor writers, sometimes you end up having to educate them on the relevant talk page. And sometimes

10668:

Just to ensure I am communicating the exact issue here, I will restate it explicitly: I have found myself in discussion with editors who essentially said they were allowed to go on being blissfully unaware of the existence of a style called "active voice", and that they could go on scattering their

10556:

I don't think singling out passive constructions for general guidance is useful here. Any article is going to have perfectly grammatical and understood statements in the passive voice. If you want to remind people to show the agency of important actions, then say that. We only seem to consider it a

9215:

Hmm, I've never heard this line of thought before. I have to think about it. Thinking aloud through keyboard… Punctuation is indeed different than words. Punctuation indicates things like intonation, phrasing, breathing, and rhythm. In speech, those things come out as modifications to how words are

9159:

I don't see it as really being about ambiguity, and for that matter I think the ambiguity argument is overemphasized in the LQ debate (the TQ supporters are correct that it's not, in practice, really much of a problem). As I said, it's about the logical structure. Grammatical utterances naturally

7929:

The second looks right to me. Commas and parentheses are both used to separate clauses, one "softer", one "harder". A comma after the parentheses containing the birthdate is extraneous. No need to close off the postnominal, but if there was, it'd be done with a comma between it and the parenthesis.

5613:

I think the fact that those who oppose the proposal can't agree on reasons (i.e., they support some aspects but variously disagree with others), whereas all those who support (who outnumber those against) are rather unanimous in their reasoning, shows that the consensus broadly favours the change.

5573:

You say that dates as adjectives follow standard comma rules (i.e., a comma goes after the year in MDY format even when used as an adjective), and I agree with this, but others strongly disagree. There does seem to be a general consensus that such constructions should be avoided, however, and this

4094:

This overlooks that the final comma may be superseded by other punctuation. There is also heated debate regarding whether the final comma is needed when the place name or date is used as an adjective, although there is a general consensus that such constructions should be avoided (for example, see

2324:

includes an option labelled "Auto-number headings" which automatically numbers headings (1., 2., 3., etc.) and sub-headings (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc.) in each article. I have noticed in some cases headings are manually entered with numbering, which then disrupts reading the headings when auto-numbering

1958:

to determine whether the original title or an English language version should be used as the article title. For works best known by their title in a language other than English, an English translation of that title may be helpful. If the work is also well known by an English title, give the English

11334:

Thanks for telling us the data point about your high-school education, Floydian. That is indeed interesting. I think you missed out on some basic English grammar of the sort that's often covered even before high school. The form of a conjugated English verb simultaneously indicates person, number,

10947:

Passive vs active is just the tip of the iceberg; and please remember that many scientists have been trained to maximise their use of passive voice, a dreadful habit that is slow to recede. How far do you want to take this in MOS? If you're really keen to mention it, a short statement that "active

10187:

Good writers prefer the active voice, as readers find it easier to read. A lot of very poor writers like the passive voice, as they think it makes their writing sound more "grown up". Nevertheless, this is not really a MoS matter. I do agree there should be some concrete guidance about it and I am

9185:

provides a very good overview, what pretty much boils down to using logical quotation (LQ) on Knowledge, and it's inline with my original thinking that punctuation marks should be within quotation marks only if they're part of the quoted content. Thank you for pointing into that guideline, that's

9143:

the context usually indicates that what is being talked about is a word, so there is no danger that a reader would think that the comma is part of what's being talked about. In cases where there is genuine ambiguity, then sure, romanize the comma and tolerate the clash. But in most such cases, the

6959:

illustrate use of the comma after a place name, which is precisely what the example is there to illustrate. The purpose of mentioning the parents in the example is merely to keep the sentence going to show the comma; putting them in a separate sentence makes them redundant to the example. Do you

5652:

grammatically correct, even brilliant, sentence constructions? We should follow our own, tried and true, best practices, and write our guidelines using neutral prose; particularly when neither approach is wrong, and either approach can be correct. For clarity, we ought to instead ensure we include

2438:

I don't have a problem with years as headings, but four-digit years are readily distinguished from single-digit numbers anyway. It doesn't really make sense to number headings that are automatically numbered anyway, though, nor would you do this in any document that you were manually formatting.

344:

What Gerda wrote. Only recognised & sourced English titles should be treated as titles in their spelling (capitals) and ornamentation (italics); for Bach cantatas, that means overwhelmingly #1. Parentheses or square brackets don't seem to be invested with special meaning in Knowledge articles,

11206:

I also heard of the passive voice long before college. We're seeing a difference in the estimation of when passive voice is better. Floydian, do you have any sources that you think are clear enough for beginners that specify when the passive should be used vs. avoided? Style guides? Essays by

8091:

However, if we look at the general principle of punctuation, which is visual elements that enables the accurate parsing of the sentence to correctly convey the intent of the writer, we have to bear in mind that the old rules of punctuation were devised for typed paper document and where paper was

5313:

That seems to be the same person who is suggesting elsewhere that the proposed guideline indicates that those commas are optional in cases where that phrasing is not avoided (a phrasing that is recommended to be avoided, but is unlikely to always be avoided). I believe this supports my contention

4941:

The second comma marks the end of the precision-enhancer. The reason for this discussion is that commas are ambiguous elements of punctuation: it's used between phrases as well as to mark dependent clauses or other insertions or parenthetical expressions. Additionally, a single comma is enough to

2926:

My impression is that the main issue is with what an "official name" is. In the case of geographic features there are certainly offices that use names for these, but I don't think they can be considered "official" in the sense that they dictate what the names of these features are. It seems to me

2591:

and see no reason to treat it otherwise (which would only promote inconsistency). I do not think the application is limited to "moving existing apostrophes" and clearly also applies to adding apostrophes that are not in the official name: this is evident from the wording "should not be altered",

2140:

I might believe "pedants". Em dashes would solve the problem of ranges when the page numbers themselves are hyphenated, e.g., pp. A-5 through A-7 could be given as pages=A-5—A-7; there are still the questions of whether to replace the hyphens with En Dashes and whether to put spaces around the En

1818:

SchreiberBike, I think the first sentence of your proposal is now better, but the second sentence still makes reference to publication. This misses works that may not have been published in English even though they have an English title (e.g. a painting, a piano sonata) as well as works that have

12071:

We seem to agree that in some cases this is appropriate (the Silver Spring case) and in some cases it is not (the Amsterdam case). I have tried to look for something in the MoS or in the discussion archives, but I was unable to find anything. Is there some agreement within Knowledge on for which

11699:

sing thee to thy rest' . If the source has used italics (or some other styling) for emphasis and this is not otherwise evident, the editorial note should appear after the quotation." SUGGESTIONS: I won't make these changes, but if anyone else agrees/wants to, how about we delete "on Knowledge".

11021:

but I think any simplistic, top-level Knowledge recommendation should be to avoid it where possible. It is usually quite a few characters more data to read, with no additional meaning in an encyclopaedia, to say "The cake was baked by Alice" than to say "Alice baked the cake", and that is reason

9989:

Hello. I am surprised the MOS is mute on the subject of writing, if at all possible, in the active voice style rather than the passive voice (except in specific, minor circumstances). Another editor and I have been discussing the matter and this person is not convinced of the power of the active

6025:

And the practice is particularly clumsy when the day as well as the month is given—e.g.: "The court reconsidered its July 12, 2001 privilege order." Stylists who use this phrasing typically omit the comma after the year, and justifably so: in the midst of an adjective phrase (i.e., the date), it

6017:

Modern writers have taken to making adjectives out of dates, just as they do place names—e.g.: "His July 1998 book contract resulted in a record advance." The more traditional rendering of the sentence would be: "His book contract of July 1998 resulted in a record advance." Although occasionally

3902:

So rationing by temporal portion. Sounds like a daily dose of nasty medicine! But I appreciate the stimulus for this technique, which is the sheer amount of information editors are faced with. What I'd prefer, however, is a rationed-down version of the complete guidelines, with the full level of

11148:

Keep in mind, everyone, that active vs. passive is generally taught at the college level. There's a strong chance that many of our writers have never heard of the concept. Active voice is better for technical writing; passive is more acceptable for opinion pieces / essays. Since an encyclopedia

9960:

There is already a pointer to this discussion at that page, so it is covered. As for the question at hand, it should be quote marks, not just because various style guides call for it, but because it keeps the large-form/short-form dichotomy intact. For analogy, in music the title of an album is

8359:

As the two editors discovered, different authorities favor and oppose the comma after "i.e." I think it's too small for us to quibble about, especially given that we don't even take a stand on American vs. British English except to be consistent within one article. Since many people today, even

5328:

There is general consensus that both with-comma and without-comma variants should be avoided when it comes to adjectival use. It is widely accepted that one version is right and one version is wrong, but disagreement as to which is which (depending on which style guide or school of thought you

3490:

states to use present tense when discussing the plot of the work, unless specifically discussing events in the series' in-universe past. This is most natural for such works, leaving the article timeless regardless of when the actual show/episode aired, when the article was written, and when the

3454:

Descriptions of the storylines of long-running TV series, especially those that have now that have ceased airing, are best written in the past tense. The strain of trying to sustain the present tense over perhaps years of a show's internal chronology is exhausting for editors and readers alike.

3326:

WP:COMMONNAME to names in general (and not limit the concept to article titles). Things can have multiple names... To choose between them, first see if one choice stands out as being significantly more prevalent. If so, use that. If not, the next step is to assess the choices based on source

1429:

I propose that a small part of the proposed text be revised from "a foreign language composition" to "a foreign-language work" (two changes). The hyphenation clarifies that "foreign-language" is a compound adjective modifying the noun "work", and the noun "work" allows the same guideline to be

905:

We started talking only about original first, followed by translation, as in the Bach cantatas, where there typically is not one established translation but several, none of which is a true title. I would like to see a solution for that case (some 200 articles). If the standard can be used in a

700:

Sorry, you missed the point of this discussion. It's not about article title of sculptures, it's much more narrow about how the English translation of works published in a foreign language (article title in the foreign language) is treated, as a title (caps, italics, as example 4 above) or not.

4015:

closure. The !votes are roughly 50/50, and although supporters argue that the proposed change would clarify matters, there are several dissenters who believe that it would unnecessarily make this section of the MoS unwieldy, and/or that it would make it even more confusing for editors. I would

814:

That would be slightly better, but I think it would still be imprecise, since it could be taken to apply if sources can be found giving the English meaning of the title, which is not what is intended. I think the question is not whether the title has been translated, but whether (a) there is a

11245:

In England, the national curriculum calls for understanding of the passive voice from the age of 9. Is the OP aware that (s)he has used the passive voice in denigrating use of the passive voice? We don't need a MoS policy statement on it any more than we do on correct spelling or punctuation;

11105:

The purpose of the MoS is not to help poor writers become good ones. It is to tell Knowledge editors what is correct and incorrect and, when English offers multiple correct options, which one Knowledge requires of them. That is why it should be based on reliable sources and not on whims and

10305:

I don't think it's particularly over-used, either in general or on Knowledge. There certainly are writers who over-use it, yes, but I don't see it as a general problem. As Ben explains above, the passive is correctly used to put the emphasis on something other than the agent. In scientific

7505:

the reader even knows what the subject of an article is. If a reader follows a link to a subsection of another article he/she actually has not read any other part of that target article. The Section heading may be the readers only clue as to why he/she is even there. For example: Currently in

6033:

Most usage books that call uniformly for a comma after the year in a full date, by the way, don't address the question raised just above. They show the comma without illustrating what happens when the date functions as an adjective. In other words, they illustrate the easy cases, not the more

10826:

This may be one of those times when fewer rules lead to better effects. Sometimes the passive voice is the better choice, as when the agent is not known or not important ("Soap was invented thousands of years ago."). The passive voice is preferred in a lot of scientific writing because the

5668:

How do you reconcile that with the style guides which disagree on which format (with or without the second comma) is correct but broadly agree that the construction (dates and place names with commas as adjectives) should be avoided? Shouldn't we follow the style guides by recommending the

10334:

With so many amateur writers, I would have expected to see more abuse of the passive voice. But I've seen very little on Knowledge. Perhaps what the passive voice was to a previous generation (a lame way to sound formal/precise/objective), in-text attribution is to the current generation.

4107:

in month–day–year format also require a comma after the day and after the year. In either case, a comma is not required after the last element when the place name or date appears by itself (as in a title or list) or is followed by other punctuation (such as a full stop, dash, parenthesis,

8282:#1 is correct. If you have a comma before the post-nominal initials, you need a matching one afterwards; it cannot be omitted, per #2. If it is interrupted by parentheses, the comma is still needed and comes after the parentheses, as per #1. This is the same principle as dates (e.g., 2794:

applies to titles. There is a trickle down effect to consider. If we have determined that an article should use a COMMONNAME in the title, we would not suddenly shift to calling the subject something different in the body of the text. So when a particular punctuation or styling is

11335:

tense, aspect, mood, and voice. The latter four usually involve an auxiliary verb. You can look this up in almost any guide to English grammar. Of course, this hasn't prevented a lot of misunderstanding about the passive voice, as indicated at the link posted by Wavelength, above. —

11109:

To help iffy writers become better, why not write an essay on the subject? Many of the contributors to this talk page believe that new editors find the MoS intimidating because of its size (I don't share that belief, but still). Maybe an essay tailored to new editors' needs would

8404:

Even if they were common knowledge, I'd still avoid them, just because they are abbreviations. In article text (as opposed to, say, infoboxes or captions of illustrations) I think we generally want to spell things out, as better befits the formal tone of encyclopedic writing. One

3404:

To those who come down on the side of "style", I would say: OK... but our house style needs to conform to Knowledge's polices, and be in harmony with our other guidelines... and at the moment it consistently bumps up against and conflicts with several. So our house style needs to

2786:

when I added it. Most titles are names... and names can contain a possessive. If the "name containing a possessive" is the COMMONNAME, then any possessive punctuation goes along with it. The placement of the apostrophe would be based on source usage... as part of the COMMONNAME

8875:

space at some of those transitions. I've never read anything about this, but I've noticed in books that typographers italicize the trailing comma. I figure that's because a roman comma looks wonky at the end of an italic word. (When typography is done right, you don't notice it.)

7310:

See Alternative Example 1C above, with separate examples for place name and date, which I proposed yesterday in response to your initial comments. It has the added advantage of showing an example with a place name at the end. Those examples are, by the way, derived from actual

9194:

format. Though, as I already mentioned, there are some patenting or licensing issues preventing kerning and anti-aliasing to be used out-of-the-box in various Linux distributions – what's just an example that we're far away from the ideal technical solution to this dilemma.

10206:

oversimplified. The passive voice should be used in situations that call for the passive voice; good writers can figure out which ones those are. Writers who stick stubbornly to the active voice, in situations where the passive would be more effective, are poor writers.

3674:. These list the places where you should/may use italics; by implication, one ought not use them elsewhere. I suggest that the above mentioned use is "incorrect" because it does not match any of the cases in MOS, and that the articles would be better without the italics. 6179: 5295:

either use, partly because of the invariable arguments it raises and partly because the format with the final comma is perceived as awkward. (BTW, as is evident from this very reply, the separation of "support" and "oppose" in no way prevents interactive discussion.)

11002:

I'd go with an explanation that the MoS doesn't prefer active or passive voice, but does prefer the correct voice, with the illustrative examples with the object receiving the focus vs. the subject receiving the focus. Avoid "default" or "often" in the description. --

9085:

It totally makes sense when judged from that side, and with your note I'm starting to recall such trailing question marks from various textbooks – they really aren't italicized, if I'm recalling correctly. You actually might get me converted to the way described in

8409:

make an argument that we should say something about what to do in the unusual case that one of these is the best choice for an infobox or a photo caption, but in my view the MoS is already heavily overloaded with minutiae, so I wouldn't actually be in favor of that.

10912:

can be good for that. It seems to me that one of the main causes of bad writing is too much dependence on rules and appeals to authority rather than writing to communicate. Trying to legislate the active voice in the MOS would likely make that situation even worse.

5641:

particular sentence constructions will intuitively be understood, and uniformly applied, by even a majority of those who encounter its presents. The fallacy compounds when showing an example to avoid which is otherwise, a grammatically correct, properly punctuated

6124: 10983:

preferable to passive voice" with a couple of examples. Then I suppose it should disclaim that there are other times when the passive works better, as every point above stating so is valid. But the point of the new section would be to raise awareness to avoid

10626:

I don't think it's "unawareness". The passive voice is sometimes the better choice. Where the subject of an article is about a book, for instance, editors will naturally tend to put more emphasis on the subject of the article. Here we are more likely to write,

9266:

Looking good; at first it sounded a bit weird, but that was only the result of looking at the previous "independent" version for some time. :) Also, the placement is now better, it flows more logically with the rest of guidelines. The only thing I changed is

4341:. Astonishing that some editors continue to maintain that such adjectival forms are clear. In some contexts, such as tabular constructs (or data derived from such constructs), there may be some value, but as a general practice, it is best to avoid such forms. 8973:

as I am with the underlying logical structure. The italicization is meant to emphasize (or otherwise demarcate) a part of the sentence element set off by the comma; the comma itself is not part of that element. It's the same principle as logical quotation.

5697:

Then I would include some creative examples, endeavoring to highlight as much insight as concision was able to convey. A guideline similar to this is much more clearly weighing caution against an acceptable alternative than a mere instruction to avoid; in my

6007: 715:

I really don't think I missed the point, dear. The boxed proposal above focuses on the question of whether a work has been published, and on giving a translation in parenthesis. These are the wrong things to focus on, because it would give results such as:

9875:

to change the rules for poems, and if usage in CMOS, etc., can be demonstrated, I don't think it would meet with much resistance. The relevant section seems poorly considered and could use expansion - I don't think it's been changed since its inception.

10830:

That being said, if you think a specific sentence can be improved by changing it to the active voice, go ahead and do it. You don't need permission. It's not forbidden to improve article text even if you can't point to a rule that it is breaking as-is.

6071: 5415:- per reasons made by LtPowers and Kwamikagami. I originally supported this but thought it over and decided that I didn't like it. One comma is not that big a deal (now that I think about it), and the way it is now is better than what is being proposed. 8452:

Sometimes the abbreviations are useful—in space-constrained settings such as tables and captions; and in a sequence of parentheticals where each is an "e.g.". I do believe whether the comma is included should be optional, as long as article-consistent.

5987:

I've seen it mentioned above that the proposed change is how style guides treat the issue, but I didn't see any specific guides mentioned after a brief skim of this page. Does anyone have any citations or links to where style guides treat this issue? —

11734:

Hi, I wasn't sure what should be done with the large (overlarge?) quote on this page; given that the Telegraph reference (which I possess from the paper) gives a detailed account, would I be justified in removing the quote from the article? Thanks,

2062:

I've looked through the MoS and the talk pages going back some time in history. It appears the above statement is basically the lay of the land, but that I should expect "pendants" (interesting turn of phrase) who insist on mdashes being "correct".

5689:

As several independent Manuals of Style recommend avoiding sentence constructions which present dates and place names as adjectives, editors should be diligent to ensure sentence constructions of such form are unambiguous, grammatically correct,

11764:

or one of the similar articles and looking at some of the other individuals who have won the Victoria Cross. Then duplicate a format that seems standard for those articles. There might be more specific advice, and real experts in this issue, at

6189:

When you indicate month, day, and year, put a comma after the dat and after the year (unless some other punctuation mark, like a period or question mark, follows the year). Include these commas even if the month-day-year expression serves as an

10687:

I do sympathise with this and have encountered it before. It's a problem of education and of learning good writing, but I do not think we can use the MoS to enforce it. As others have said, there are times where the passive voice is essential.

10978:

I personally have learned a lot from the MOS and your exercises, and I'm sure others have too; I like the MOS the way it currently is. I was just hoping for exactly what you mentioned above: a short section in it stating that "active voice is

8612:, as if there were a special kind of hand called an eye-hand, and the article was about its span. That said, style authorities are not unanimous about this, but this is the traditional typographical distinction. I'll think about how to reword 8123: 5012:

I don't mind the second point about avoiding avoiding clunky adjectival usage of full dates; the first example is just so wrong, starting with a prepositional phrase ("On ... ,") that would often have a comma anyway. It would confuse editors.

566:

Is there a consensus to add the text in the box above to the MoS? I run into this issue at least a couple of times per week and if the proposal is the consensus, I've been doing it wrong for a long time. I think the MoS needs this. Thank you.

9189:

Regarding the italicization, I agree that italics is there for emphasizing; the true solution would be making sure that such trailing punctuation marks are displayed correctly even when not italicized, in which case I'd undoubtfully support

11428:

In those sentences, "is located" is not passive. See the link posted by Wavelength above. I certainly agree with you, though, that saying "located" is usually clumsy and should be deleted entirely, just as you did before you got religion.

11292:

I don't think advice on the use of the passive voice has any place in the MoS, but if we were to provide advice elsewhere, it should, perhaps, be based on the recommendations of Joseph M. Williams, included in his books on style, such as

6337:

Is there seriously no consensus over the grammatical rules for commas? Some WP editors say two commas are always required, some say the second comma of a parenthetical isn’t grammatically required under any circumstances… I did not expect

11623:

Let's put the "adjectival passive" aside. Even if the context makes it clear that "The prince is me" means "The role of the prince is played by me", and even though the latter is passive, the former is active, and has no passive version.

10805:

passive for a current event today. "A sniper kills a man and six people are wounded in clashes..." Sometimes the sources just don't (can't or won't) attribute these actions to anyone. "...and clashes wound six people" doesn't seem right.

10561:, we understand without issue. If agency's important to understanding an action, or if a particular sentence is unclear, then editors should re-work them, but on those grounds. I agree it is a matter of emphasis and contextual judgement. 7629:

Looking at the cited archive discussions, I have to agree with Wavelength... I see no consensus to narrow the options to two. If anything I see the opposite... agreement that there are multiple options, and that we should allow them all.

9220:

italicize punctuation? If never except inside a distinguished phrase, like the characters' thoughts in Frank Herbert novels, what is the gain that offsets the aesthetic loss? Could you point me to some further reading? (I just looked at

9138:

at the start of this sentence, is the comma part of the emphasized phrase or not? There's really no meaningful answer, so I think visual aesthetics should prevail. Even when indicating a single word to mention rather than use it, like

4623:

construction is wrong (at least in the minds of many). At best, it is certainly confusing. In either case, this form is best to be avoided to evade possible confusion or disputes, which is what this proposal is aimed at achieving.

9455:? Please can these three policies/guidelines be updated to reflect the outcome of any archived decision? If this has already been resolved, apologies for my inability to find the right archive, please can you point me to it? Thanks. 11694:

From the main article: "Use italics within quotations if they are already in the source material. When adding italics on Knowledge, add an editorial note after the quotation. 'Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince: And

5913: 4210: 10611:

Agreed, this is a matter of good vs. bad writing, and that specifically is the issue I originally brought up: Editors have claimed their unawareness of the active voice is justified by observing the topic is absent from the MOS.

10306:

articles especially, there are situations where it's almost mandatory, because otherwise the sentence would have to take as its subject (say) an experimenter, who is almost totally irrelevant to the information being conveyed. --

3511: 1020:

I've been thinking about this addition to the MoS as applying to works primarily known by their foreign title, but perhaps we should expand it to also cover foreign works best known in English by their English titles. Any ideas?

4479: 11470:

Our grumbling about how don't know their passive from a hole in the ground has inspired many people to send us email asking for a clear and simple explanation of what a passive clause is. In this post I respond to those many

5145:. I vehemently object to deprecating adjectival use of dates or places. It is the height of madness to prohibit a perfectly natural and grammatically correct construct so you don't have to change some arbitrary, pedantic rule. 3989: 3803: 292:

gives no guidance. Smaller style guides and other sources give a wide variety of instructions including double quotes inside of parentheses, title case with italics, title case without italics and there are probably more out

6373: 11317:

Even if the reader should be told who is responsible for an action, we do not need to insist on a particular syntactic mechanism for conveying that information, and we don't need to put all the information in one sentence.

9341:

could join this discsussion, so we either end up with a better rewording that isn't "messy" through a broader consensus, or conclude that no changes were required in the first place. I agree that discussing for three days

3824:

suffixed compounded compound modifiers. The current MoS recommendation to use en dashes for prefixes, and hyphens for suffixes, is confusing, inconsistent, and seemingly unfounded. It also conflicts with the explanation at

4377:

as a good compromise and an improvement to current guidance. Note that the proposal punts on the issue of the final comma in the adjectival construction. And maybe that's okay. As Franklin Covey says, both are acceptable.

7025:

I think that to Blueboar (and please correct me if I’m wrong), this is akin to a section on which of two misspellings of a word is preferred (obviously, neither—you should spell it correctly). I don’t agree that there’s

5868:

Exactly. Any change to this part of MOS:COMMA that does not support the common-sense result of that move request is a change I cannot help but oppose. The guideline is messed up and needs fixing, and this doesn't do it.

2058:

As it was explained to me, mdashes in page ranges are allowed in the case that the page started with this format, but should otherwise be left in whatever format it was originally created in. Is that basically correct?

920:

I think the main thing is: if it's not a title, don't style it as one. After that, unless there is some ambiguity in the language that needs to be set out for the reader, we shouldn't include more than one translation.

9229:

stick the sentence's closing period onto a noun, with the understanding that the reader knows that the punctuation isn't part of the noun. Is that a travesty or common practice among professional sentence-diagrammers?

3688:

I was thinking that too, since no convention exists that calls for the terms to be italicized, nor does it really require emphasis. Pretty minor. I guess it just fell into tradition through copying within Knowledge. —

10737:

this doesn't go well: a big part of what makes a poor writer a poor writer is obliviousness to subtleties of language and meaning. That said, there is something authoritative you can point to: the second paragraph of

7704:

Oxford-style English (me), making apparent distinctions between homophones such as "James's house" and "James' house". Nor by the way does a following initial s make any difference in the usage I am accustomed to: in

4016:

suggest that this proposal has a reasonable chance of succeeding if the proposers make an effort to address the opposers' concerns through further, informal discussion to identify wording that is mutually acceptable.

4187: 11263:"Emphasis is often achieved by use of verbs rather than nouns formed from them, and by use of verbs in the active rather than in the passive voice"—S.J. Reisman, ed. A Style Manual for Technical Writers and Editors. 7728:

It seems somewhat confusing that we have two different sections of the MoS that have the name "Common mathematical symbols" (even though their content is generally consistent with each other). Specifically, we have

4047:

In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element (except at the end of a sentence).

11170:

What, are you serious? Anyone who gets through high school without knowing the difference should sue. I don't agree with your distinction, either — scientific writing has frequent requirements for passive voice.

2066:

It was also explained to me that, in the past perhaps, using hyphens instead of mdashes may work better with search engines, which may not correctly parse the text otherwise. Is this also correct, or now outdated?

8542: 10864:"critcally acclaimed" (and the like), and to use ambiguous contructions. There is a serious issue (though not especially a MoS one) around how we educate people to be good writers. Very few of our editors are. -- 4962:

In any case, we are not "equating" or taking sides in whether the with-comma or without-comma format is to be preferred — the proposal is to explicitly state to avoid using the adjectival construction at all.

9133:

I sympathize with the principle of logical quotation, but I don't think it applies to italics nearly as often, because italics usually emphasize rather than delimit, and the comma doesn't introduce ambiguity.

6428:

has pointed out, because it begins with the prepositional phrase "On…," editors may expect there to be a comma following the date regardless of the date format. I therefore suggest the following alternative:

2995:

Use the same "common name" throughout the article, following the same apostrophe placement as in the title, but noting any notable variations (e.g., in the lead or an "Other names" or "Terminology" section if

4837:

No, it doesn't, it doesn't break down anything, as the first commas just serve to structure the qualifying elements to follow, which are still part of the "whole package" → subpart one / the subject-matter –

4411:

I thought this over and, although I thought it was good at first, have decided that I don't like this proposal. To me, what is being proposed is making something simple a lot more awkward than it should be.

669:

The main thing is surely whether a work has an accepted English title, not whether it has been published in English. Some works are published in English but are normally known by their original titles (e.g.

4433:– The adjectival form is to be avoided. It is quite awful. Why say "your November 1, 2000 letter" when "your letter of November 1, 2000" is unambiguous, clear, straightforward, and aesthetically pleasing? 10741:

says "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." Bad passives are usually vague or unnecessarily complex wording.

7251:

in the middle of a sentence. What I call into question is the fact that, in order to make a minor grammatical point, you keep presenting long, convoluted sentences that should be avoided in good writing.

6708: 6150:

are not. To make matters worse, some writers place a second comma after the state. Thus, using a city plus the state as an adjective disrupts the flow of the sentence… Such constructions contribute to

6041: 4030: 11451:: with a genuine passive, you can't replace BE with a verb such as REMAIN. (And "retain this otherwise redundant verb" is careless for "usefully convert this otherwise redundant adjective".) ¶ Actually 6933:

It’s supposed to illustrate correct usage of the comma in such cases. Do you think it would be better to recommend avoiding such cases entirely, rather than to illustrate how to properly punctuate them?

3838: 1211:

I agree that the MoS is very large and hate to add more to it, but if we were to put it in subsections, it would have to be put into a lot of them. I think it makes more sense to put it in the main MoS.

1077:

change. There are many other issues about translations which could be addressed, but it seems to me that we've got consensus on this one. If there's no objection, I'll update the MoS in a couple of days.

9097:– for example. Doing that makes sense to me only if the punctuation is also quoted, but not in the opposite case; with that, I'm actually leaning towards something similar to the italicizing rules in 4361:

be a terminating comma, per the style guides, although some say that it is perceived that there must be a terminating comma. None of the style guides say the terminating comma should not be present. —

4147:

Wherever possible, avoid using compound place names or dates in month–day–year format as adjectives, as such uses can seem unwieldy and may raise disputes whether the final comma is appropriate in this

5637:- this proposal achieves the opposite of its endeavor. In seeking to clarify styling guidelines, we are asked to support changes which introduce ambiguity. It befuddles logic to imagine suggestions to 10221:

Not really. The passive voice is way over-used in general and on Knowledge articles in particular. But as it is not a MoS issue there isn't a lot of point in having a long discussion here about it. --

5214:

Off topic, but Garner et al. also use “as adjectives” and “adjectival” when describing the attributive use. I find it hard to believe that such style and grammar guides are grammatically illiterate. —

5200:

And BTW, the dates and places are not "adjectives", they are nouns used attributively, so the wording of the proposal should be opposed as grammatically illiterate even if we agree with the point. —

3529: 5742:

gives pause to an edit war, as the "failure to ensure" will become self evident upon a reversion, with which, an edit summary ought highlight where and how the writing was improved by the reversion.—

8336:, popped up on my watchlist. I poked a bit just now and didn't see guidance on the point in the MoS (or in the talk archives). Both of the editors seem to have discussed it out on their talk pages ( 9260: 9164:(the traditional grammatical term is "diagramming"), and the comma is at a different level from the text being emphasized or "mentioned" (in the case of italics used to indicate words-as-words). -- 6788:

I would never write either of these, however punctuated, but that may be a difference between my British English and the American English of the examples. I prefer the original example in the MOS.

4205: 8424:

Good point about avoiding abbreviations altogether! Within reason, of course—which is why I concur about not adding a guideline about it. But I'll definitely keep this in mind in future writing. —

4577:), this is unclear: it is left up to the reader to assume that the adjective modifying "metropolitan area" is "Rochester, New York" and not "New York", as this is not evident from the punctuation. 1743:

Including the English equivalent seems good, but I query why in parentheses. In general editorial emendations (such as missing data, or expansion of an author's name) are done in square brackets:

9153: 4996:

It’s awkward because it may be perceived as breaking the flow of the sentence. It’s a concern because of the massive debates we’ve had over whether using one or two is appropriate or incorrect. —

2953:

are different from other nouns. It is not our job to "correct" a name - even when we think that the name contains incorrect styling. For example: if sources indicate that the name of a place is

8931:

to italicize the surrounding punctuation. I'm not sure this is such a good idea. The example of a roman question mark after an italic word can look so bad that someone might actually notice it.—

5380:

My understanding is that we already have a consensus about that, and the proposal doesn't change it. Until some change is approved, the consensus is found on the current MOS page where it says "

2587:

I would support the revision of "(e.g., companies, organizations, or places)" or "(companies, organizations, places, etc.)". I think it should naturally apply to geographical features such as

10575:

As John pointed out above, this is a matter of good vs. bad writing, not a stylistic choice that should be consistent throughout Knowledge, so it doesn't belong in the MOS. You could write an

8587: 8055:

It comes back to the question of whether or not the postnominals are parenthetic. If the postnominals are an "aside" to the main point of the sentence, then they are parenthetic and should be

7745:

to refer to that information, but discovered that there are two possible candidates for the destination of such shortcuts, so it is not clear which destination the shortcut should refer to. —

7008:

I think you may be being pedantic; we're trying to provide examples of the correct use of commas, not exemplifications of the best prose. That said, how about Alternative Example 1C above?

5235:

Again, this is not a prohibition but advice to avoid this construction. As you can see from the comments below, style guides discourage these uses, and we have good reason to follow them.

302:

My guess is that the most common in Knowledge is title case with italics inside of parentheses, but I've done no exhaustive search. Should we set a standard in the MoS or live and let live?

7609: 7608:(December 2009), where Noetica posed the question "How are we to define consensus, for the crucial work that MOS performs within the Project?" and three related questions. Please see also 5261:") I am involved in a current RM in which some people seem to be interpreting the brackets in that statement as saying that the bracketed commas are optional, whereas the statement saying " 11863: 7679: 2821:. The extent of its reach is interesting, though. WP:COMMONNAME gives examples in broad strokes, not dealing in punctuation, but it is sometimes used in such cases (e.g., not to move 2541:"companies, organizations, or places"? If so, the brackets should probably be removed from that sentence. If not, it might be better to say so explicitly, for example: "Official names ( 818:

A further problem is that the proposal assumes that the original title will usually come first, with the English in brackets, but I think the reverse will often be appropriate. Surely:

10124: 3254:

Not only do I agree with BB, but I say that to speak of a "proper name" is an error. A "proper noun" certainly, but what is an "improper name"? One that includes disrespectful words?

2900:

I agree with sroc that the rule in a section about apostrophes should refer to apostrophes rather than "punctuation". Likewise, I agree that sroc's proposed wording re official names (

3302:

The main trouble here is the assumption that each such name has an obviously "correct" version that we should not change. Most often, I think that's not the case. Look at the RM on

2106:

I don't recall whom, it was years ago. But the former question remains, is it correct that if the article uses hyphens, use hyphens? (and yes, "pedants", never used that term before)

10951:

improving his/her writing.) What about the aspects of style that are on the boundary between prescription and personal preference? Should it be aimed at both natives and non-natives?

10635:

There's no stylistic or grammatical reason to re-word it the same way for both articles, or to generally recommend re-wording all instances to one standard of emphasis on principle.

4911:

Actually, instead of making those replacements, you could just remove the year and the state, and everyone can see that the comma is related to the "precision-enhancer" (year/state).

11113:

As for restructuring the MoS, I wouldn't be too good to look at a mockup, but one big page is usually easier to search than a lot of little pages. One or two CTRL-Fs and I'm done.

7431: 5291:, there is some dispute as to whether the use of dates and place names as adjectives should be an exception to the general rule that a final comma is required. This proposal is to 1606:

and should be able to study it tonight. After that, I'll try to integrate the comments below and post a new proposal. If there's a consensus that it is good enough, I'll go over to

9406: 1857:

Note: I've also copyedited out the word foreign, since the guidance would apply to languages which are not necessarily foreign in English-speaking countries (Welsh, for example).

11859:' shortcuts, and found that only the following are not linked to either 'Manual of Style' pages, or pages that are essentially part of the MOS (like naming convention policies): 6101: 9774:

says otherwise. Most style guides say "quotations", including notably MLA, Chicago, APA, and AP. A lot of commentary delineates a bright line difference between long poem, like

9464: 7865:

Does anyone know how best to punctuate in biographies when a postnominal is added to the name in the first sentence? There are three ways of doing it, none of which look right:

4096: 3745:

Italics should only be used when special emphasis or distinction from normal running text is needed. Overuse dissipates that effect, and just makes the article harder to read.

12143: 8642:

section, right where "Eye–hand span" is used as an example? That way it would be clear immediately to anyone reading that section just to see how articles should be named. —

7372: 7240:

That's because you present the sentence with no context, something that would not occur in actual article writing. If sentence 1D appeared in context, chances are the reader

6797: 7605: 4569:. The noun before the comma ("Rochester") describes a smaller area within the larger area described by the second noun ("New York"). By this same logical pattern, the term 3798: 11382:

is an illustration of what I've taken to doing with these. Though it now occurs to me that I might get religion and instead retain this otherwise redundant verb, adding an

6875:

mentioned in the lede). So the information that needs to be presented is 1) his place of birth and 2) the names of his parents. Two distinct bits of information that are

5436:

because the date is the subject of the sentence. OTOH the recommendation to avoid the question altogether by eliminating the year or state (if clarity permits) seems good.

4421: 7952:, (born 1 January 1940) is a ... ? That doesn't look right either. I wonder whether the best thing, when adding a postnominal, is not to use brackets around the dates. So: 7718: 7422: 7412: 5998: 5432:

The comma following the year and state in the examples is governed by grammar, not usage; some constructs will require it and some won't. For example, one would not write

7069: 5967:

I do not believe a guideline extolling avoidance inherently implies the thing to avoid is an accepted alternative; instead supplanting the very notion of its acceptance.—

5424: 4573:

suggests that "Rochester" is a smaller area within "New York metropolitan area". If the intended meaning refers to a metropolitan area in or around Rochester (i.e., the

2269: 12095: 9690: 5089:

It is not uncommon or unacceptable for short introductory phrases to not be separated by commas. That said, this additional proposed change removes any ambiguity, and I

2120:

No. En dashes are correct. Use en dashes in page ranges, always. Never em dashes, and if encounter hyphens, feel free to fix them or leave them for a pedant to fix.

1841:. Where it is appropriate to include both a translation and an English title, put the translation first and preface the title with the words "English title" and a colon. 1823:

Where a work originally produced under a non-English title is known by an English language title, give that title in parentheses following normal formatting for titles:

9805: 8122:

Omitting the commas altogether might be an OK invention, but following conservatively the conventional English typography might be more in the tradition of WP. Like

4473: 4299: 1834:. Where there is no English title in common use, or where the English title is not a translation, give a translation in sentence case, roman type, inside parentheses: 421: 10650:

of the board did, or a plenary session of the council did. We mustn't try to work it out from his position and the organisation's rules and procedures; that would be

10400: 6783: 6748: 6729: 4369: 3722: 354: 10003: 9648: 8101: 7776: 7734: 7363: 7353: 3460: 2833:) and of course it makes perfect sense to use the common name throughout the article, including consistent punctuation (excepting any special notes of variations). 11164: 5274: 5209: 4316: 2115: 2101: 2041: 1088: 578: 9849:

consensus at the NC will be to change the MOS. So... it is likely that we will need more than a local consensus to resolve the conflict... we need to involve the

8072: 5944: 5662: 5033:

The first example is in the existing text, so that's not really a valid reason to oppose the change. By way of being constructive, do you have a better example?

4405: 626: 339: 11720: 8353: 5786: 4519: 4387: 2309: 876: 12155: 11538: 10427:

y'all apparently do not spend any time editing Bollywood actor articles that are all overflowing with "She was seen in X and will be seen in the upcoming Y." --

9749: 9740:

referred to its founders and editors as "comrade X", "comrade y". One of them was also apparently a "Martyr Comrade Sudipto Gupto". I've removed the honorifics.

6351: 5767:--there's no guidance to editors as to what to do if they cannot avoid "Toledo, Ohio courtroom during the January 26, 1981 blizzard." And the guidance should be 5568: 5162: 4991: 4756:, not a territory called "Darwin, Northern". We'll have to agree to disagree on this, but it illustrates just why adjectival constructions should be avoided. 4349: 4274: 3834: 3570: 3552: 3520:

article, but it doesn't seem to work. If this situation is a peculiarity of WP software and not just my screen, perhaps the Bulleting section should mention it?

2186: 2129: 1812: 1705: 1624: 1537: 1450: 1368: 1292: 1223: 1161: 525: 509: 234: 214: 11780: 10840: 9970: 9955: 9828: 9796:

Looking forward to the comments here (please ping me when you comment...since this page isn't on my watchlist and I might not check back more than once a day)--

8038: 8012: 7985: 7937: 7111:

Given that this is how US-style dates should be punctuated, 1D is certainly much clearer. It clarifies the difference between this and the modern British-style

6980:@Frungi - Exactly. Instead of giving pedantic examples of how to punctuate such cases correctly, we should tell editors to avoid such cases in the first place. 4953: 4906: 4863: 4832: 4442: 4333: 4240: 4228: 4052:

in month–day–year format also require a comma after the day and after the year (except at the end of a sentence). In both cases, the last element is treated as

3853: 3704: 3683: 592: 487: 443: 410:

If anyone can improve the language above, or can think of a better place to put this, or thinks it is unnecessary, I'm completely open to new ideas. Thank you.

11907: 8382:

points to that article. But that wouldn't have stopped my too-confident revert of a comma; I simply "knew" what was right. I agree: delightful as it is to see

8135: 7850: 7817: 7791: 7124: 6825: 5445: 4103:

In geographical references that include multiple divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element.

3740: 3481: 3384: 2292: 2150: 2027: 2009: 1032: 11122: 10436: 9727: 8878:

Actually, Knowledge favors the "modern practice" of using fewer commas when they're optional, so in this case we could probably do without the comma entirely.

8275: 6329: 6304: 6171: 6116: 5511: 5026: 4257: 3809: 3661: 3641: 3263: 930: 915: 809: 758: 710: 12039: 11840: 11826: 11798: 10180: 10163: 9392: 8328: 3375:

pointed out) publishers apply their house rules to issues such as the full stop in "Mrs.", regardless of the "official" name. Why are apostrophes different?

3272:, I retract my suggested revision of "names" to "proper names". I made some other changes in my revision, stylistic in nature, but feel free to disregard. 2704: 1901: 1887: 695: 11240: 11216: 10922: 10751: 10644: 10621: 10588: 10570: 10549: 10359: 10140: 10068: 9866: 9239: 9173: 8983: 8940: 8668:, for example, about compounded names, which has highlighted the need for some clarification on that point, albeit without much in the way of a conclusion. 8480: 8433: 7922: 7639: 5547: 5529: 4236:

I think the suggestion to re-cast to avoid the awkward adjective forms is useful; If the adjective form must be used, there should be no terminating comma.

3503: 1772: 313: 256: 11607:), and the given and the new. It is very complex and should not be dismissed. Native speakers are geniuses at unknowingly using the passive to these ends. 11344: 11255: 11201: 11180: 10813: 10383: 9885: 9631: 9559: 9528: 9493: 8447: 6637: 6537: 6367: 5397: 5223: 4489: 3464: 247:(16th ed., 11.6) specifies sentence-style without italics or quotation marks. An example makes it clear that the first letter of the title is uppercase. -- 195: 8162: 7591: 7161: 5824: 5686:

Because I would prefer instructions which present facts; letting the reader decide, I would rather iterate the caution in a form similar to the following:

3441: 3362: 3340: 3284: 2940: 11564: 11327: 10858: 10654:. We're not going to write "An unknown person fired Mackay in January 2014", suggesting a mystery. We'll just echo our source and use the passive voice. 9984: 9755: 9479: 9373: 9302: 9280: 9204: 9045: 8898: 8853: 8807: 8781: 8751: 8651: 8625: 7598: 7567: 6921: 5349: 5323: 5308: 5247: 4663:

Rochester, Victoria; Rochester, Alberta; Rochester, Kent; Rochester, Illinois; Rochester, Indiana; Rochester, Kentucky; Rochester, Massachusetts etc. pp.

3916: 3754: 663: 614: 11512: 11438: 11283: 11060: 10997: 10972: 10940: 10792: 10494: 10412: 8320: 8302: 7700:

The entire discussion of pronunciation needs to rethought and possibly eliminated. As it stands it is quite incomprehensible to at least one speaker of

7694: 7624: 7474: 7103: 6943: 5976: 5751: 5732: 5707: 5681: 5188: 5005: 2974: 2913: 2877: 2777: 2687: 2604: 2581: 2417: 2168: 2159:

That's absurd. Why not stick with hyphens where they belong, and en dashes where they belong, and write A-5–A-7? Where is this nonsense coming from?

2082:

Who 'explained' that? For quite some time now on Knowledge the hyphen and em dash have not been allowed in page ranges. Only the en dash is appropriate.

1755: 11369: 11026:, and of course, as others have said, there often can be. But this isn't the place for this; where might we continue to talk about active v passive? -- 11012: 10895: 10697: 10682: 10663: 10606: 10344: 10315: 10272: 10230: 10216: 10197: 9667: 9625: 8523: 8466: 8419: 8399: 8369: 7754: 7709:

the three consecutive s/z sounds are all pronounced. If the possessive s were not pronounced, I would expect the orthography to be "St. James Square".

5897: 5880: 5863: 5838: 5818: 4975: 4790: 4768: 4735: 4636: 3830: 2989:

If the "common name" is also the "official" name adopted by the person/company/organisation/place, preserve their placement of apostrophes per MOS:POSS

654:

Why is "Weeping" capitalized? A parenthetical in the middle of a sentence is not capitalized, even if it explains the first word of that sentence. —

387:

Where a foreign language composition is known by an English title, give the English translation in parentheses following normal formatting for titles:

11035: 9113: 7653: 7327: 7302: 7235: 7214: 7189: 7086: 7020: 6996: 6972: 6908: 6846: 6234:

after. You can design around the problem by inserting a prepositional phrase: Use "letter of January 17, 1998," instead of "January 17, 1998, letter."

5962: 5626: 5488: 3583:

In numerous episode list articles under the "Written by" column the terms "Story by" and "Teleplay by" are set in italics. Is this correct? Examples:

3316: 3249: 3228: 3211: 3179: 3131: 3071: 3038: 2845: 2808: 1868: 772: 12022: 9994:

but no longer.) To me, it is obvious that "Writers love Knowledge" is better than "Knowledge is loved by writers". Thanks very much for your reply.

426:

I wonder if a different example would be better. The one used might suggest that roman is the norm although the styling is variable in the articles:

12048:

about when to use country subdivisions (states, provinces, regions etc.) and when not, when listing a cyclist's birth place in an infobox. Example:

11677: 11663: 11645: 11553: 11415: 8725: 8691: 7039: 5474: 5375: 5129: 5108: 4775:(not saying coming from your direction, but as the MoS is a magnet for charged atmospheres, sudden changes in the weather are always to be expected) 3727:

And italic face is harder to read than roman face, which is why italics are typically used for short patches of text, not long continuous sections.

2451: 2247: 2076: 12034: 11984: 11689: 10873: 8251: 7907: 7462: 5084: 5045: 2954: 2865: 1280:

would be sufficient, if every other relevant subpage has a prominently visible link (not just one in an expandable navigation box) to that subpage.

202: 8506: 4503:" remains wrong to me and is muddling meaning, while the without-commas variant doesn't and isn't, so equating the two strikes me as improper, and 2473:

Avoid starting headings with numbers (other than years), as this can be confusing for readers with the "Auto-number headings" preference selected.

2286: 749:

Neither of which represent good style, because they imply that the text in brackets is an accepted title, rather than just a helpful translation.

9029:

Hehe, you're right about "status" vs. "statuses" – the plural form does take away some of the intended meaning. How about this instead, maybe:

7546: 7173:

Again, you miss the point, which is to provide examples showing the inclusion of a comma after the state name and after the year. Your example (

2958: 8140:

I think the problem is that we are trying to convey too much information in one single sentence... suggest breaking it up into two sentences...

7403: 3618: 12137: 12045: 11636:

discusses passives at some length, under the rubric of "information packaging" (or similar; I don't have my copy in front of me right now). --

8375: 6084:

When a city and state precede a noun and help to describe it, no hyphens are used. Also, make sure a comma (,) follows the name of the state. …

5157: 4085:

On November 24, 1971, Cooper hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft that had taken off from Portland, Oregon, and was destined for Seattle, Washington.

3936: 3895: 2268:

Apparently that text at MEDMOS has stood since 2008, and I cannot determine that it was initially added based on any consensus. Discussion at

12008: 11754: 11603:

Actually, active vs. passive brings a whole range of choices in the English clause for construing marked–unmarked, theme–rheme (also known as

8333: 6134:

The practice of using as adjectives place names having two or more words is generally to be resisted. But it is increasingly common. Although

3785:

page was not changed however. I've opened a RfC on that issue and the more general structure and relationship between various SS templates at

3781:

A change was made this past summer to the documentation of that template to encourage/allow what was before nonstandard use. The accompanying

3536: 605:. However, most Knowledge articles get this wrong, and the proposed addition to the MoS should be made soon. However, instead of adding it to 11893: 8716:

makes it clear that even historical knowledge is required for deciding whether a hyphen or en dash is appropriate. To me, that's amazing. —

7551: 4072:

On November 24, 1971 Cooper hijacked a Boeing 727 aircraft that had taken off from Portland, Oregon and was destined for Seattle, Washington.

9764:

through FAC and the question came up about italicising the title when referring to its publication as a two-page one-poem pamphlet in 1928.

7254:

If you need an example of a state name used as an appositive in the middle of a sentence... keep it simple. I would suggest something like:

2709:

You cannot have a rule that says "maintain the official punctuation" in a section that only relates to apostrophes! I think it should read:

11883: 11455:

to which Wavelength posted a link isn't of much direct help here. It does, however, have a splendid list of links to more or less relevant

11443:

Good catch! It's what's called an "adjectival passive", as can be deduced from the grammaticality (despite stylistic dubiousness) of, say,

10532:

Use passive voice (object receives the action) instead if you are quite aware of what you are doing and know that it improves the sentence.

8665: 3015: 2177:

It seems to me that whatever you do might cause problems with search engines, but IMHO it would be nice if the MOS gave explicit guidance.

9320: 9290: 7838:". In each case, an editor consulting the guidelines is able to examine them together on one webpage. Also, redundancy is not a problem. 7678:. The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents, and it facilitates maintenance of 326:

There was a discussion about this topic (forgot where) resulting in: if the translation of a title is used as a title in English (such as

12132: 11761: 9401: 7831: 7797: 6766:

I can live with any of them, but 1D is concise, is unambiguous as to what the commas are for, and is correct in BrE as well as in AmE. --

4942:"close" several insertions/dependent clauses/parenthetical expressions, while any left-parenthesis calls for a closing right-parenthesis. 8571:

section)? Well, it is because of the independent status of these linked elements, but that should be additionally clarified within the

8438:

Yes, just replace by "that is," and make it more accessible and understandable and maintainable for readers and editors of all levels.

7830:

Because "common mathematical symbols" are especially associated with numbers, it is appropriate that they be discussed in a section of "

6867:

lump it all into one long sentence that needs a whole bunch of commas. If we are not talking about the lead sentence, then there is no

2432: 5362:, and, as sroc said, I doubt we’ll see consensus on that point in the very near future, if ever. Without consensus, the MOS cannot and 4902: 4859: 4786: 4731: 4515: 3922: 3877: 3056: 97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 11356:

of the passive strands the guts of the message out at the end of a longish sentence, that's a good reason to turn it into the active.

11260:

Well, they are in good company. One style guide for technical writers quoted in Merriam Webster's Dictionary of English Usage" states:

8031:, there really isn't as much consistency as I'd thought, as far as the commas go. One, two or none. But the parentheses are the same. 2494: 2402: 11650:

It would be in answer to a question such as: "Which one are you in the photo". The answer would need to start with "the", of course.

9941: 9872: 7675: 6415:

On November 24, 1971, Cooper hijacked an aircraft that had taken off from Portland, Oregon, and was destined for Seattle, Washington.

5366:

recommend either way. But the idea of avoiding the whole issue whenever possible seems to be enjoying a lot more general agreement. —

4137:

On November 24, 1971, Cooper hijacked an aircraft that had taken off from Portland, Oregon, and was destined for Seattle, Washington.

3794: 800:, I think so. Why is "Weeping" above capitalised? I can't think of any reason other than it would look exceedingly odd otherwise. -- 6830:

That misses the point of illustrating correct usage and also is not how prose should be written. The example was adapted from the "

4248:

This is what the best style guides advise. With this approach, the contentious issue of the terminating comma becomes irrelevant. --

1970:. Where the work is not known by an English title, give the translation in parentheses without special formatting in sentence case: 11766: 10127:

about it, but it got deleted, maybe for the same reasons the passive voice is not discouraged on MOS (actually, it's encouraged in

9182: 7247:

I'm not missing the point... I do understand it... what you are discussing are situations where a state name or year is used as an

6402:

On November 24, 1971 Cooper hijacked an aircraft that had taken off from Portland, Oregon and was destined for Seattle, Washington.

4124:

On November 24, 1971 Cooper hijacked an aircraft that had taken off from Portland, Oregon and was destined for Seattle, Washington.

3984: 3597: 3052: 7486: 5577:

If the brackets are getting in the way, the alternative is to show both versions with and without the comma as examples to avoid.

3432:

sources to follow (that is accepted per concepts such as ENGVAR, COMMONNAME and Due weight), but follow the sources nevertheless.

3236:

What do others think... does my suggested language take us in the right direction? If so, is it OK as is... or should it specify

2724:

Official names (e.g. of companies, organizations, places, etc.) should not be altered by adding, moving or omitting apostrophes. (

983:; that would make it clear that we are talking about a wider range of compositions rather than just things which can be published. 398:. Where the work has not been published in English, give an English translation in sentence case, roman type, inside parentheses: 9093:

Though, another thing I never liked is mandatory putting of trailing punctuation marks inside a pair of quotation marks, like in

8005:

use commas instead of brackets for the date, but we don't in other Wiki bios. For consistency and grammar's sake, #2 works best.

8001:

there was a need for a closing comma after the postnomial, it would go before instead of after the brackets. But there isn't. We

7801: 7765: 7730: 4493: 3561:

by shifting the image to another section, where it was just as happy, but I can see serious annoyance stemming from this glitch.

2390:

People who don't have the option selected probably don't realise that this happens, so this might help to call attention to it.

8664:

This whole distinction, unsurprisingly, generates a lot of confusion and discussion in the context of specific cases. There's a

6810:

Henry Ford (July 30, 1863 - April 7, 1947) was born on a farm in Greenfield, Michigan. His parents were named William and Mary.

5516:

Your version still needs the second commas to be grammatically correct, because the first one's setting off the word or number:

4643:

he noun before the comma ("Rochester") describes a smaller area within the larger area described by the second noun ("New York")

1939:. Since the discussion has been here so far, I'll propose the new language incorporating the changes suggested above here first. 1602:

I've been collecting style manuals, mostly to determine if square brackets or parentheses are most appropriate. I've borrowed a

8844:)? That's typography, but however is quite interesting, if you agree. Is there maybe already a rule or guideline for that? — 3772: 3018:

which provides that we ignore most kinds of formatting in trade marks, with some exceptions (e.g., initial lowercase letter on

2901: 2380:

Avoid starting headings with numbers, as this can be confusing for readers with the "Auto-number headings" preference selected.

8537: 1693:

Thank you for your reply. I have that other talk page on my watchlist, and I am looking forward to reading your new proposal.

9606: 7805: 6475:

This has the added advantage that it is shorter. It also avoids the possible misconception that the comma before "and" is a

5154: 4898: 4855: 4782: 4773:

Well, at least we managed to stay civil, not a given in these parts... However, since escalation surely is 'round the corner

4727: 4585: 4511: 3449: 2568:

Discussion of the general rule belongs here of course, but interested parties are invited to comment on the specific case at

2499: 1607: 1522: 431: 105: 9330: 9326: 9268: 8829: 8825: 8769: 8761: 7571: 3007:

In other cases, follow the placement of apostrophes in accordance with most reliable sources or standard punctuation per MOS

2992:

If the "common name" is not an "official" name, follow the placement of apostrophes in accordance with most reliable sources

2630: 9767: 8028: 3881: 3790: 3416:

different than full stops or hyphens ... I would apply the exact same criteria consistently... if sources indicate that a

9792:

Do we really have to revise potentially hundreds or thousands of poem articles currently unitalicised to italicise titles?

9248: 9022:

pleasant on-screen results, due to various patent issues with kerning and anti-aliasing technologies. Good find, for the

8284:

John Smith was born on October 29, 1929 (the day of the Black Tuesday stockmarket crash), and became a prominent economist

7834:". Because they are also involved in general matters of style, it is appropriate that they be discussed in a section of " 7345:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

6913:

The lede summarizes information in the article, so ideally it should be repeated (and sourced) in the early life section.

5479:

Agreed with sroc, unless you meant that beginning a sentence with an MDY date is simply poor style. I think it might be. —

5337:

usage, a position which proponents of both camps agree on, without explicitly advocating either position in other cases.

5167:

Please see sroc’s comments in the section immediately below. The adjectival use of multiple-part place names and dates is

2757: 2459: 12128: 7723: 7454: 7395: 7285:

short example for when a year is used as an appositive in the middle of the sentence. Don't try to deal with both dates

6855:

do we want to illustrate usage that is merely correct? I would think that we would want to illustrate the usage that is

5521: 3456: 2260:

As an editor who edits almost exclusively in medical articles, I am surprised that it has just come to my attention that

1875: 12072:

countries the subdivisional entity should be mentioned and for which it should be avoided? Or is there a rule that says

8760:

Obviously, I started typing my reply before you edited your response, and it committed just fine. :) Thank you for the

5849:"Dates in month–day–year format also require a comma after the day and after the year (except at the end of a sentence)" 2614: 2569: 2530: 1819:

been published in English but not under a title which is a translation or under the original language title. How about:

10452: 7060:

What do you all think of my new 1D? It's meant to show a date and a place where a comma would never be used otherwise.

3699: 3656: 3613: 4530:

The reasons you link to provide a perfect example where the adjectival construction is flawed. Your argument is that

2945:

It does not really matter whether the name is official or common... The real problem here is that we are dealing with

1874:

In most cases, for that particular example title, I think the corresponding English title does not include "The". See

1430:

applied to musical works, literary works, cinematographic works, and possibly other works. Other subpages are listed

12090: 12013: 11041: 9991: 4779:(these things would benefit from oral communication, by the way, as the written back-and-forth can get quite tedious) 2561: 7497:

There is a logical flaw with the statement "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article" - "

11149:

should feature technical writing, we should be encouraging its use AND explaining the concept to the uninformed. -

7860: 7804:

and just remove the other section (while perhaps retaining a reference to it or to the more extensive treatment at

7796:

Really, since "common mathematical symbols" is not about dates or numbers, I don't see why we have that section in

7542: 4987:; I see nothing awkward about using commas in adjectival expressions and remain baffled as to why it's a concern. 2961:(or vise versa). The placement of the apostrophe within the name isn't our decision ... it is a decision that has 2813:

Well if you only had titles in mind, that wasn't clear from the line you added. Of course WP:COMMONNAME is in the

1936: 1514: 1435: 1350: 1277: 1146: 1134: 11482:

What a shameless, pontificating, ignorant, hypocritical, incompetent, authoritarian pair of old weasels they were.

10931:

As noted above, a couple of us have not found that abuse of the passive voice is especially common on Knowledge. —

3557:

Seems like the problem was identified at least 3 years ago, but still hasn't been resolved. I worked around it in

3043:

Some further food for thought. I mentioned above that WP:COMMONNAME was used as justification to oppose the move

2321: 11821: 11749: 11716: 9706:). That does not mean it can never be used, but it's use is limited. It should only be used for people who are 7714: 7030:

a place for such dates or place names in the middle of a sentence, but I think I at least understand his point. —

1138: 9031:

When the elements are linked independently (as in diode–transistor logic) they require an en dash, not a hyphen;

8497:

I was pretty sure "no change" and "avoid use entirely" was going to be the result. Thanks for the discussion. --

7897:

The second option, with one comma, seems to be the most common on WP, but using just one comma is surely wrong.

6059:—should generally not be used as an adjective because a second comma may be deemed obligatory (the comma after 4673:

of the name. (And, frankly, I see nothing clumsy or awkward with constructions like "a Lansing, MI-based band".)

11393: 11235: 11196: 11159: 9598: 6700: 3976: 3868:), I have been considering the option of composing a MOS reading schedule (similar to a Bible reading schedule— 1142: 47: 17: 4854:", but the one in Ohio (obviously, there often still are several communities with the same name per state). – 4506:

in some instances, rephrasing isn't feasible or advisable – and while that might be debatable in the case of "

3955: 3026:). Apostrophes are another exception to the general rule to follow common usage rather than official names. 1518: 11225:. I'll see if I can find a few passages that can be quoted/paraphrased that would be an ideal explanation. - 11045: 9841:

discussion needs to take place to bring the two pages into sync. I think we can take it as a given that the

7408: 6018:

using dates adjectivally is a space-saver, the device should not be overworked: it gives prose a breezy look.

3869: 3592: 2529:

I feel that there is a degree of ambiguity about this, and that ambiguity is part of a current discussion at

2255: 7472:

There has been contention over whether to add Infoboxes or remove them. Can editors please give their views

4616:. You can see how the insertion or omission of the comma makes a critical difference to the interpretation. 2564:, 4th paragraph) If the intent is to prevent the addition of an apostrophe, an example might be appropriate. 11727: 7447: 5645:

If an article is well-written when "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard",

5257:: The use of brackets in the last example is confusing. (For clarity, I'm referring to this construction: " 4718:. If you want to point out that gates is part of the aforementioned metropolitan area, why not just write " 4450:

but I think it's kind of awkwardly written. Specifically, I don't like the bolded part of this sentence:

4053: 3859: 3587: 2053: 11997:

provides editing advice in conveniently small portions. (I am mentioning it here to increase awareness.)

11379: 10594: 9786:

and into line with academia, MLA, Chicago, APA, and AP regarding quotations marks and shorter poem titles?

7141:"The deadline for Chattanooga, Tennessee, to comply with the new educational mandate was October 1, 2011." 5614:

If each part of the proposal were taken separately, there would be a stronger consensus for each change.

11989: 11850: 11503:. ¶ But anyway, we seem to agree on the main point: "located" (as it's most commonly deployed) sucks. -- 9811:

The MOS doesn't need to be changed, but that naming convention does. (NCs are not part of the MOS, btw.)

8238: 8229: 8220: 8211: 8202: 8193: 8184: 8145: 7965: 7948: 7889: 7880: 7871: 7538: 7537:

and proper names (discussion seemed to reach no real conclusion) - we may have something like that here.

6676:

October 1, 2011, was the deadline for Chattanooga, Tennessee, to comply with the new educational mandate.

5420: 5287:

seeking to merge two examples (with and without the comma). As noted in the proposal above and shown in

4417: 4401: 3578: 3535:

Left-indenting is broken with left-floating images. Apparently, this is quite a fundamental problem; see

3420:

does not include a full stop, or includes a hyphen instead of a dash (or whatever), Knowledge should not

3307:

other good sources. Many will consider their own style guidelines in the process. Is this a problem?

1763:

We're not dealing with emendations here, though, since we're the actual authors of the actual Knowledge.

597:

I don't understand the question – that's exactly what this discussion is about. For exemplary usage, see

11807:, I know, but is it better to rephrase it from the Telegraph source, or keep in the long quote? Thanks, 7388: 3816:

that the MoS should at least allow—and preferably recommend—the use of en dashes rather than hyphens in

8713: 8684: 7710: 7435: 7349: 6663:

October 1, 2011 was the deadline for Chattanooga, Tennessee to comply with the new educational mandate.

4745: 4307:: The new wording is clearer, and gives a good example of rewording to avoid an awkward construction. 3718: 3548: 2557: 805: 622: 602: 350: 184:

The same issues apply to foreign language novels, TV shows, etc. I can't find any guidance in the MoS.

38: 11309:"Would the active or passive verb help your readers move more smoothly from one sentence to the next?" 10827:

community likes to treat the results of experiments as more important than the people performing them.

10170:

As Ben says, whether to use the active or passive depends on context and what you're emphasizing. See

9845:

consensus here at the MOS will be to change the NC... and we can probably take it as a given that the

9677:, etc., it would likely be allowable. But if we were to write a general fact, like in a biography, as 7518:

titled "Catadioptric telescopes". If we follow the logic of this guideline the reader at the article "

6977:@Bkonrad - Not every tiny bit of information in the lede needs to be repeated in the body of the text. 11246:

contributors should write to the best of their ability and in the manner most suited to the purpose.

10428: 7835: 7443: 7307:

You're making an assumption about the context. I don't think we need to concern ourselves with that.

5518:

The trial of John Smith on April 7, 2011, in Toledo, Ohio, brought a capacity crowd to the courtroom.

2315: 2111: 2072: 7427: 7376: 5605:

On April 7, 2011, the trial of John Smith brought a capacity crowd to the courtroom in Toledo, Ohio.

4177:

On April 7, 2011, the trial of John Smith brought a capacity crowd to the courtroom in Toledo, Ohio.

12142:

There is currently an RFC on a proposal to update MOS to explicitly state that it covers Portals -

11856: 11303:

When choosing between the active and passive voice, he advises, one should answer three questions:

9944:

to bring that naming convention into line with the MoS. I don't think there will be much objection.

9673:

Agree with Tony1, we need some context. In general, if "Comrade" were part of an actual quote like

9516: 9508: 9251:

at clarifying the difference in meaning between a hyphen and an en dash. Have at it, grammarians. —

7558: 7511: 3873: 3233:

Neither will I... I was just curious to find out why you were hesitant about my suggested language.

2983: 2814: 1354: 815:

generally accepted English language title for the work and (b) whether that title is a translation.

269:}} has the translated title in square brackets and italics and gives no guidance on capitalization. 11477: 9710:

referred to as "Comrade X" by reliable sources ... similar to how some French Revolutionaries are

7384: 6466:

Henry Ford was born July 30, 1863, on a farm in Greenfield, Michigan, to parents William and Mary.

5067:

Henry Ford was born July 30, 1863, on a farm in Greenfield, Michigan, to parents William and Mary.

3089:, and we should not "correct" a name. I think we can cut through the confusion by simply saying: 12124: 11775: 10451:

Thank-you; I learned something from this discussion and from the links above (another good link:

9990:

voice—simply because the MOS doesn't mention it. (It was once touched on fairly inadequately in

9950: 8476: 8097: 8068: 7737:. Can we rename or remove one of those? For example, I was thinking of creating shortcuts called 7458: 7399: 7368: 7120: 6793: 5525: 4949: 4828: 4470: 4295: 3949: 3380: 2036: 2004: 1807: 1619: 1363: 1218: 1083: 1027: 573: 520: 482: 416: 308: 229: 190: 11017:

I really don't want to dispute this with anybody here, as we are talking stylistics rather than

7644:

You see that from the previous discussion from four years ago or the one I was talking about? --

6516:

Henry Ford was born July 30, 1863, on a farm in Greenfield, Michigan, and died on April 7, 1947.

6453:

Henry Ford was born July 30, 1863 on a farm in Greenfield, Michigan to parents William and Mary.

5058:

Henry Ford was born July 30, 1863 on a farm in Greenfield, Michigan to parents William and Mary.

3004:

In the case of an "official" name, preserve the "official" placement of apostrophes per MOS:POSS

11873: 10810: 10529:

Use active voice (subject receives the action) by default, as it usually improves the sentence.

9801: 9686: 8035: 8009: 7934: 7701: 5596:

The April 7, 2011, trial of John Smith brought a capacity crowd to the Toledo, Ohio, courtroom.

5416: 4927:

In other words, what the original sentence says is this, expressed with tags instead of commas:

4501:

The April 7, 2011, trial of John Smith brought a capacity crowd to the Toledo, Ohio, courtroom.

4413: 4397: 4366: 3695: 3652: 3609: 3303: 3259: 3051:

on the basis that the common name had not changed. But if he'd announced changing his name to

2853:

a COMMONNAME that is both the article title and (the same name) also occurs in the article text

2622: 2305: 2282: 911: 706: 335: 176: 156: 140: 124: 11400:. Named one of the Ultimate Beaches by Caribbean Travel and Life, Seven Mile Beach is located 8638:

while reading it all the way down, but should we include this additional explanation into the

6503:

Henry Ford was born July 30, 1863 on a farm in Greenfield, Michigan and died on April 7, 1947.

2927:

that the only time we should be considering this is when there is a name that is specifically

1853:

to determine whether the original title or an English language title should be given priority.

12086: 11573:

I don't buy this "adjectival passive" thing. "X is located" is passive, period. And the verb

9745: 7813: 7750: 7220: 6363: 5991: 5720:

when the style guides disagree on which form (with or without the second comma) is correct?

5587:

The April 7, 2011 trial of John Smith brought a capacity crowd to the Toledo, Ohio courtroom.

5393: 5319: 5270: 5259:

The April 7, 2011 trial of John Smith brought a capacity crowd to the Toledo, Ohio courtroom.

5205: 4805:

The April 7, 2011 trial of John Smith brought a capacity crowd to the Toledo, Ohio courtroom.

4164:

The April 7, 2011 trial of John Smith brought a capacity crowd to the Toledo, Ohio courtroom.

4025: 3849: 3714: 3544: 3216:

I'm sure there's a good example but I can't think of one. Either way, I won't make a fuss.

3148:

Proper names (e.g. of companies, organizations, places, etc.) that contain a possessive word

2097: 1883: 801: 659: 618: 610: 346: 12109: 7149:

to specify the state in that sentence. I would consider omitting the State name completely:

4458:

I think it's trying to say that you don't need to have an article title like "Eugene, Oregon

3428:

be: Follow source usage, and don't correct source usage... if source usage is mixed, choose

427: 12151: 12004: 11980: 11967: 11836: 11794: 11728: 11704: 11312:"Would the active or passive give readers a more consistent and appropriate point of view?" 11212: 11118: 11056: 10836: 10159: 9819: 9541:"trump" WP:COMMONNAME ... That said, the goal is to have policies and guidelines that work 9500: 9489: 9452: 9440: 9428: 9416: 9397: 8316: 8271: 8263: 7846: 7787: 7772: 7742: 7690: 7620: 6688: 5972: 5747: 5703: 5658: 5653:

diverse examples; showing correct constructions of various creative styles; in my opinion.—

5359: 4846:" – is defined more closely by subpart two – making clear we're not talking about any ol' " 4507: 4452:

In either case, a comma is not required after the last element when the place name or date

4312: 4283: 4188:

Should it be "optional" as to whether a second comma after a date/place should be included?

4104: 4049: 3932: 3891: 3786: 3750: 3679: 3328: 3154: 3105: 2909: 2873: 2742: 2726: 2683: 2656: 2626: 2588: 2577: 2513: 2413: 2261: 2107: 2068: 1955: 1850: 1751: 1701: 1533: 1446: 1288: 1157: 505: 210: 11500: 9369: 9355: 9276: 9200: 9109: 9041: 8849: 8777: 8721: 8647: 8583: 7439: 2265: 1746:. This also avoids conflicts where (in rare cases) parentheses are included in a title. ~ 8: 12100: 12030: 11994: 11813: 11741: 11712: 11434: 11340: 11251: 11176: 10993: 10948:

voice is often preferable to passive voice" with a couple of examples might do the trick.

10936: 10918: 10891: 10747: 10678: 10617: 10584: 10545: 10490: 10355: 10340: 10311: 10268: 10212: 10136: 10064: 9999: 9966: 9881: 9504: 9448: 9436: 9412: 9298: 9256: 9235: 9169: 9149: 8979: 8936: 8894: 8803: 8747: 8709: 8621: 8429: 8415: 8365: 7706: 7515: 5875: 5833: 5781: 4562: 2700: 588: 439: 11524: 11106:

personal preferences. I'm hearing a lot more hate for the passive voice than it merits.

10454:). I agree it should at least be mentioned in the MOS. I think we are saying we should: 4653:, subdivisions and whatnot, but about a specification to differentiate – in this case – 1133:

Although I accept the proposed guideline itself, I very much prefer that it be added to

12115: 11771: 11577:

is often passive without our realising it. I'm showing someone the company photograph:

11233: 11194: 11157: 11008: 10379: 9946: 9862: 9723: 9644: 9584: 9555: 9460: 9338: 8969:

I agree with the recommendation not to italicize it. I'm not as concerned with how it

8472: 8443: 8158: 8131: 8093: 8064: 7918: 7635: 7527: 7492: 7482: 7380: 7298: 7157: 7116: 7065: 6992: 6904: 6821: 6789: 6696: 5940: 5564: 5382:

When a date in mdy format appears in the middle of text, include a comma after the year

5149: 4945: 4824: 4464: 4383: 4291: 4219:

These additions are in line with most grammar/style guides that discuss these issues. —

3962: 3941: 3637: 3477: 3437: 3376: 3358: 3336: 3312: 3245: 3207: 3127: 2970: 2804: 2164: 2125: 2085:

Search engines are sophisticated enough to deal with hyphens, dashes, minus signs, etc.

2032: 2000: 1897: 1864: 1803: 1768: 1615: 1431: 1359: 1214: 1079: 1023: 926: 872: 778: 754: 691: 569: 516: 478: 412: 304: 225: 186: 12108:

is 332,397 bytes (without images). Please discuss whether or not to sub-divide it, at

11789:? Yes, it should absolutely be retained. It's the entire basis for his notability. -- 8575:

section, where "Eye–hand span" is used as an example; currently it's quite confusing.

7610:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Archive 108#Recent changes to the "Possessives" section

6960:

have any better examples that demonstrate both a place name and a date mid-sentence?

6026:

impedes the flow of the writing too much. Still, that second comma sometimes surfaces…

3903:

detail accessible for a section by simply clicking to open it up. Much less daunting.

3190:

that works... but I don't really see the need to make a distinction. Can you explain

3099:

Names (e.g. of companies, organizations, places, etc.) that contain a possessive word

2830: 11604: 10807: 9935: 9797: 9761: 9682: 9475: 9383: 8259: 8032: 8006: 7931: 7898: 7612:(August 2009), and the four questions posed by Noetica at 06:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC). 7467: 6918: 6180:

A Grammar Book for You and I-- Oops, Me!: All the Grammar You Need to Succeed in Life

4496:. If people want to avoid the constructions in question whenever possible, fine, but 4363: 4346: 4270: 3690: 3647: 3604: 3566: 3525: 3255: 2296: 2273: 1914:

I've checked more style manuals and there is not a lot of clarity. In the exhaustive

907: 702: 598: 331: 8886:

to turn away from natural language. If I get inspired, I'll try making another edit.

8386:

used correctly, let alone properly punctuated, it's probably better to avoid it and

7535: 5714:"ensure sentence constructions of such form are unambiguous, grammatically correct, 5386:

Dates in month–day–year format also require a comma after the day and after the year

5263:

Dates in month–day–year format also require a comma after the day and after the year

672: 345:

but I can't recall ever having seen square brackets being used for this purpose. --

12081: 11971: 10673:

reason, perhaps the MOS could introduce editors to the definition of active voice.

10171: 9741: 9388: 9222: 8379: 7809: 7746: 7099: 7035: 6939: 6359: 6347: 5484: 5441: 5389: 5371: 5315: 5266: 5230: 5219: 5201: 5184: 5104: 5001: 4922:

The April 7, trial of John Smith brought a capacity crowd to the Toledo, courtroom.

4679:

So, no, I don't agree it's confusing, on the contrary. As for you "Gates" example:

4438: 4329: 4224: 4017: 3845: 3813: 3540: 2936: 2556:

apostrophes where grammar requires them but they are not in an official name? (per

2428: 2182: 2146: 2093: 1879: 655: 9857:

regular contributors to either guideline). I would suggest a community wide RFC.

9715: 8344:), but I'm wondering if it should be raised as a question here for other input. -- 7175:"The deadline for Chattanooga to comply with the new mandate was October 1, 2011." 7151:"The deadline for Chattanooga to comply with the new mandate was October 1, 2011." 6831: 5358:

avoided, I wouldn’t be surprised to see more comma debate as has been going on at

3512:

Bulleting and numbering when list items start to the right of a left-aligned image

2511:* Official names (of companies, organizations, or places) should not be altered. ( 583:

Do song titles, etc. that appear in quotation marks need to be addressed as well?

12147: 12144:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#Proposal: MOS should apply to portals

12000: 11951: 11877: 11832: 11804: 11790: 11673: 11658: 11641: 11615: 11559: 11549: 11534: 11508: 11411: 11364: 11323: 11279: 11208: 11114: 11052: 11018: 10967: 10909: 10853: 10832: 10787: 10576: 10408: 10175: 10155: 9814: 9737: 9662: 9636: 9620: 9485: 8512: 8461: 8312: 8267: 8246: 7980: 7902: 7842: 7783: 7686: 7616: 7606:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Archive 112#Proposal to defer discussion of dashes

5968: 5743: 5699: 5654: 5542: 5506: 5021: 4916:

The April 7 trial of John Smith brought a capacity crowd to the Toledo courtroom.

4895:

The recent, trial of John Smith brought a capacity crowd to the local, courtroom.

4781:, I'll leave the field to others and get back to reading and some WikiGnoming. – 4581: 4308: 3928: 3911: 3887: 3826: 3746: 3735: 3675: 3499: 3081:

I think we are making this overly complex... and missing the point. It does not

2905: 2869: 2679: 2573: 2409: 1747: 1697: 1529: 1442: 1284: 1153: 501: 252: 206: 11495:

If anyone's interested, there's quite a literature on the "adjectival passive".

11452: 10148: 3990:

RFC: Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA regarding geographical references and dates

2423:

There are often good reasons to start a heading with a number, such as years. -

2366:

I suggest that it would be helpful to add the following into the bullet list in

46:

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

12026: 11939: 11931: 11919: 11915: 11808: 11736: 11708: 11487: 11465: 11430: 11336: 11247: 11172: 11031: 10989: 10932: 10914: 10887: 10869: 10743: 10693: 10674: 10659: 10636: 10613: 10602: 10580: 10562: 10541: 10486: 10351: 10336: 10307: 10264: 10226: 10208: 10193: 10132: 10060: 9995: 9962: 9877: 9783: 9771: 9520: 9361: 9294: 9252: 9231: 9225:

and only found a bit of invective about this.) BTW, the example parse trees at

9165: 9145: 9080: 9016: 8975: 8932: 8890: 8882:

relationship, um… Ecch, this looks like the sort of thing that led people like

8799: 8743: 8678: 8617: 8568: 8502: 8425: 8411: 8395: 8361: 8349: 8298: 7761: 7738: 7671: 7649: 7587: 7323: 7231: 7210: 7185: 7082: 7016: 6968: 6842: 6816:

This has the advantage of clarity while also avoiding the entire comma issue.

6779: 6771: 6744: 6725: 6633: 6533: 6325: 6300: 6167: 6112: 5958: 5893: 5870: 5859: 5828: 5814: 5776: 5728: 5677: 5622: 5470: 5345: 5331:

we are unlikely to get consensus on any explicit decision one way or the other.

5304: 5243: 5125: 5080: 5041: 4971: 4889:

The recent trial of John Smith brought a capacity crowd to the local courtroom.

4764: 4632: 4456:

is followed by other punctuation (such as a full stop, dash, parenthesis, etc.)

4253: 4201: 3804:

En dashes rather than hyphens for both prefixed and suffixed adjective phrases.

3539:. This problem appears with blockquotes, indents, and lists. It's mentioned at 3280: 3224: 3175: 3137:

Looks good. Can I suggest referring to "proper names" though? How about this?

3067: 3034: 3001:

For other names used within the body of an article, other than article titles:

2841: 2773: 2696: 2600: 2490: 2447: 2398: 2243: 1149:, instead of the main page of the Manual of Style, which is already very large. 781:'s proposal would indeed stumble across "published". It obviously meant "Where 768: 584: 435: 8639: 8572: 8560: 4099:). It is therefore proposed to replace the above section with the following: 3085:

whether a name is "Official" or "COMMON"... what is important is that it is a

2755:

As WP:COMMONNAME only applies to titles, I'm not convinced the second bullet (

1878:. It might be best to pick a different example in order to avoid that issue. — 1434:. I propose that the guideline be added in a new section, "Translations", at 11927: 11227: 11188: 11151: 11004: 10738: 10375: 10128: 9858: 9770:

indicates that the MOS prefers poem names to be italicised like book titles.

9719: 9640: 9590: 9551: 9456: 9347: 9316: 8439: 8341: 8154: 8127: 7914: 7631: 7579: 7478: 7294: 7168: 7153: 7061: 7003: 6988: 6950: 6928: 6900: 6817: 6692: 6543: 6314: 6310: 5936: 5646: 5560: 5280: 5146: 4988: 4934:

trial of John Smith brought a capacity crowd to the Toledo <precision: -->

4379: 3968: 3865: 3633: 3473: 3433: 3372: 3368: 3354: 3332: 3308: 3241: 3203: 3123: 2966: 2800: 2762: 2160: 2121: 1893: 1860: 1764: 922: 868: 797: 793: 750: 687: 683: 9360:

Sorry, I somehow missed the discussion below, what's probably an example of

7501:". In a non-paper encyclopedia with hyper-linking (Knowledge) it can not be 5935:

punctuate this way). Lack of flexibility is what leads to endless debates.

4097:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) § Commas in metro areas

12105: 11585:—which one is active, which one passive? Another example, with the "test": 11457: 11389: 10901: 10651: 10174:, rule 11 (writing from memory). That's why there's no mention of it here. 9567: 9512: 9471: 9444: 9432: 9431:. However I cannot find any guidance about conflicts between the guideline 9424: 9408: 8634:

Thank you for the clarification! This just confirmed the way I understood

8288:

John Smith was born in Tampa, Florida (where his father was mayor), in 1940

7575: 6914: 6476: 5953:

Isn't that what the wording "Avoid" / "Better alternative" accomplishes? --

5574:

is supported by the style guides that discuss this issue, as set out below.

4726:, as that's exactly the kind of construction I'd argue against, anyway.) – 4342: 4266: 3782: 3562: 3521: 3393:

know that there is a debate over "style" vs "substance". When it comes to

3198:

names? Can you give an example of a "name that contains a possessive word

2799:

the COMMONNAME title... that styling carries on into the body of the text.

288: 8794:

Wonderful. While you were doing that, I tried clarifying the paragraph in

7499:

headings can be assumed to be about the subject unless otherwise indicated

3870:

http://www.dmoz.org/search?q=bible+reading+schedule&cat=all&all=no

3709:

I agree strongly with Mitch Ames. Knowledge avoids ornamentation; the MOS

3666:

Actually MOS has quite a lot of detail about when one should use italics:

2264:

is encouraging image galleries in Anatomy articles, resulting in articles

1892:

I have no idea, but a different example could be used if it is a problem.

11959: 9423:

There are several discussions in the archive about whether the guideline

9365: 9351: 9272: 9196: 9105: 9037: 8845: 8773: 8717: 8643: 8579: 8543:

En dash vs. hyphen in article titles + trailing punctuation italicization

8529: 7095: 7031: 6935: 6583:

They settled in Geneva, New York, where they founded the Domestic school.

6343: 5480: 5437: 5367: 5215: 5180: 5100: 4997: 4558: 4434: 4325: 4220: 3269: 3202:" where you think it is appropriate to alter the apostrophe's placement? 2932: 2692: 2650:

of companies, organizations, or places) maintain the official punctuation

2629:

rather than an official name. However, given that discussion, and recent

2424: 2178: 2142: 606: 376: 10059:

You do know what you've done in that parenthetical sentence, don't you?

9443:. Please can an experienced editor explain whether or not the guideline 6863:

usage would be to break the information up into multiple sentences, and

6570:

They settled in Geneva, New York where they founded the Domestic school.

6546:

below, another alternative would be to show separate examples, like so:

4288:

Parenthetically, I would have preferred "September 2001 attacks" though.

3537:

Template talk:Quote#Not visible when wrapped around a left-aligned image

1918:, it says parentheses in running text but square brackets in references. 11975: 11947: 11943: 11935: 11669: 11651: 11637: 11608: 11545: 11530: 11504: 11496: 11407: 11383: 11357: 11319: 11275: 10960: 10905: 10883: 10846: 10780: 10404: 9837:

If an NC gives guidance that conflicts with the MOS guidance... then a

9655: 9613: 9334: 9226: 9161: 8795: 8708:

The whole thing is quite amazing; having just a look at "McGraw-Hill",

8635: 8593: 8548: 8454: 7777:

Knowledge:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Common mathematical symbols

7735:

Knowledge:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Common mathematical symbols

7248: 6425: 5535: 5499: 5014: 3904: 3728: 3667: 3492: 3152:

should not be altered by adding, moving or omitting apostrophes (e.g.,

2196: 2028:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Titles#Translation of non-English titles

1792: 678: 248: 243:

For an English gloss in parentheses (for a non-published translation),

10401:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Active and passive voice

5171:

by every major guide that discusses it. Besides, this proposed change

2949:(in this case names that happen to contain a possessive apostrophe). 2765:) belongs here. If it is retained, should it be "reliable sources"? 11901: 11027: 10879: 10865: 10689: 10655: 10598: 10222: 10189: 9789:

Does a two-page, one-poem pamphlet need to have its title italicised?

9612:

Hardly long enough to break into another line, so I wouldn't bother.

9391:

redirects to the introduction of this page. It is being discussed at

8671: 8524:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy)#Proposal:_MOS_should_apply_to_portals

8498: 8391: 8345: 8337: 8294: 7645: 7583: 7519: 7507: 7319: 7312: 7227: 7206: 7198:

is not needed, as if to assume that any reader would know what state

7181: 7078: 7012: 6964: 6838: 6775: 6767: 6740: 6721: 6629: 6617:

Henry Ford was born July 30, 1863, on a farm in Greenfield, Michigan.

6529: 6321: 6296: 6163: 6108: 5954: 5889: 5855: 5844: 5810: 5724: 5673: 5618: 5466: 5341: 5300: 5239: 5121: 5076: 5037: 4967: 4760: 4628: 4249: 4197: 4040: 3558: 3517: 3276: 3220: 3171: 3063: 3030: 2837: 2769: 2596: 2486: 2443: 2394: 2239: 1931:

The consensus seems to be that this content should be added to a new

1849:

For works originally produced under a title not in English, refer to

1782: 764: 682:). And there are some where publication is not really relevant (e.g. 283: 266: 11855:

More a comment than anything, I have been trawling through all the '

8596:

illustrates the principle of independent status with the example of

7676:

Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines

6604:

Henry Ford was born July 30, 1863 on a farm in Greenfield, Michigan.

6271:

If we used that expression as an adjective, the commas would remain:

5802:

On January 26, 1981,… courtroom during the blizzard in Toledo, Ohio.

5797:…courtroom in Toledo, Ohio, during the blizzard of January 26, 1981. 5792:…courtroom during the blizzard in Toledo, Ohio, on January 26, 1981. 2866:

Talk:Mrs_Macquarie's_Chair#Mrs Macquaries Point, Mrs Macquaries Road

11923: 11911: 11864:

Knowledge:Trinidad and Tobago Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide

11396:, on which a number of the island's hotels and resorts are located 11274:

using more passives than most to show how badly he could write. --

10845:

Well yes. Is it a particular problem on en.WP, overuse of passive?

9913:

Quotation marks should be used for the following names and titles:

9714:

referred to as "Citizen/Citizene X" by reliable sources (example:

9098: 9087: 9023: 8924: 8765: 8739: 8613: 4566: 3671: 3487: 3322:

No it isn't a problem... at least it isn't if we apply the concept

2618: 2504: 2367: 1959:

translation in parentheses following normal formatting for titles:

975:, but we can still debate that. Second perhaps we could substitute 967:"Weeping" was capitalized because that is the style recommended by 7901:

offers no guidance on this point. Any advice gratefully received.

7289:

years in one long, convoluted sentence (a sentence which would be

6095:

building contractors were up in arms about the proposed new taxes.

5823:

That still doesn't answer my concern. What would you have done at

4580:

Look at this another way. Say you wanted to refer to the town of

3844:

I still support my previous position, and agree with Startswithj.—

3103:

should not be altered by adding, moving or omitting apostrophes. (

1801:

please look to see if they prefer square brackets or parentheses.

1785:}} and the other cite templates handle it now, and that's the way 11897: 11887: 11831:

I would say keep the original citation. No problem with that. --

8742:. Hopefully it clarifies the principle without being too wordy. — 8149:, is a notable English scientist. Born on January 1 1940, he ..." 7526:". This is not very helpful to the reader and sets up a bit of a 6871:

to mention Ford's dates of birth or death (presumably both were

3810:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_140#En_dashes_and_suffixes

3808:

I'd like to revive this archived discussion from six months ago:

3059:, would MOS:POSS then require that we honour the official name? 1845:

I also think this should be added at the beginning, for clarity:

9346:

be not enough, but then let's discuss it further, following the

4807:", without the commas, is confusing, because it breaks down to " 4265:- looks good to me, and should avoid disputes down the road. — 2457:

Noting the above concern but seeing no other opposition, I have

1954:

For works originally named in languages other than English, use

792:…" and similarly in the 2nd sentence. Does that formula satisfy 12015: 11955: 11867: 11374:

Tony, you pulled my chain? Hey, I give you all a passive: "is

10900:

Teaching people how to write better is not the job of the MOS.

7314: 5288: 4813:

2011 trial of John Smith brought a capacity crowd to the Toledo

4744:. IMHO, it's a perfectly valid construction. It's not unlike 3713:

nit-picky and italics should only be used where prescribed. --

2545:

of companies, organizations, or places) should not be altered."

2270:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Revert

7522:" clicks that link and is taken to an article section titled " 7139:(as written) is clunky and convoluted... I would rewrite as: 6042:

Chicago Manual of Style: For Authors, Editors, and Copywriters

4706:". When referring to that town, I'd always just write either 4186:

This is an alternative that gained support in an earlier RFC,

2745:, follow the possessive punctuations that are used in sources. 1781:

An advantage to square brackets is that that's the way that {{

1525:

or in both places)? If so, where should consensus be reached?

676:). Some are known by a title which is not a translation (e.g. 12146:. Editors are invited to contribute to the discussion there. 9289:

We might just have a winner here, with the crowning touch by

8883: 8374:

I suppose one could add a note to the punctuation section of

7145:

I would then look at context, and question whether there is a

7115:(although I'd then avoid starting a sentence with a number). 5772: 3048: 3044: 2826: 2822: 278:

I looked up as many style guides as I could find and Boson's

7599:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Archive 147#Paris' or Paris's

7534:"? I saw there was discussion re: "Sirius A" and "Sirius B" 5885:

Please see the quotes below from established style guides.

5430:

oppose change to first paragraph, support addition of second

5099:

And I suggest this thread be moved to a different section. —

4683:

we're talking. To me, you're making my case here. Sure, you

1073:

I've made the change to the boxed text above to reflect the

11306:"Must your readers know who is responsible for the action?" 10988:

use of passive in those cases when active would be better.

5534:

I don't believe second commas are grammatically necessary.

5114: 3023: 3019: 10631:

In the article about the publisher, we might phrase it as

3864:

To encourage editors to read Knowledge's Manual of Style (

2552:

or appending "s" (as per the example) or does it apply to

1521:). Is that because we are awaiting consensus (here or at 223:

I looked there, but didn't find an answer to my question.

12023:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Proposed change

8551:

seems to be a bit confusing when exemplifying the use of

8311:

I agree that #1 is the clearest and most readable form.

7597:

As the reverter, I have examined again the discussion at

4702:, as, the way I understand it, that would actually mean " 3345:

The point is... we may have to look to sources to decide

2850:

It may be appropriate to explicitly distinguish between:

2829:

upon an official announcement until widely accepted: see

10904:

define a consistent style and format. As for education,

8798:. Would you care to review and clean that one up, too? — 8578:

Thoughts? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! —

7800:. I think it would be better to merge that content into 6806:

Yeah... I would probably rewrite the sentence in 1A as:

9932:

I think usage within Knowledge generally follows that.

9782:

Should WP:NCBOOKS be modified to bring it in-line with

8828:

looks good to me, making it much more clear; one small

5825:

Talk:April_14–16,_2011,_tornado_outbreak#Requested_move

3397:... I come down solidly on the side of "substance" ... 286:, but they use square brackets instead of parentheses. 11908:

Knowledge:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style

9144:

sentence is better with quotation marks or reworded. —

8334:

This edit, reverting the removal of a comma after i.e.

4396:– Great proposal and solution to a recurring problem. 615:

Knowledge:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Title

601:(except that the quotes there should not be bold) and 11499:'s something substantial; and if you're really keen, 9545:... in harmony. To have policies and guidelines that 9393:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 1

9323:

while looking at the whole thing more than once. :)

7802:

Knowledge:Manual of Style#Common mathematical symbols

7766:

Knowledge:Manual of Style#Common mathematical symbols

7731:

Knowledge:Manual of Style#Common mathematical symbols

6248:

The same would apply if we revealed a city and state:

5456:

September 11, 2001, was a clear day on the east coast

5434:

September 11, 2001, was a clear day on the east coast

4357:, more or less. If the adjective form is used, there 3516:

I have just spent some time trying to do this on the

3401:

when talking about names of people and organizations.

2676:

An example of "or lack thereof" might be appropriate.

10955:

my own exercises are mostly not on specific themes).

9519:

for when a term is used in the title of an article.

8832:

gilded the lily. :) Looking at my edit, should the

7281:

Short, sweet, and to the point. If need be, create

5460:

September 11, 2001 was a clear day on the east coast

4704:

metropolitan area of Gates in the state of Rochester

4004:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

1513:

At this moment, the guideline has not been added to

8563:section), when it's earlier described that in fact 8555:in article titles. A clear question is why should 7244:

already know which Chattanooga was being discussed.

6983:@sroc - Can't think of an example that wouldn't be 6260:

is where Miss Hamrick taught Damron and me English.

4850:", but the one in the year 2011, and not just any " 4803:@Ὁ οἶστρος: at the contrary, I would say that the " 4720:

Gates, in the Rochester, New York metropolitan area

2633:

to MOS:POSS, I'd like to update the guideline thus:

2358:

This is the text in the second part of the section.

2266:

with galleries at the end of the article like this.

10350:Where's the bloody "like" button on this thing? -- 8376:Comparison of American and British English#Writing 7262:Joe then moved from Paris, Texas to New York City. 7094:. I like it. Makes it very, unambiguously clear. — 6525:Please offer your preferences or comments below. 5648:how is writing well augmented by extolling one to 5384:", and in the sentence of the proposal that says " 4510:", it's still needlessly sacrificing precision. – 3876:.) It could be on a subpage of MOS (for example, 1610:and propose it there referencing this discussion. 6709:Comments – Proposed alternatives to first example 6155:, lessen readability and bother literate readers. 6125:The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style 5927:(ie when in doubt, punctuate this way). I would 3628:. The MOS may be nit-picky, but it is not quite 2790:that said, I am not convinced that WP:COMMONNAME 2205:In ranges that might otherwise be expressed with 2026:I have proposed the changes immediately above at 10908:has copyediting tutorials on his user page, and 9698:I don't think "Comrade" should be considered an 9572:Should nbsp be used in between e.g. 12 and km. ( 9515:has an explicit mention and guidance to look to 6885:Ford was born on a Farm in Greenfield, Michigan. 4777:and I'm not very good at stating my case anyway 4722:"? (And I don't get why you would even bring up 203:Knowledge:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines 11966:They all have 'WP:' shortcut equivalents (e.g. 11480:a far superior alternative to "two old farts": 11300:". . . the passive is often the better choice". 9736:The linked article on Indian Communist journal 8258:need to change the advice already appearing in 7662:I am revising the heading of this section from 6378:The first example in the original proposal is: 1998:How does that sound? Improvements are welcome. 110:Which is correct for the first line of a lede? 11221:The material for the course was a book called 10801:Hard to set a solid rule. I had to use active 6859:. What I was trying to point out is that the 5737:The example given does not force an editor to 2957:, Knowledge should not "correct" that name to 12040:When to use country subdivisions and when not 11894:Knowledge:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style 11270:) the benefit of the doubt and assume he was 10540:Write without being aware of the difference. 9675:X said "if we were to obey Comrade Stalin..." 8329:Comma after the Latin abbreviations e.g. i.e. 7223:in the US, so would require disambiguation.) 4604:, which conveys the different meaning of the 4290:Maybe we could look for more such solutions. 4007:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 2856:a COMMONNAME that appears in the text but is 11884:Knowledge:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards 11404:on the western shore of Grand Cayman Island. 8738:OK, I just added a parenthetical comment in 8567:indicate such conjunctions (as specified in 8559:be used in "Eye–hand span" (as specified in 6955:The problem with your examples is that they 6774:) 19:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC), revised -- 4557:, is not a single name for one place, but a 4454:appears by itself (as in a title or list) or 164: 148: 132: 116: 9985:No mention of passive voice vs active voice 9756:Italicising small poem names and WP:NCBOOKS 7913:Indeed, the single comma is surely wrong. 7832:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers 7798:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers 7674:, point 12 (Section headings). Please see 7194:Incidentally, I have no idea why you think 5843:Rallied against the tide? That RM ignored 1977:. In references, square brackets are used: 10629:This book was published by Lalala in 1888. 8522:You are invited to join the discussion at 7566:I thought we had a fairly solid consensus 7293:if broken up into two shorter sentences). 5914:Comments – Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA 5096:(I now support alternative 1D; see below.) 3923:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Reading schedule 3878:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Reading schedule 2558:Apostrophe#Possessives_in_geographic_names 375:I propose that the text below be added to 11024:unless there is pressing reason to use it 9942:Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (books) 9902:Our MoS is pretty clear on this. It says: 9873:Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (books) 9186:one of those I wasn't aware of... yet. :) 8242:, is a ... Born on 1 January 1940, he ... 6987:if broken up into two shorter sentences. 4211:Support – Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA 2615:Talk:Mrs Macquarie's Chair#Requested move 2570:Talk:Mrs Macquarie's Chair#Requested move 2531:Talk:Mrs Macquarie's Chair#Requested move 155:(Weeping, Lamenting, Worrying, Fearing), 139:(weeping, lamenting, worrying, fearing), 123:(Weeping, lamenting, worrying, fearing), 11767:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography/Military 11690:Italics within quotations: 2 suggestions 11526:Fear and Loathing of the English Passive 10263:Deliberately ironic use of the passive? 9940:, perhaps you could propose a change at 9507:are both part of naming conventions for 6889:His parents were named William and Mary. 6082:11.7 City and state act as an adjective. 6051:A place-name containing a comma—such as 4480:Oppose – Proposed amendment to MOS:COMMA 3598:List of Dallas (1978 TV series) episodes 3353:is decided, we should not "correct" it. 3122:Do we really need to say anything else? 2342:This section is divided into two parts. 2179:Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul 2143:Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul 1612:Slow but fine grind the wheels of style. 785:a foreign language composition has been 472:I've corrected the example above to put 11762:List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F) 11529:by Pullum might also be of interest. -- 8616:to make the example a little clearer. — 7570:back in October for the changes I made 6736:But I will be happy with any of them. 5279:FYI, the brackets suggestion came from 4897:– seriously? Anywoo, I'm outta here. – 3162:), even if this leads to inconsistency. 2350:This is the first part of the section. 1975:(Weeping, lamenting, worrying, fearing) 1839:(Weeping, lamenting, worrying, fearing) 403:(Weeping, lamenting, worrying, fearing) 14: 12138:Proposal that MOS should cover Portals 11295:Style: The Basics of Clarity and Grace 9702:at all (if anything, it is more of an 7177:) achieves neither, thus is useless. 6834:" section of his page, not the lead. 6374:Proposed alternatives to first example 6072:Punctuation Thesaurus English Language 5931:if stated as an inflexible "rule" (ie 4645:". To which I say, no, it's not about 1797:or someone else who has access to the 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 12053:Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands 12046:discussion on the WikiProject Cycling 11785:Do you mean the VC citation from the 11449:despite risks from the nearby volcano 10559:The passive voice is way over-used... 9920:Poems (long or epic poems italicized) 9681:it would be wrong and horribly POV.-- 9537:Agree... MOS:IDENTITY certainly does 7806:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Mathematics 7668:Quick check: consensus on possessives 7552:Quick check: consensus on possessives 7514:, they are taken to a sub-section of 7510:, if a reader clicks a the link link 6203:the committee dismissed the employee. 5923:this if it were stated as a flexible 5694:, and written with easily read prose. 4740:I disagree that one should never say 4695:say anything), but I don't think you 4621:Rochester, New York metropolitan area 4571:Rochester, New York metropolitan area 4532:Rochester, New York metropolitan area 3488:style guide for writing about fiction 2562:Kings Park, Western Australia#History 2460:added the following point to MOS:HEAD 1608:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Titles 1523:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Titles 777:I was aware that a narrow reading of 173:Weeping, Lamenting, Worrying, Fearing 9853:community (especially those who are 9768:Knowledge:Naming conventions (books) 8029:List of Fellows of the Royal Society 6317:for uncovering those sources, too. 3998:The following discussion is closed. 3946:Should a blank line be used between 3882:Knowledge:Simplified Manual of Style 2868:discusses an example of the latter. 1357:. Sorry you had to repeat yourself. 609:, I suggest a more suitable spot is 25: 11544:I'll second the recommendation. -- 11488:Rewriting Knowledge in the passive? 10633:Lalala published this book in 1888. 10149:Confusion over avoiding the passive 9760:I'm currently bringing the article 7453:has been nominated for deletion -- 7394:has been nominated for deletion -- 4868:Or, put another way, just replace " 4724:Gates, Rochester, metropolitan area 4602:Gates, Rochester, metropolitan area 1876:Dangerous Liaisons (disambiguation) 796:'s concern? Regarding bolding: per 23: 11266:I'll give Orwell (in his essay on 10595:English passive voice#Style advice 9871:If the proposal is put forward at 9632:Is "comrade" an allowed honorific? 8836:include a trailing comma (like in 8471:I agree with Tony on both points. 7680:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Register 5851:), so it hardly seems to matter. 5284: 5117:to discuss alternative examples. 4742:Gates, Rochester metropolitan area 4689:Gates, Rochester metropolitan area 4590:Gates, Rochester metropolitan area 3898:and 05:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC) 2560:and subsequent sections. Example: 24: 12166: 11268:Politics and the English Language 11223:Introduction to Technical Writing 11042:Knowledge:Reference desk/Language 9992:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Clarity 9183:WP:Logical quotation on Knowledge 8768:, it looks fine to me; I've just 7219:(In fact, it's not even the only 6717:as for clarity and conciseness. 6282:Greensboro, N.C., regional office 6225:A Note of Inevitable Disagreement 5333:This proposal recommends against 4819:", rendering the main phrase as " 4561:combining two names: the city of 496:English translation" rather than 10366: 8517: 8233:, born 1 January 1940), is a ... 8215:, (born 1 January 1940) is a ... 8126:, commas on both sides of FRS. 7341:The discussion above is closed. 7271:Joe then moved from Paris, Texas 6342:to be a point of disagreement. — 5771: 4488:: As per reasons already stated 3424:it. Period. Our house "style" 1937:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Titles 1515:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Titles 1436:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Titles 1351:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Titles 1278:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Titles 1147:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Novels 1135:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Titles 29: 11386:, namely the Big Guy Upstairs: 9578:== The football field (12 m) == 8286:) and geographical references ( 8224:, born 1 January 1940, is a ... 8188:(born 1 January 1940), is a ... 7969:, born 1 January 1940, is a ... 7875:(born 1 January 1940), is a ... 7113:1 October 2011 was the deadline 6899:present these in one sentence. 6542:In light of concerns raised by 5113:In the meantime, I have opened 4748:, which identifies the city of 4538:is referring to the whole term 3791:Someone not using his real name 2617:, it was generally agreed that 2592:which covers both scenarios. 1164:or 17:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC) 1139:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Music 8206:(born 1 January 1940) is a ... 8197:(born 1 January 1940) is a ... 7893:(born 1 January 1940) is a ... 7884:(born 1 January 1940) is a ... 7202:is in. (I didn't, for one.) 6008:Garner's Modern American Usage 5289:the style guides/sources below 4932:The April 7 <precision: --> 4811:", followed by the insertion " 4286:", removing the ", 2001" bit. 2782:I was actually thinking about 2408:Sounds eminently reasonable. 1143:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Film 906:broader sense, even better. -- 18:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style 13: 1: 12062:Silver Spring, Maryland, U.S. 11046:Knowledge:WikiProject Grammar 10188:surprised if there is not. -- 9607:12:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC) 9484:Seconded. Definitely not. -- 9358:) 23:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 8252:16:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC) 8163:14:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC) 8136:06:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC) 8102:00:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC) 8073:00:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC) 8039:22:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC) 8013:22:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC) 7986:21:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC) 7938:21:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC) 7923:19:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC) 7908:18:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC) 7695:00:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC) 7640:16:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC) 7625:00:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC) 7592:22:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC) 7463:05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC) 7404:05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC) 7328:22:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 7303:14:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 7236:13:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 7215:13:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 7190:13:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 7162:12:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 7125:10:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 7104:05:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 7087:03:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 7070:01:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 7040:05:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 7021:01:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 6997:01:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 6973:00:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 6944:23:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC) 6922:23:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC) 6909:23:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC) 6847:22:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC) 6826:21:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC) 6798:19:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC) 6784:10:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 6749:07:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 6730:06:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC) 6638:00:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 6538:06:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC) 6368:00:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 6352:00:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 6210:We already responded to your 5898:08:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 5881:00:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 5864:10:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 5839:01:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 5819:04:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 5787:02:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 5627:06:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 5569:22:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC) 5548:04:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC) 5530:01:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC) 5512:01:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC) 5489:03:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC) 5475:03:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC) 5446:01:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC) 5425:21:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 5398:03:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC) 5376:08:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC) 5350:03:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC) 5324:02:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC) 5309:13:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 5275:11:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 5248:07:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 5224:06:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 5210:06:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 5189:00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 5163:00:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 5130:06:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC) 5109:05:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC) 5006:01:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC) 4954:14:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 4474:17:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 4443:01:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC) 4422:21:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 4031:12:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC) 3985:12:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC) 3937:03:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC) 3917:06:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC) 3896:04:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC) 3854:07:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC) 3839:05:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC) 3799:04:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC) 3755:15:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC) 3741:14:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC) 3723:12:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC) 3705:05:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC) 3684:01:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC) 3662:20:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC) 3642:14:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC) 3619:05:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC) 3593:List of The Sopranos episodes 3571:16:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC) 3553:07:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC) 3530:14:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC) 3504:14:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC) 3482:14:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 3465:04:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 3450:Tense for long-running series 3442:15:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC) 3385:21:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC) 3363:13:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC) 3341:13:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 3317:03:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 3285:13:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC) 3264:19:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 3250:16:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 3229:09:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 3212:16:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 3180:16:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 3132:15:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 3072:15:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 3039:15:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2975:15:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2941:14:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2914:13:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2878:13:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2846:11:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2809:01:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2778:22:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2705:14:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2688:13:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2646:When using an official name ( 2605:11:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC) 2582:08:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC) 2500:Apostrophes in official names 2495:12:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC) 2353:2.2. 2 The second sub-heading 2310:09:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC) 2287:03:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2248:10:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2187:19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2169:02:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2151:19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2141:Dash, e.g., pages=A–5 — A–7. 2130:02:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2116:20:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2102:19:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2077:17:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 2042:07:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 2010:01:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC) 1980:Il Giornale dell'Architettura 1973:Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen 1837:Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen 1706:20:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 1625:18:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 1538:17:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 1033:17:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 977:has been published in English 931:17:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 916:14:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 877:14:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 810:13:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 773:12:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 759:12:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 711:12:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 696:12:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 664:11:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 627:10:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC) 613:; it should also be added to 593:14:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC) 579:02:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC) 526:21:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 510:21:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 488:20:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 474:Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen 444:17:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 422:08:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC) 401:Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen 355:08:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC) 340:23:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC) 314:03:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC) 257:00:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC) 235:03:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC) 215:00:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC) 196:00:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC) 166:Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen 150:Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen 134:Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen 118:Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen 106:Translation of foreign titles 12156:08:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC) 12133:18:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 12096:17:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 12035:09:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 12009:17:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC) 11985:16:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC) 11841:08:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC) 11827:18:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 11799:10:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 11781:22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 11755:12:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 11721:17:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 11678:11:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 11664:09:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 11646:05:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 11565:04:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 11554:04:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 11539:01:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 11513:01:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 11439:14:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 11416:09:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 11370:03:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 11345:02:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 11328:01:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 11284:01:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 11256:00:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 11241:00:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 10495:00:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 10273:00:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 10069:00:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 9971:01:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 9956:19:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 9886:15:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 9867:15:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 9829:15:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 9806:14:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 9750:14:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 9728:15:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 9691:14:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 9668:09:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 9626:09:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 9576:) if it is in a header, e.g 6330:03:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC) 6305:03:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC) 6172:02:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC) 6117:02:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC) 6010:, 3rd ed (2009), pp 225-226: 5999:01:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC) 5977:06:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC) 5963:15:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 5945:13:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 5769:DROP THE COMMA AND BACK AWAY 5752:13:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC) 5733:12:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC) 5708:09:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC) 5682:07:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC) 5663:06:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC) 5085:13:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC) 5046:12:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC) 5027:11:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC) 4992:21:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4976:14:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4907:23:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4864:16:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4833:14:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4791:23:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4769:21:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4736:16:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4637:14:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4520:12:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4406:22:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC) 4388:17:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4370:17:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4350:17:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4334:16:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4317:13:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4300:09:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4275:09:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4258:08:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4241:08:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4229:08:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 4206:08:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 3588:List of The X-Files episodes 3491:reader actually reads it. -- 3194:you think we should specify 3014:This also crosses over with 2452:04:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC) 2433:23:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC) 2418:14:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2403:10:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC) 2345:2.1. 1 The first sub-heading 1902:01:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC) 1888:01:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC) 1869:01:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC) 1813:00:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC) 1773:00:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC) 1756:20:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC) 1451:00:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC) 1369:06:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC) 1293:03:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC) 1224:00:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC) 1162:21:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) 1089:19:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) 1075:is known by an English title 981:is known by an English title 7: 12080:that I am unable to find?-- 11217:17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC) 11202:06:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC) 11181:06:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC) 11165:06:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC) 11123:04:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC) 11061:22:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 11036:22:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 11013:15:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 10998:15:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 10973:13:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 10941:13:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 10923:13:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 10896:13:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 10874:11:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 10859:11:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 10841:19:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) 10814:04:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC) 10793:04:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC) 10752:21:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10698:20:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10683:19:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10664:17:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10645:17:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10622:16:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10607:15:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10589:14:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10571:14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10550:13:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10437:05:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC) 10413:09:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10384:15:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 10360:19:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10345:10:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10316:08:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10231:07:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10217:07:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10198:07:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10181:06:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10164:06:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10141:05:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 10004:05:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 9649:23:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC) 9560:16:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC) 9529:15:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC) 9494:14:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC) 9480:14:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC) 9465:12:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC) 9402:05:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC) 9374:23:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 9325:Though, this rewording was 9303:05:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 9281:03:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 9261:03:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 9240:04:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 9205:03:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 9174:03:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 9154:03:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 9114:04:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 9046:04:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 8984:04:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 8941:04:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 8899:04:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 8854:23:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 8808:22:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 8782:22:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 8752:22:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 8726:23:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 8692:22:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 8652:22:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 8626:22:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 8588:14:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 8538:01:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC) 8507:18:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 8481:12:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 8467:07:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 8448:03:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 8434:03:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC) 8420:23:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 8400:23:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 8370:22:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 8354:21:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 8321:16:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 8303:11:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 8276:14:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC) 7851:00:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC) 7818:20:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC) 7792:20:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC) 7755:16:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC) 7724:Common mathematical symbols 7719:11:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC) 7654:10:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC) 7547:21:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC) 7487:03:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC) 6144:Sacramento, California home 4821:The April 7 Ohio courtroom. 4815:", followed by the ending " 4669:I'd argue the qualifier is 4598:Rochester metropolitan area 4586:Rochester metropolitan area 4575:Rochester metropolitan area 4011:This is a fairly clear-cut 3412:think apostrophes in names 2550:moving existing apostrophes 740:37.2 Degrees in the Morning 428:here with roman and italics 245:The Chicago Manual of Style 10: 12171: 11591:I play the prince on stage 9679:Comrade Stalin was born... 9427:conflicts with the policy 7423:Template:Malaysian English 6142:are perfectly acceptable, 5669:construction be avoided? 4746:Darwin, Northern Territory 3827:Dash#Attributive_compounds 3624:Put it this way: it's not 3158:should not be rendered as 2295:I see this page is dead. 11769:. Keep up the good work. 11558:Thirded. It's excellent. 9333:again; I'd appreciate if 9271:, please check it out. — 7946:Do you mean: John Smith, 7836:Knowledge:Manual of Style 6703:) 01:31, 11 November 2013 4324:: Good recommendation. -- 4027:Penny for your thoughts? 2986:, use the WP:COMMONNAME: 2831:Talk:Jay-Z#Requested move 2613:After much discussion at 1349:That works for me. I saw 603:Je t'aime... moi non plus 514:Good point. Change made. 12110:Talk:2013 in film#Length 12021:Comments are invited at 11626:Charles is the secretary 11583:the secretary is Charles 11579:Charles is the secretary 11473:Very highly recommended. 10485:Another ironic passive? 9517:Knowledge:Article titles 9509:Knowledge:Article titles 8027:On closer inspection of 7861:Punctuating postnominals 7775:" can be a shortcut to " 7764:" can be a shortcut to " 7343:Please do not modify it. 6044:, 15th ed (2003), p 165: 5765:Strong oppose as written 4935:Ohio <precision/: --> 4933:2011 <precision/: --> 4600:; but you could not say 4001:Please do not modify it. 3874:Knowledge:Tip of the day 3367:Um... As you know well, 3349:name to use... but once 3327:quality and assign them 3117:, even for consistency.) 2963:already been made for us 2815:Knowledge:Article titles 2738:, even for consistency.) 2668:, even for consistency.) 2525:, even for consistency.) 1962:Les Liaisons dangereuses 1826:Les Liaisons dangereuses 1355:Knowledge:Article titles 390:Les Liaisons dangereuses 11392:'s main attractions is 10593:Articles are good too! 10432:aka The Red Pen of Doom 10399:See also discussion at 8923:Hmm, I just found that 8598:diode–transistor logic. 7364:Template:Brunei English 6123:Bryan A. Garner (ed.), 5716:(including punctuation) 5692:(including punctuation) 4193:Please comment below. 2537:Is MOS:POSS limited to 2325:is used. For example: 1916:Chicago Manual of Style 1604:Chicago Manual of Style 969:Chicago Manual of Style 381:Titles of foreign works 12057:Amsterdam, Netherlands 11874:Knowledge:Film project 11466:The passive in English 11207:writers or linguists? 9923: 8714:Hindi–Urdu controversy 8178:So to recap, we have: 7539:Fountains of Bryn Mawr 7512:catadioptric telescope 6645:Alternative Example 1D 6552:Alternative Example 1C 6485:Alternative Example 1B 6435:Alternative Example 1A 6286: 6273: 6262: 6250: 6243: 6236: 6228: 6215: 6205: 6192: 6157: 6097: 6086: 6065: 6036: 6028: 6020: 5806:Pick your favourite. 5696: 5594:: 5585:: 5354:When this phrasing is 4884:". You then get these: 3954:and DEFAULTSORT? (See 3787:Template talk:Main#RfC 3165: 3120: 2819:only applies to titles 2748: 2671: 2548:Is it limited only to 2527: 2322:Appearance Preferences 2233: 2215: 1985: 1855: 1843: 1830:The Dangerous Liaisons 1519:22:58, 5 November 2013 611:WP:MOS#Titles of works 500:, in the second case? 407: 394:The Dangerous Liaisons 282:version is similar to 165: 149: 133: 117: 12078:never use subdivision 11760:I'd suggest going to 11453:the excellent article 11044:and the talk page of 9911: 7711:Justlettersandnumbers 6895:practice would be to 6278: 6269: 6255: 6246: 6239: 6231: 6222: 6212:July 1, 1991, letter. 6208: 6197: 6187: 6132: 6100:More examples abound 6089: 6079: 6049: 6031: 6023: 6015: 5847:as it stands anyway ( 5687: 5285:an earlier discussion 5175:the use and does not 3304:Mrs Macquarie's Chair 3140: 3091: 2716: 2638: 2623:Mrs Macquarie's Chair 2509: 2256:Image galleries again 2218: 2202: 1952: 1847: 1821: 1276:Perhaps adding it to 492:You presumably mean " 385: 42:of past discussions. 12074:always use subvision 11974:is not aligned with 11729:Loftus William Jones 11630:Charles is a student 11486:Of local interest: " 11461:posts. Among these: 8666:lengthy thread above 4508:September 11 attacks 4284:September 11 attacks 3860:MOS reading schedule 3160:St Thomas's Hospital 3115:St Thomas's Hospital 2736:St Thomas's Hospital 2666:St Thomas's Hospital 2589:Mrs Macquaries Chair 2523:St Thomas's Hospital 2054:mdash on page ranges 843:is correct and not: 12066:Silver Spring, U.S. 12014:Proposal to change 11995:Knowledge:Styletips 11990:Knowledge:Styletips 11851:MOS outside the MOS 11022:enough to avoid it 10123:There used to be a 8710:Hindi-Urdu language 8604:would suggest that 7578:, or do we need to 7561:from "Quick check". 7516:Catadioptric system 7074:I'm OK that that. 6280:He traveled to the 6182:(2002), pp 374–375: 5173:recommends avoiding 5115:a new section below 4655:Rochester, New York 4555:Rochester, New York 4540:Rochester, New York 4534:is correct "ecause 3812:I would agree with 3579:Italicizing credits 3200:as part of the name 3155:St Thomas' Hospital 3150:as part of the name 3106:St Thomas' Hospital 3101:as part of the name 2727:St Thomas' Hospital 2657:St Thomas' Hospital 2514:St Thomas' Hospital 328:The Flying Dutchman 11297:, where he writes, 8840:) or not (like in 7707:St. James's Square 7670:, in harmony with 7532:huh, why am I here 6384:Proposed Example 1 6148:Austin, Texas jury 5601:Better alternative 4754:Northern Territory 4584:, which is in the 4171:Better alternative 4043:currently states: 3925:is ready for use. 2860:the article title. 2625:because that is a 2621:does not apply to 1966:Dangerous Liaisons 379:under the heading 12094: 11724: 11707:comment added by 11697:flights of angels 11599:the prince is me 11593:, active) versus 11563: 11445:... where hotels 10640:E L A Q U E A T E 10566:E L A Q U E A T E 10433: 10386: 10362: 10179: 9762:A Song for Simeon 9524:E L A Q U E A T E 9470:No, it does not. 9435:and the policies 9247:P.S. I just took 8690: 8608:somehow modifies 8301: 8250: 7984: 7906: 7562: 7413:Malaysian English 7326: 7275:to New York City. 7234: 7213: 7188: 7085: 7019: 6971: 6879:presented in two 6845: 6747: 6728: 6705: 6691:comment added by 6681: 6680: 6636: 6622: 6621: 6588: 6587: 6536: 6521: 6520: 6471: 6470: 6420: 6419: 6328: 6303: 6258:Greensboro, N.C., 6170: 6154: 6115: 5896: 5862: 5817: 5731: 5680: 5625: 5473: 5450:I most certainly 5417:United States Man 5348: 5307: 5246: 5160: 5128: 5097: 5083: 5044: 4974: 4780: 4776: 4767: 4635: 4606:metropolitan area 4588:. You could say 4565:and the state of 4536:metropolitan area 4414:United States Man 4398:United States Man 4204: 4182: 4181: 4142: 4141: 4090: 4089: 3703: 3660: 3646:Alrighty then. — 3617: 3283: 3227: 3178: 3109:should therefore 3070: 3037: 2844: 2776: 2730:should therefore 2660:should therefore 2652:, or lack thereof 2603: 2517:should therefore 2493: 2450: 2401: 2316:Heading numbering 2262:WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy 2246: 728:Thus Do All Women 599:Mein Ruf nach dir 432:here with italics 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 12162: 12131: 12122: 12118: 12084: 11983: 11824: 11820: 11816: 11811: 11779: 11778: 11752: 11748: 11744: 11739: 11723: 11701: 11661: 11656: 11618: 11613: 11595:the prince is me 11562: 11394:Seven Mile Beach 11367: 11362: 11230: 11191: 11154: 10970: 10965: 10856: 10851: 10790: 10785: 10642: 10641: 10634: 10630: 10568: 10567: 10560: 10434: 10431: 10370: 10369: 10365: 10349: 10178: 10172:Strunk and White 9954: 9953: 9939: 9827: 9824: 9817: 9665: 9660: 9623: 9618: 9605: 9604: 9595: 9579: 9575: 9526: 9525: 9400: 9193: 9096: 9084: 9020: 8843: 8839: 8824:Thank you, that 8687: 8681: 8674: 8669: 8521: 8520: 8464: 8459: 8291: 8289: 8285: 8249: 8241: 8232: 8223: 8214: 8205: 8196: 8187: 8148: 7983: 7968: 7951: 7905: 7892: 7883: 7874: 7580:seek wider input 7557: 7452: 7451: 7417: 7411: 7393: 7392: 7358: 7352: 7316: 7224: 7203: 7178: 7172: 7075: 7009: 7007: 6961: 6954: 6932: 6835: 6737: 6718: 6704: 6685: 6677: 6664: 6653: 6652: 6626: 6618: 6605: 6594: 6593: 6584: 6571: 6560: 6559: 6526: 6517: 6504: 6493: 6492: 6467: 6454: 6443: 6442: 6416: 6403: 6392: 6391: 6318: 6293: 6178:C. Edward Good, 6160: 6152: 6105: 6070:Howard Lauther, 6057:New Delhi, India 5994: 5993:Mr. Stradivarius 5886: 5873: 5852: 5831: 5807: 5803: 5798: 5793: 5779: 5775: 5721: 5712:How can editors 5670: 5615: 5606: 5597: 5588: 5545: 5540: 5519: 5509: 5504: 5463: 5461: 5457: 5435: 5338: 5297: 5260: 5236: 5234: 5153: 5118: 5095: 5073: 5068: 5059: 5050:How about this? 5034: 5024: 5019: 4964: 4937: 4923: 4917: 4896: 4890: 4822: 4818: 4814: 4810: 4806: 4778: 4774: 4757: 4743: 4725: 4690: 4625: 4622: 4603: 4591: 4546:and not just to 4533: 4502: 4467: 4289: 4239: 4194: 4178: 4165: 4154: 4153: 4138: 4125: 4114: 4113: 4086: 4073: 4062: 4061: 4028: 4022: 4003: 3983: 3982: 3973: 3953: 3914: 3909: 3814:User:DocWatson42 3777:atop of articles 3738: 3733: 3715:Michael Bednarek 3693: 3650: 3607: 3545:Michael Bednarek 3496: 3273: 3268:Having reviewed 3217: 3168: 3161: 3157: 3116: 3108: 3060: 3027: 2834: 2766: 2760: 2737: 2729: 2667: 2659: 2593: 2533:. Specifically: 2524: 2516: 2483: 2462: 2440: 2391: 2302: 2279: 2236: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2040: 2039: 2008: 2007: 1982: 1976: 1969: 1840: 1833: 1811: 1810: 1796: 1623: 1622: 1367: 1366: 1222: 1221: 1087: 1086: 1031: 1030: 855:Lebedinoye ozero 834:Lebedinoye ozero 802:Michael Bednarek 619:Michael Bednarek 577: 576: 524: 523: 486: 485: 420: 419: 404: 397: 347:Michael Bednarek 312: 311: 233: 232: 194: 193: 168: 152: 136: 120: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 12170: 12169: 12165: 12164: 12163: 12161: 12160: 12159: 12140: 12120: 12114: 12113: 12103: 12042: 12019: 11992: 11981:John Vandenberg 11979: 11952:MOS:CODESAMPLES 11920:MOS:SOURCECODE 11916:MOS:CODESAMPLE 11878:MOS:FILMPROJECT 11853: 11822: 11818: 11814: 11809: 11803:OK, thank you. 11774: 11770: 11750: 11746: 11742: 11737: 11732: 11702: 11692: 11659: 11652: 11616: 11609: 11587:I am the prince 11365: 11358: 11238: 11228: 11199: 11189: 11162: 11152: 10968: 10961: 10854: 10847: 10788: 10781: 10639: 10637: 10632: 10628: 10565: 10563: 10558: 10537:We should not: 10429: 10367: 9987: 9949: 9945: 9933: 9823: 9820: 9815: 9812: 9758: 9738:Chhatra_Sangram 9663: 9656: 9637:Chhatra_Sangram 9634: 9621: 9614: 9591: 9582: 9581: 9577: 9573: 9570: 9523: 9521: 9421: 9398:John Vandenberg 9396: 9386: 9319:, we've missed 9269:a small cleanup 9191: 9095:... and "this." 9094: 9078: 9014: 8842:''there'', that 8841: 8837: 8834:italic typeface 8685: 8679: 8672: 8545: 8518: 8515: 8462: 8455: 8331: 8287: 8283: 8237: 8228: 8219: 8210: 8201: 8192: 8183: 8144: 7964: 7963:4. John Smith, 7947: 7888: 7879: 7870: 7863: 7726: 7559:Thread retitled 7554: 7495: 7470: 7425: 7421: 7419: 7415: 7409: 7366: 7362: 7360: 7356: 7350: 7347: 7346: 7166: 7001: 6948: 6926: 6764: 6711: 6686: 6675: 6662: 6616: 6603: 6582: 6569: 6515: 6502: 6465: 6452: 6414: 6401: 6376: 6136:California home 6093:Miami, Florida, 6053:Toronto, Canada 6034:difficult ones. 5992: 5916: 5871: 5829: 5801: 5796: 5791: 5777: 5604: 5595: 5586: 5543: 5536: 5517: 5507: 5500: 5462:is incorrect. 5459: 5458:. Conversely, 5455: 5433: 5258: 5228: 5161: 5098: 5066: 5057: 5022: 5015: 4931: 4921: 4915: 4894: 4888: 4820: 4817:Ohio courtroom. 4816: 4812: 4808: 4804: 4752:located in the 4741: 4723: 4712:Gates, New York 4688: 4620: 4601: 4589: 4531: 4500: 4482: 4465: 4287: 4237: 4217:Strong support. 4213: 4176: 4163: 4136: 4123: 4084: 4071: 4038: 4026: 4018: 3999: 3992: 3969: 3960: 3959: 3947: 3944: 3912: 3905: 3862: 3806: 3779: 3736: 3729: 3581: 3514: 3494: 3452: 3159: 3153: 3114: 3113:be rendered as 3104: 2756: 2735: 2734:be rendered as 2725: 2665: 2664:be rendered as 2655: 2653: 2649: 2544: 2522: 2521:be rendered as 2512: 2502: 2458: 2337: 2336:2. Main heading 2318: 2300: 2277: 2258: 2230:the 1939–45 war 2229: 2225: 2221: 2108:Maury Markowitz 2069:Maury Markowitz 2056: 2035: 2031: 2003: 1999: 1978: 1971: 1960: 1835: 1824: 1806: 1802: 1790: 1789:does it. Would 1748:J. Johnson (JJ) 1618: 1614: 1362: 1358: 1217: 1213: 1082: 1078: 1026: 1022: 850:Лебединое озеро 830:Лебединое озеро 791: 790:translated into 784: 572: 568: 519: 515: 481: 477: 415: 411: 399: 388: 307: 303: 228: 224: 189: 185: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 12168: 12139: 12136: 12102: 12099: 12069: 12068: 12059: 12041: 12038: 12018: 12012: 11998: 11991: 11988: 11964: 11963: 11940:MOS:PSEUDOCODE 11932:MOS:ALGORITHMS 11905: 11891: 11881: 11871: 11852: 11849: 11848: 11847: 11846: 11845: 11844: 11843: 11787:London Gazette 11783: 11731: 11726: 11691: 11688: 11687: 11686: 11685: 11684: 11683: 11682: 11681: 11680: 11570: 11569: 11568: 11567: 11522: 11521: 11520: 11519: 11518: 11517: 11516: 11515: 11493: 11492: 11491: 11484: 11474: 11447:remain located 11421: 11420: 11419: 11418: 11352: 11351: 11350: 11349: 11348: 11347: 11332: 11331: 11330: 11315: 11314: 11313: 11310: 11307: 11301: 11298: 11290: 11289: 11288: 11287: 11286: 11264: 11261: 11236: 11197: 11160: 11146: 11145: 11144: 11143: 11142: 11141: 11140: 11139: 11138: 11137: 11136: 11135: 11134: 11133: 11132: 11131: 11130: 11129: 11128: 11127: 11126: 11125: 11111: 11107: 11082: 11081: 11080: 11079: 11078: 11077: 11076: 11075: 11074: 11073: 11072: 11071: 11070: 11069: 11068: 11067: 11066: 11065: 11064: 11063: 11049: 11000: 10929: 10928: 10927: 10926: 10925: 10828: 10819: 10818: 10817: 10816: 10796: 10795: 10771: 10770: 10769: 10768: 10767: 10766: 10765: 10764: 10763: 10762: 10761: 10760: 10759: 10758: 10757: 10756: 10755: 10754: 10717: 10716: 10715: 10714: 10713: 10712: 10711: 10710: 10709: 10708: 10707: 10706: 10705: 10704: 10703: 10702: 10701: 10700: 10609: 10553: 10552: 10535: 10534: 10533: 10530: 10526: 10525: 10524: 10523: 10522: 10521: 10520: 10519: 10518: 10517: 10516: 10515: 10514: 10513: 10512: 10511: 10510: 10509: 10508: 10507: 10506: 10505: 10504: 10503: 10502: 10501: 10500: 10499: 10498: 10497: 10449: 10448: 10447: 10446: 10445: 10444: 10443: 10442: 10441: 10440: 10439: 10397: 10396: 10395: 10394: 10393: 10392: 10391: 10390: 10389: 10388: 10387: 10325: 10324: 10323: 10322: 10321: 10320: 10319: 10318: 10303: 10302: 10301: 10300: 10299: 10298: 10297: 10296: 10295: 10294: 10293: 10292: 10291: 10290: 10289: 10288: 10287: 10286: 10285: 10284: 10283: 10282: 10281: 10280: 10279: 10278: 10277: 10276: 10275: 10184: 10183: 10167: 10166: 10152: 10144: 10143: 10121: 10120: 10119: 10118: 10117: 10116: 10115: 10114: 10113: 10112: 10111: 10110: 10109: 10108: 10107: 10106: 10105: 10104: 10103: 10102: 10101: 10100: 10099: 10098: 10097: 10096: 10095: 10094: 10093: 10092: 10091: 10090: 10089: 10088: 10087: 10086: 10085: 10084: 10083: 10082: 10081: 10080: 10079: 10078: 10077: 10076: 10075: 10074: 10073: 10072: 10071: 9986: 9983: 9982: 9981: 9980: 9979: 9978: 9977: 9976: 9975: 9974: 9973: 9922: 9921: 9910: 9909: 9908: 9907: 9906: 9905: 9904: 9903: 9893: 9892: 9891: 9890: 9889: 9888: 9832: 9831: 9821: 9794: 9793: 9790: 9787: 9784:MOS:QUOTEMARKS 9772:MOS:QUOTEMARKS 9757: 9754: 9753: 9752: 9733: 9732: 9731: 9730: 9704:anti-honorific 9671: 9670: 9633: 9630: 9629: 9628: 9569: 9566: 9565: 9564: 9563: 9562: 9532: 9531: 9498: 9497: 9496: 9420: 9405: 9385: 9382: 9381: 9380: 9379: 9378: 9377: 9376: 9362:sensory gating 9315:Thumbs up for 9308: 9307: 9306: 9305: 9284: 9283: 9245: 9244: 9243: 9242: 9210: 9209: 9208: 9207: 9192:''this'', that 9187: 9177: 9176: 9131: 9130: 9129: 9128: 9127: 9126: 9125: 9124: 9123: 9122: 9121: 9120: 9119: 9118: 9117: 9116: 9102: 9091: 9061: 9060: 9059: 9058: 9057: 9056: 9055: 9054: 9053: 9052: 9051: 9050: 9049: 9048: 9034: 9033:sounds better? 9027: 8999: 8998: 8997: 8996: 8995: 8994: 8993: 8992: 8991: 8990: 8989: 8988: 8987: 8986: 8954: 8953: 8952: 8951: 8950: 8949: 8948: 8947: 8946: 8945: 8944: 8943: 8910: 8909: 8908: 8907: 8906: 8905: 8904: 8903: 8902: 8901: 8887: 8879: 8876: 8863: 8862: 8861: 8860: 8859: 8858: 8857: 8856: 8838:''here,'' this 8815: 8814: 8813: 8812: 8811: 8810: 8787: 8786: 8785: 8784: 8755: 8754: 8735: 8734: 8733: 8732: 8731: 8730: 8729: 8728: 8699: 8698: 8697: 8696: 8695: 8694: 8657: 8656: 8655: 8654: 8629: 8628: 8544: 8541: 8514: 8511: 8510: 8509: 8495: 8494: 8493: 8492: 8491: 8490: 8489: 8488: 8487: 8486: 8485: 8484: 8483: 8330: 8327: 8326: 8325: 8324: 8323: 8306: 8305: 8279: 8278: 8244: 8243: 8234: 8225: 8216: 8207: 8198: 8189: 8176: 8175: 8174: 8173: 8172: 8171: 8170: 8169: 8168: 8167: 8166: 8165: 8152: 8151: 8150: 8111: 8110: 8109: 8108: 8107: 8106: 8105: 8104: 8082: 8081: 8080: 8079: 8078: 8077: 8076: 8075: 8046: 8045: 8044: 8043: 8042: 8041: 8020: 8019: 8018: 8017: 8016: 8015: 7991: 7990: 7989: 7988: 7975: 7974: 7973: 7972: 7971: 7970: 7956: 7955: 7954: 7953: 7941: 7940: 7926: 7925: 7895: 7894: 7885: 7876: 7862: 7859: 7858: 7857: 7856: 7855: 7854: 7853: 7839: 7823: 7822: 7821: 7820: 7780: 7769: 7762:MOS:COMMONMATH 7739:MOS:COMMONMATH 7725: 7722: 7698: 7697: 7683: 7660: 7659: 7658: 7657: 7656: 7613: 7602: 7564: 7563: 7553: 7550: 7494: 7491: 7469: 7466: 7418: 7407: 7359: 7354:Brunei English 7348: 7340: 7339: 7338: 7337: 7336: 7335: 7334: 7333: 7332: 7331: 7330: 7308: 7279: 7278: 7277: 7264: 7252: 7245: 7217: 7192: 7143: 7130: 7129: 7128: 7127: 7106: 7089: 7057: 7056: 7055: 7054: 7053: 7052: 7051: 7050: 7049: 7048: 7047: 7046: 7045: 7044: 7043: 7042: 6981: 6978: 6946: 6924: 6814: 6813: 6812: 6801: 6800: 6786: 6762: 6752: 6751: 6733: 6732: 6710: 6707: 6683: 6682: 6679: 6678: 6673: 6666: 6665: 6660: 6649: 6648: 6647: 6646: 6624: 6623: 6620: 6619: 6614: 6607: 6606: 6601: 6590: 6589: 6586: 6585: 6580: 6573: 6572: 6567: 6556: 6555: 6554: 6553: 6523: 6522: 6519: 6518: 6513: 6506: 6505: 6500: 6489: 6488: 6487: 6486: 6473: 6472: 6469: 6468: 6463: 6456: 6455: 6450: 6439: 6438: 6437: 6436: 6422: 6421: 6418: 6417: 6412: 6405: 6404: 6399: 6388: 6387: 6386: 6385: 6375: 6372: 6371: 6370: 6335: 6334: 6333: 6332: 6307: 6291: 6290: 6289: 6288: 6287: 6267: 6266: 6265: 6264: 6263: 6244: 6237: 6229: 6220: 6219: 6218: 6217: 6216: 6206: 6184: 6183: 6175: 6174: 6158: 6129: 6128: 6120: 6119: 6098: 6087: 6076: 6075: 6067: 6066: 6046: 6045: 6038: 6037: 6029: 6021: 6012: 6011: 6002: 6001: 5984: 5983: 5982: 5981: 5980: 5979: 5948: 5947: 5915: 5912: 5911: 5910: 5909: 5908: 5907: 5906: 5905: 5904: 5903: 5902: 5901: 5900: 5804: 5799: 5794: 5762: 5761: 5760: 5759: 5758: 5757: 5756: 5755: 5754: 5631: 5630: 5629: 5611: 5610: 5609: 5608: 5607: 5598: 5589: 5575: 5554: 5553: 5552: 5551: 5550: 5493: 5492: 5491: 5477: 5427: 5410: 5409: 5408: 5407: 5406: 5405: 5404: 5403: 5402: 5401: 5400: 5252: 5251: 5250: 5226: 5199: 5193: 5192: 5191: 5152: 5140: 5139: 5138: 5137: 5136: 5135: 5134: 5133: 5132: 5094: 5071: 5070: 5069: 5060: 5048: 5010: 5009: 5008: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4979: 4978: 4960: 4959: 4958: 4957: 4956: 4943: 4939: 4938: 4929: 4928: 4925: 4924: 4919: 4918: 4913: 4912: 4892: 4891: 4886: 4885: 4883: 4879: 4875: 4871: 4866: 4853: 4849: 4845: 4841: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4721: 4717: 4713: 4709: 4705: 4677: 4675: 4674: 4667: 4665: 4664: 4661: 4659: 4658: 4656: 4644: 4619:At worst, the 4617: 4578: 4551: 4542:, not just to 4523: 4522: 4504: 4481: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4445: 4431:Strong support 4428: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4394:Strong support 4372: 4352: 4336: 4319: 4302: 4277: 4260: 4246:Strong support 4243: 4231: 4212: 4209: 4184: 4183: 4180: 4179: 4174: 4167: 4166: 4161: 4150: 4149: 4144: 4143: 4140: 4139: 4134: 4127: 4126: 4121: 4110: 4109: 4092: 4091: 4088: 4087: 4082: 4075: 4074: 4069: 4058: 4057: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 3994: 3993: 3991: 3988: 3950:disambiguation 3943: 3940: 3926: 3920: 3919: 3885: 3872:). (See also 3861: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3805: 3802: 3778: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3712: 3601: 3600: 3595: 3590: 3580: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3513: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3484: 3451: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3406: 3402: 3387: 3343: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3234: 3164: 3163: 3139: 3138: 3119: 3118: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3041: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3005: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2993: 2990: 2984:article titles 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2854: 2817:policy, so it 2788: 2787:determination. 2747: 2746: 2739: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2707: 2677: 2670: 2669: 2651: 2647: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2608: 2607: 2566: 2565: 2546: 2542: 2501: 2498: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2455: 2454: 2421: 2420: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2335: 2317: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2257: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2234: 2216: 2200: 2190: 2189: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2154: 2153: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2086: 2083: 2055: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1816: 1815: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1694: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1526: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1439: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1281: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1150: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 816: 789: 782: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 731: 723:Così fan tutte 673:Così fan tutte 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 408: 383: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 357: 319: 318: 317: 316: 297: 296: 295: 294: 273: 272: 271: 270: 260: 259: 240: 239: 238: 237: 218: 217: 181: 180: 160: 144: 128: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 12167: 12158: 12157: 12153: 12149: 12145: 12135: 12134: 12130: 12126: 12121:Pigsonthewing 12117: 12111: 12107: 12098: 12097: 12092: 12088: 12083: 12079: 12075: 12067: 12063: 12060: 12058: 12054: 12051: 12050: 12049: 12047: 12037: 12036: 12032: 12028: 12024: 12017: 12011: 12010: 12006: 12002: 11996: 11987: 11986: 11982: 11977: 11973: 11969: 11968:WP:PSEUDOCODE 11961: 11957: 11953: 11949: 11945: 11941: 11937: 11933: 11929: 11928:MOS:ALGORITHM 11925: 11921: 11917: 11913: 11909: 11906: 11903: 11899: 11895: 11892: 11889: 11885: 11882: 11879: 11875: 11872: 11869: 11865: 11862: 11861: 11860: 11858: 11842: 11838: 11834: 11830: 11829: 11828: 11825: 11817: 11812: 11806: 11802: 11801: 11800: 11796: 11792: 11788: 11784: 11782: 11777: 11773: 11772:SchreiberBike 11768: 11763: 11759: 11758: 11757: 11756: 11753: 11745: 11740: 11730: 11725: 11722: 11718: 11714: 11710: 11706: 11698: 11679: 11675: 11671: 11667: 11666: 11665: 11662: 11657: 11655: 11649: 11648: 11647: 11643: 11639: 11635: 11631: 11627: 11622: 11621: 11620: 11619: 11614: 11612: 11606: 11605:topic–comment 11600: 11596: 11592: 11588: 11584: 11580: 11576: 11572: 11571: 11566: 11561: 11557: 11556: 11555: 11551: 11547: 11543: 11542: 11541: 11540: 11536: 11532: 11528: 11527: 11514: 11510: 11506: 11502: 11498: 11494: 11489: 11485: 11483: 11479: 11475: 11472: 11467: 11463: 11462: 11460: 11459: 11454: 11450: 11448: 11442: 11441: 11440: 11436: 11432: 11427: 11426: 11425: 11424: 11423: 11422: 11417: 11413: 11409: 11405: 11403: 11399: 11395: 11391: 11385: 11381: 11377: 11373: 11372: 11371: 11368: 11363: 11361: 11354: 11353: 11346: 11342: 11338: 11333: 11329: 11325: 11321: 11316: 11311: 11308: 11305: 11304: 11302: 11299: 11296: 11291: 11285: 11281: 11277: 11273: 11269: 11265: 11262: 11259: 11258: 11257: 11253: 11249: 11244: 11243: 11242: 11239: 11234: 11232: 11231: 11224: 11220: 11219: 11218: 11214: 11210: 11205: 11204: 11203: 11200: 11195: 11193: 11192: 11184: 11183: 11182: 11178: 11174: 11169: 11168: 11167: 11166: 11163: 11158: 11156: 11155: 11124: 11120: 11116: 11112: 11108: 11104: 11103: 11102: 11101: 11100: 11099: 11098: 11097: 11096: 11095: 11094: 11093: 11092: 11091: 11090: 11089: 11088: 11087: 11086: 11085: 11084: 11083: 11062: 11058: 11054: 11050: 11047: 11043: 11039: 11038: 11037: 11033: 11029: 11025: 11020: 11016: 11015: 11014: 11010: 11006: 11001: 10999: 10995: 10991: 10987: 10986:unintentional 10982: 10977: 10976: 10975: 10974: 10971: 10966: 10964: 10956: 10952: 10946: 10945: 10944: 10943: 10942: 10938: 10934: 10930: 10924: 10920: 10916: 10911: 10907: 10903: 10899: 10898: 10897: 10893: 10889: 10885: 10881: 10877: 10876: 10875: 10871: 10867: 10862: 10861: 10860: 10857: 10852: 10850: 10844: 10843: 10842: 10838: 10834: 10829: 10825: 10824: 10823: 10822: 10821: 10820: 10815: 10812: 10809: 10804: 10800: 10799: 10798: 10797: 10794: 10791: 10786: 10784: 10777: 10773: 10772: 10753: 10749: 10745: 10740: 10735: 10734: 10733: 10732: 10731: 10730: 10729: 10728: 10727: 10726: 10725: 10724: 10723: 10722: 10721: 10720: 10719: 10718: 10699: 10695: 10691: 10686: 10685: 10684: 10680: 10676: 10672: 10667: 10666: 10665: 10661: 10657: 10653: 10648: 10647: 10646: 10643: 10625: 10624: 10623: 10619: 10615: 10610: 10608: 10604: 10600: 10596: 10592: 10591: 10590: 10586: 10582: 10578: 10574: 10573: 10572: 10569: 10555: 10554: 10551: 10547: 10543: 10539: 10538: 10536: 10531: 10528: 10527: 10496: 10492: 10488: 10484: 10483: 10482: 10481: 10480: 10479: 10478: 10477: 10476: 10475: 10474: 10473: 10472: 10471: 10470: 10469: 10468: 10467: 10466: 10465: 10464: 10463: 10462: 10461: 10460: 10459: 10458: 10457: 10456: 10455: 10453: 10450: 10438: 10435: 10426: 10425: 10424: 10423: 10422: 10421: 10420: 10419: 10418: 10417: 10416: 10415: 10414: 10410: 10406: 10402: 10398: 10385: 10381: 10377: 10373: 10364: 10363: 10361: 10357: 10353: 10348: 10347: 10346: 10342: 10338: 10333: 10332: 10331: 10330: 10329: 10328: 10327: 10326: 10317: 10313: 10309: 10304: 10274: 10270: 10266: 10262: 10261: 10260: 10259: 10258: 10257: 10256: 10255: 10254: 10253: 10252: 10251: 10250: 10249: 10248: 10247: 10246: 10245: 10244: 10243: 10242: 10241: 10240: 10239: 10238: 10237: 10236: 10235: 10234: 10233: 10232: 10228: 10224: 10220: 10219: 10218: 10214: 10210: 10205: 10201: 10200: 10199: 10195: 10191: 10186: 10185: 10182: 10177: 10173: 10169: 10168: 10165: 10161: 10157: 10153: 10150: 10146: 10145: 10142: 10138: 10134: 10130: 10126: 10122: 10070: 10066: 10062: 10058: 10057: 10056: 10055: 10054: 10053: 10052: 10051: 10050: 10049: 10048: 10047: 10046: 10045: 10044: 10043: 10042: 10041: 10040: 10039: 10038: 10037: 10036: 10035: 10034: 10033: 10032: 10031: 10030: 10029: 10028: 10027: 10026: 10025: 10024: 10023: 10022: 10021: 10020: 10019: 10018: 10017: 10016: 10015: 10014: 10013: 10012: 10011: 10010: 10009: 10008: 10007: 10006: 10005: 10001: 9997: 9993: 9972: 9968: 9964: 9959: 9958: 9957: 9952: 9948: 9947:SchreiberBike 9943: 9937: 9931: 9930: 9929: 9928: 9927: 9926: 9925: 9924: 9919: 9918: 9917: 9914: 9901: 9900: 9899: 9898: 9897: 9896: 9895: 9894: 9887: 9883: 9879: 9874: 9870: 9869: 9868: 9864: 9860: 9856: 9852: 9848: 9844: 9840: 9836: 9835: 9834: 9833: 9830: 9826: 9825: 9818: 9810: 9809: 9808: 9807: 9803: 9799: 9791: 9788: 9785: 9781: 9780: 9779: 9777: 9776:Paradise Lost 9773: 9769: 9765: 9763: 9751: 9747: 9743: 9739: 9735: 9734: 9729: 9725: 9721: 9717: 9716:Citizen Genêt 9713: 9709: 9705: 9701: 9697: 9696: 9695: 9694: 9693: 9692: 9688: 9684: 9680: 9676: 9669: 9666: 9661: 9659: 9653: 9652: 9651: 9650: 9646: 9642: 9639:. Thanks! - 9638: 9627: 9624: 9619: 9617: 9611: 9610: 9609: 9608: 9602: 9601: 9596: 9594: 9588: 9587: 9561: 9557: 9553: 9548: 9544: 9540: 9536: 9535: 9534: 9533: 9530: 9527: 9518: 9514: 9510: 9506: 9502: 9501:WP:COMMONNAME 9499: 9495: 9491: 9487: 9483: 9482: 9481: 9477: 9473: 9469: 9468: 9467: 9466: 9462: 9458: 9457:Andrew Oakley 9454: 9453:WP:COMMONNAME 9450: 9446: 9442: 9441:WP:COMMONNAME 9438: 9434: 9430: 9429:WP:VERIFIABLE 9426: 9418: 9417:WP:COMMONNAME 9414: 9410: 9404: 9403: 9399: 9394: 9390: 9375: 9371: 9367: 9363: 9359: 9357: 9353: 9350:principle. — 9349: 9345: 9340: 9339:Peter coxhead 9336: 9332: 9328: 9322: 9318: 9314: 9313: 9312: 9311: 9310: 9309: 9304: 9300: 9296: 9292: 9288: 9287: 9286: 9285: 9282: 9278: 9274: 9270: 9265: 9264: 9263: 9262: 9258: 9254: 9250: 9249:another crack 9241: 9237: 9233: 9228: 9224: 9219: 9214: 9213: 9212: 9211: 9206: 9202: 9198: 9188: 9184: 9181: 9180: 9179: 9178: 9175: 9171: 9167: 9163: 9158: 9157: 9156: 9155: 9151: 9147: 9142: 9137: 9115: 9111: 9107: 9103: 9100: 9092: 9089: 9082: 9077: 9076: 9075: 9074: 9073: 9072: 9071: 9070: 9069: 9068: 9067: 9066: 9065: 9064: 9063: 9062: 9047: 9043: 9039: 9035: 9032: 9028: 9025: 9018: 9013: 9012: 9011: 9010: 9009: 9008: 9007: 9006: 9005: 9004: 9003: 9002: 9001: 9000: 8985: 8981: 8977: 8972: 8968: 8967: 8966: 8965: 8964: 8963: 8962: 8961: 8960: 8959: 8958: 8957: 8956: 8955: 8942: 8938: 8934: 8930: 8926: 8922: 8921: 8920: 8919: 8918: 8917: 8916: 8915: 8914: 8913: 8912: 8911: 8900: 8896: 8892: 8888: 8885: 8880: 8877: 8873: 8872: 8871: 8870: 8869: 8868: 8867: 8866: 8865: 8864: 8855: 8851: 8847: 8835: 8831: 8827: 8823: 8822: 8821: 8820: 8819: 8818: 8817: 8816: 8809: 8805: 8801: 8797: 8793: 8792: 8791: 8790: 8789: 8788: 8783: 8779: 8775: 8771: 8770:cleaned it up 8767: 8763: 8759: 8758: 8757: 8756: 8753: 8749: 8745: 8741: 8737: 8736: 8727: 8723: 8719: 8715: 8711: 8707: 8706: 8705: 8704: 8703: 8702: 8701: 8700: 8693: 8689: 8688: 8682: 8676: 8675: 8667: 8663: 8662: 8661: 8660: 8659: 8658: 8653: 8649: 8645: 8641: 8637: 8633: 8632: 8631: 8630: 8627: 8623: 8619: 8615: 8611: 8607: 8603: 8602:Eye-hand span 8599: 8595: 8592: 8591: 8590: 8589: 8585: 8581: 8576: 8574: 8570: 8566: 8562: 8558: 8554: 8550: 8540: 8539: 8536: 8535: 8534: 8531: 8525: 8508: 8504: 8500: 8496: 8482: 8478: 8474: 8473:Peter coxhead 8470: 8469: 8468: 8465: 8460: 8458: 8451: 8450: 8449: 8445: 8441: 8437: 8436: 8435: 8431: 8427: 8423: 8422: 8421: 8417: 8413: 8408: 8403: 8402: 8401: 8397: 8393: 8389: 8385: 8381: 8377: 8373: 8372: 8371: 8367: 8363: 8358: 8357: 8356: 8355: 8351: 8347: 8343: 8342:User:SHCarter 8339: 8335: 8322: 8318: 8314: 8310: 8309: 8308: 8307: 8304: 8300: 8297: 8296: 8281: 8280: 8277: 8273: 8269: 8265: 8264:WP:CREDENTIAL 8261: 8256: 8255: 8254: 8253: 8248: 8240: 8235: 8231: 8226: 8222: 8217: 8213: 8208: 8204: 8199: 8195: 8190: 8186: 8181: 8180: 8179: 8164: 8160: 8156: 8153: 8147: 8143:"John Smith, 8142: 8141: 8139: 8138: 8137: 8133: 8129: 8125: 8121: 8120: 8119: 8118: 8117: 8116: 8115: 8114: 8113: 8112: 8103: 8099: 8095: 8090: 8089: 8088: 8087: 8086: 8085: 8084: 8083: 8074: 8070: 8066: 8062: 8058: 8054: 8053: 8052: 8051: 8050: 8049: 8048: 8047: 8040: 8037: 8034: 8030: 8026: 8025: 8024: 8023: 8022: 8021: 8014: 8011: 8008: 8004: 8000: 7997: 7996: 7995: 7994: 7993: 7992: 7987: 7982: 7979: 7978: 7977: 7976: 7967: 7962: 7961: 7960: 7959: 7958: 7957: 7950: 7945: 7944: 7943: 7942: 7939: 7936: 7933: 7928: 7927: 7924: 7920: 7916: 7912: 7911: 7910: 7909: 7904: 7900: 7891: 7886: 7882: 7877: 7873: 7868: 7867: 7866: 7852: 7848: 7844: 7840: 7837: 7833: 7829: 7828: 7827: 7826: 7825: 7824: 7819: 7815: 7811: 7807: 7803: 7799: 7795: 7794: 7793: 7789: 7785: 7781: 7778: 7774: 7773:WP:COMMONMATH 7770: 7767: 7763: 7759: 7758: 7757: 7756: 7752: 7748: 7744: 7743:WP:COMMONMATH 7740: 7736: 7732: 7721: 7720: 7716: 7712: 7708: 7703: 7696: 7692: 7688: 7684: 7681: 7677: 7673: 7669: 7665: 7661: 7655: 7651: 7647: 7643: 7642: 7641: 7637: 7633: 7628: 7627: 7626: 7622: 7618: 7614: 7611: 7607: 7603: 7600: 7596: 7595: 7594: 7593: 7589: 7585: 7581: 7577: 7573: 7569: 7560: 7556: 7555: 7549: 7548: 7544: 7540: 7536: 7533: 7529: 7525: 7521: 7517: 7513: 7509: 7504: 7500: 7490: 7489: 7488: 7484: 7480: 7476: 7465: 7464: 7460: 7456: 7455:76.65.128.112 7449: 7445: 7441: 7437: 7433: 7429: 7424: 7414: 7406: 7405: 7401: 7397: 7396:76.65.128.112 7390: 7386: 7382: 7378: 7374: 7370: 7365: 7355: 7344: 7329: 7325: 7322: 7321: 7315: 7313: 7309: 7306: 7305: 7304: 7300: 7296: 7292: 7288: 7284: 7280: 7276: 7274: 7268: 7265: 7263: 7259: 7256: 7255: 7253: 7250: 7246: 7243: 7239: 7238: 7237: 7233: 7230: 7229: 7222: 7218: 7216: 7212: 7209: 7208: 7201: 7197: 7193: 7191: 7187: 7184: 7183: 7176: 7170: 7165: 7164: 7163: 7159: 7155: 7152: 7148: 7144: 7142: 7138: 7134: 7133: 7132: 7131: 7126: 7122: 7118: 7117:Peter coxhead 7114: 7110: 7107: 7105: 7101: 7097: 7093: 7090: 7088: 7084: 7081: 7080: 7073: 7072: 7071: 7067: 7063: 7059: 7058: 7041: 7037: 7033: 7029: 7024: 7023: 7022: 7018: 7015: 7014: 7005: 7000: 6999: 6998: 6994: 6990: 6986: 6982: 6979: 6976: 6975: 6974: 6970: 6967: 6966: 6958: 6952: 6947: 6945: 6941: 6937: 6930: 6925: 6923: 6920: 6916: 6912: 6911: 6910: 6906: 6902: 6898: 6894: 6890: 6886: 6882: 6878: 6874: 6870: 6866: 6862: 6858: 6854: 6850: 6849: 6848: 6844: 6841: 6840: 6833: 6829: 6828: 6827: 6823: 6819: 6815: 6811: 6808: 6807: 6805: 6804: 6803: 6802: 6799: 6795: 6791: 6790:Peter coxhead 6787: 6785: 6781: 6777: 6773: 6769: 6765: 6760: 6757: 6754: 6753: 6750: 6746: 6743: 6742: 6735: 6734: 6731: 6727: 6724: 6723: 6716: 6713: 6712: 6706: 6702: 6698: 6694: 6690: 6674: 6671: 6668: 6667: 6661: 6658: 6655: 6654: 6651: 6650: 6644: 6643: 6642: 6641: 6640: 6639: 6635: 6632: 6631: 6615: 6612: 6609: 6608: 6602: 6599: 6596: 6595: 6592: 6591: 6581: 6578: 6575: 6574: 6568: 6565: 6562: 6561: 6558: 6557: 6551: 6550: 6549: 6548: 6547: 6545: 6540: 6539: 6535: 6532: 6531: 6514: 6511: 6508: 6507: 6501: 6498: 6495: 6494: 6491: 6490: 6484: 6483: 6482: 6481: 6480: 6478: 6464: 6461: 6458: 6457: 6451: 6448: 6445: 6444: 6441: 6440: 6434: 6433: 6432: 6431: 6430: 6427: 6413: 6410: 6407: 6406: 6400: 6397: 6394: 6393: 6390: 6389: 6383: 6382: 6381: 6380: 6379: 6369: 6365: 6361: 6356: 6355: 6354: 6353: 6349: 6345: 6341: 6331: 6327: 6324: 6323: 6316: 6312: 6308: 6306: 6302: 6299: 6298: 6292: 6285: 6283: 6277: 6276: 6275: 6274: 6272: 6268: 6261: 6259: 6254: 6253: 6252: 6251: 6249: 6245: 6242: 6238: 6235: 6230: 6227: 6226: 6221: 6214: 6213: 6207: 6204: 6202: 6201:July 1, 1991, 6196: 6195: 6194: 6193: 6191: 6186: 6185: 6181: 6177: 6176: 6173: 6169: 6166: 6165: 6159: 6156: 6149: 6145: 6141: 6137: 6131: 6130: 6127:(2000), p 11: 6126: 6122: 6121: 6118: 6114: 6111: 6110: 6103: 6099: 6096: 6094: 6088: 6085: 6083: 6078: 6077: 6074:(1991), p 87: 6073: 6069: 6068: 6064: 6062: 6058: 6054: 6048: 6047: 6043: 6040: 6039: 6035: 6030: 6027: 6022: 6019: 6014: 6013: 6009: 6006: 6005: 6004: 6003: 6000: 5997: 5996: 5995: 5986: 5985: 5978: 5974: 5970: 5966: 5965: 5964: 5960: 5956: 5952: 5951: 5950: 5949: 5946: 5942: 5938: 5934: 5930: 5926: 5922: 5918: 5917: 5899: 5895: 5892: 5891: 5884: 5883: 5882: 5879: 5878: 5874: 5867: 5866: 5865: 5861: 5858: 5857: 5850: 5846: 5842: 5841: 5840: 5837: 5836: 5832: 5826: 5822: 5821: 5820: 5816: 5813: 5812: 5805: 5800: 5795: 5790: 5789: 5788: 5785: 5784: 5780: 5774: 5770: 5766: 5763: 5753: 5749: 5745: 5740: 5736: 5735: 5734: 5730: 5727: 5726: 5719: 5717: 5711: 5710: 5709: 5705: 5701: 5695: 5693: 5685: 5684: 5683: 5679: 5676: 5675: 5667: 5666: 5665: 5664: 5660: 5656: 5651: 5647: 5643: 5640: 5636: 5632: 5628: 5624: 5621: 5620: 5612: 5602: 5599: 5593: 5590: 5584: 5581: 5580: 5579: 5578: 5576: 5572: 5571: 5570: 5566: 5562: 5558: 5555: 5549: 5546: 5541: 5539: 5533: 5532: 5531: 5527: 5523: 5522:173.199.215.5 5515: 5514: 5513: 5510: 5505: 5503: 5497: 5494: 5490: 5486: 5482: 5478: 5476: 5472: 5469: 5468: 5453: 5449: 5448: 5447: 5443: 5439: 5431: 5428: 5426: 5422: 5418: 5414: 5411: 5399: 5395: 5391: 5387: 5383: 5379: 5378: 5377: 5373: 5369: 5365: 5361: 5357: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5347: 5344: 5343: 5336: 5332: 5327: 5326: 5325: 5321: 5317: 5312: 5311: 5310: 5306: 5303: 5302: 5294: 5290: 5286: 5282: 5278: 5277: 5276: 5272: 5268: 5264: 5256: 5253: 5249: 5245: 5242: 5241: 5232: 5227: 5225: 5221: 5217: 5213: 5212: 5211: 5207: 5203: 5197: 5194: 5190: 5186: 5182: 5178: 5174: 5170: 5166: 5165: 5164: 5159: 5156: 5151: 5148: 5144: 5143:Strong Oppose 5141: 5131: 5127: 5124: 5123: 5116: 5112: 5111: 5110: 5106: 5102: 5092: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5082: 5079: 5078: 5072: 5064: 5061: 5055: 5052: 5051: 5049: 5047: 5043: 5040: 5039: 5032: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5028: 5025: 5020: 5018: 5011: 5007: 5003: 4999: 4995: 4994: 4993: 4990: 4986: 4983: 4977: 4973: 4970: 4969: 4961: 4955: 4951: 4947: 4946:HandsomeFella 4944: 4940: 4930: 4926: 4920: 4914: 4910: 4909: 4908: 4904: 4900: 4893: 4887: 4881: 4877: 4873: 4870:April 7, 2011 4869: 4867: 4865: 4861: 4857: 4851: 4847: 4843: 4839: 4836: 4835: 4834: 4830: 4826: 4825:HandsomeFella 4802: 4792: 4788: 4784: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4766: 4763: 4762: 4755: 4751: 4747: 4739: 4738: 4737: 4733: 4729: 4719: 4715: 4711: 4707: 4703: 4701: 4698: 4694: 4686: 4682: 4678: 4676: 4672: 4668: 4666: 4662: 4660: 4654: 4652: 4648: 4642: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4634: 4631: 4630: 4618: 4615: 4611: 4607: 4599: 4595: 4587: 4583: 4579: 4576: 4572: 4568: 4564: 4560: 4556: 4552: 4549: 4545: 4541: 4537: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4521: 4517: 4513: 4509: 4505: 4498: 4497: 4495: 4492:and repeated 4491: 4487: 4484: 4483: 4475: 4472: 4469: 4468: 4466:AgnosticAphid 4461: 4457: 4455: 4449: 4446: 4444: 4440: 4436: 4432: 4429: 4423: 4419: 4415: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4403: 4399: 4395: 4391: 4390: 4389: 4385: 4381: 4376: 4373: 4371: 4368: 4365: 4360: 4356: 4353: 4351: 4348: 4344: 4340: 4337: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4320: 4318: 4314: 4310: 4306: 4303: 4301: 4297: 4293: 4292:HandsomeFella 4285: 4281: 4278: 4276: 4272: 4268: 4264: 4261: 4259: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4244: 4242: 4235: 4232: 4230: 4226: 4222: 4218: 4215: 4214: 4208: 4207: 4203: 4200: 4199: 4191: 4189: 4175: 4172: 4169: 4168: 4162: 4159: 4156: 4155: 4152: 4151: 4146: 4145: 4135: 4132: 4129: 4128: 4122: 4119: 4116: 4115: 4112: 4111: 4106: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4098: 4083: 4080: 4077: 4076: 4070: 4067: 4064: 4063: 4060: 4059: 4055: 4051: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4042: 4032: 4029: 4023: 4021: 4014: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4005: 4002: 3996: 3995: 3987: 3986: 3980: 3979: 3974: 3972: 3966: 3965: 3957: 3951: 3939: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3924: 3918: 3915: 3910: 3908: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3855: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3801: 3800: 3796: 3792: 3788: 3784: 3776: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3739: 3734: 3732: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3710: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3701: 3697: 3692: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3658: 3654: 3649: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3615: 3611: 3606: 3599: 3596: 3594: 3591: 3589: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3489: 3485: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3457:86.151.119.39 3443: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3386: 3382: 3378: 3377:Peter coxhead 3374: 3370: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3342: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3329:WP:Due weight 3325: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3305: 3286: 3282: 3279: 3278: 3271: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3247: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3226: 3223: 3222: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3177: 3174: 3173: 3167: 3166: 3156: 3151: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3112: 3107: 3102: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3090: 3088: 3084: 3073: 3069: 3066: 3065: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3040: 3036: 3033: 3032: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3006: 3003: 3002: 3000: 2994: 2991: 2988: 2987: 2985: 2981: 2980: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2955:Jones's Point 2952: 2948: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2925: 2924: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2904:) is better. 2903: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2864: 2859: 2855: 2852: 2851: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2843: 2840: 2839: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2775: 2772: 2771: 2764: 2759: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2744: 2743:WP:COMMONNAME 2741:When using a 2740: 2733: 2728: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2708: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2678: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2663: 2658: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2632: 2628: 2627:WP:COMMONNAME 2624: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2606: 2602: 2599: 2598: 2590: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2540: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2532: 2526: 2520: 2515: 2508: 2506: 2497: 2496: 2492: 2489: 2488: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2461: 2453: 2449: 2446: 2445: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2400: 2397: 2396: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2369: 2357: 2352: 2351: 2349: 2344: 2343: 2341: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2323: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2294: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2249: 2245: 2242: 2241: 2235: 2232: 2217: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2208: 2201: 2198: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2175: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2139: 2138: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2088:Did you mean 2087: 2084: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2064: 2060: 2043: 2038: 2034: 2033:SchreiberBike 2030:. Thank you. 2029: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2011: 2006: 2002: 2001:SchreiberBike 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1984: 1981: 1974: 1967: 1963: 1957: 1956:WP:COMMONNAME 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1917: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1852: 1851:WP:COMMONNAME 1846: 1842: 1838: 1831: 1827: 1820: 1814: 1809: 1805: 1804:SchreiberBike 1800: 1794: 1788: 1787:APA Stylebook 1784: 1780: 1779: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1626: 1621: 1617: 1616:SchreiberBike 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1437: 1433: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1370: 1365: 1361: 1360:SchreiberBike 1356: 1352: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1279: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1225: 1220: 1216: 1215:SchreiberBike 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1090: 1085: 1081: 1080:SchreiberBike 1076: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1034: 1029: 1025: 1024:SchreiberBike 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 982: 978: 974: 973:APA Stylebook 970: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 953: 952: 951: 950: 949: 932: 928: 924: 919: 918: 917: 913: 909: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 878: 874: 870: 867: 860: 856: 852: 851: 847: 846: 845: 844: 842: 835: 831: 827: 826: 822: 821: 820: 819: 817: 813: 812: 811: 807: 803: 799: 798:MOS:BOLDTITLE 795: 788: 780: 779:SchreiberBike 776: 775: 774: 770: 766: 762: 761: 760: 756: 752: 748: 741: 737: 736: 735:37°2 le matin 732: 729: 725: 724: 720: 719: 718: 717: 714: 713: 712: 708: 704: 699: 698: 697: 693: 689: 685: 684:Venus de Milo 681: 680: 675: 674: 668: 667: 666: 665: 661: 657: 628: 624: 620: 616: 612: 608: 604: 600: 596: 595: 594: 590: 586: 582: 581: 580: 575: 571: 570:SchreiberBike 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 527: 522: 518: 517:SchreiberBike 513: 512: 511: 507: 503: 499: 495: 491: 490: 489: 484: 480: 479:SchreiberBike 475: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 445: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 424: 423: 418: 414: 413:SchreiberBike 409: 406: 402: 395: 391: 384: 382: 378: 374: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 356: 352: 348: 343: 342: 341: 337: 333: 329: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 315: 310: 306: 305:SchreiberBike 301: 300: 299: 298: 291: 290: 285: 281: 277: 276: 275: 274: 268: 264: 263: 262: 261: 258: 254: 250: 246: 242: 241: 236: 231: 227: 226:SchreiberBike 222: 221: 220: 219: 216: 212: 208: 204: 200: 199: 198: 197: 192: 188: 187:SchreiberBike 178: 174: 170: 169: 167: 161: 158: 154: 153: 151: 145: 142: 138: 137: 135: 129: 126: 122: 121: 119: 113: 112: 111: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 12141: 12129:Andy's edits 12125:Talk to Andy 12116:Andy Mabbett 12106:2013 in film 12104: 12077: 12073: 12070: 12065: 12061: 12056: 12052: 12043: 12020: 11993: 11965: 11854: 11786: 11733: 11703:— Preceding 11696: 11693: 11653: 11633: 11629: 11625: 11610: 11602: 11598: 11594: 11590: 11586: 11582: 11578: 11574: 11525: 11523: 11481: 11469: 11458:Language Log 11456: 11446: 11444: 11406:Etc etc. -- 11401: 11397: 11390:Grand Cayman 11387: 11375: 11359: 11294: 11272:deliberately 11271: 11267: 11226: 11222: 11187: 11150: 11147: 11023: 10985: 10980: 10962: 10957: 10953: 10949: 10902:Style guides 10848: 10808:InedibleHulk 10802: 10782: 10775: 10670: 10371: 10203: 9988: 9936:ColonelHenry 9915: 9912: 9854: 9850: 9846: 9842: 9838: 9813: 9798:ColonelHenry 9795: 9775: 9766: 9759: 9711: 9707: 9703: 9699: 9683:ColonelHenry 9678: 9674: 9672: 9657: 9635: 9615: 9599: 9592: 9585: 9571: 9546: 9542: 9538: 9513:MOS:IDENTITY 9505:WP:STAGENAME 9449:WP:STAGENAME 9445:MOS:IDENTITY 9437:WP:STAGENAME 9433:MOS:IDENTITY 9425:MOS:IDENTITY 9422: 9413:WP:STAGENAME 9409:MOS:IDENTITY 9387: 9343: 9324: 9246: 9217: 9140: 9136:For example, 9135: 9132: 9104:Thoughts? — 9030: 8970: 8928: 8833: 8677: 8670: 8609: 8605: 8601: 8600:A hyphen in 8597: 8577: 8564: 8556: 8552: 8546: 8532: 8528: 8527: 8516: 8456: 8406: 8387: 8383: 8332: 8293: 8245: 8236:John Smith, 8227:John Smith ( 8218:John Smith, 8209:John Smith, 8191:John Smith, 8182:John Smith, 8177: 8060: 8056: 8033:InedibleHulk 8007:InedibleHulk 8002: 7998: 7932:InedibleHulk 7896: 7878:John Smith, 7869:John Smith, 7864: 7727: 7699: 7667: 7663: 7565: 7531: 7523: 7502: 7498: 7496: 7473: 7471: 7420: 7361: 7342: 7318: 7290: 7286: 7282: 7272: 7270: 7266: 7261: 7257: 7241: 7226: 7205: 7199: 7195: 7180: 7174: 7150: 7146: 7140: 7136: 7112: 7108: 7091: 7077: 7027: 7011: 6984: 6963: 6956: 6896: 6892: 6888: 6884: 6883:sentences: " 6880: 6876: 6872: 6868: 6864: 6860: 6856: 6852: 6837: 6809: 6761: 6758: 6755: 6739: 6720: 6714: 6687:— Preceding 6684: 6669: 6656: 6628: 6625: 6610: 6597: 6576: 6563: 6541: 6528: 6524: 6509: 6496: 6477:serial comma 6474: 6459: 6446: 6423: 6408: 6395: 6377: 6339: 6336: 6320: 6295: 6281: 6279: 6270: 6257: 6256: 6247: 6240: 6232: 6224: 6223: 6211: 6209: 6200: 6198: 6188: 6162: 6147: 6143: 6139: 6135: 6133: 6107: 6092: 6090: 6081: 6080: 6063:is awkward). 6060: 6056: 6052: 6050: 6032: 6024: 6016: 5990: 5989: 5932: 5928: 5924: 5920: 5888: 5876: 5854: 5848: 5834: 5809: 5782: 5768: 5764: 5738: 5723: 5715: 5713: 5691: 5688: 5672: 5649: 5644: 5638: 5634: 5633: 5617: 5600: 5591: 5582: 5556: 5537: 5501: 5495: 5465: 5451: 5429: 5412: 5385: 5381: 5363: 5355: 5340: 5334: 5330: 5329:follow), so 5299: 5292: 5262: 5254: 5238: 5195: 5176: 5172: 5168: 5142: 5120: 5090: 5075: 5062: 5056:: 5053: 5036: 5016: 4984: 4966: 4878:Toledo, Ohio 4759: 4753: 4749: 4699: 4696: 4692: 4684: 4680: 4670: 4650: 4646: 4641:You write, " 4627: 4613: 4609: 4605: 4597: 4593: 4574: 4570: 4554: 4547: 4543: 4539: 4535: 4485: 4463: 4459: 4453: 4451: 4447: 4430: 4393: 4392: 4374: 4364:Arthur Rubin 4358: 4354: 4338: 4321: 4304: 4279: 4262: 4245: 4233: 4216: 4196: 4192: 4185: 4170: 4157: 4130: 4117: 4093: 4078: 4065: 4039: 4019: 4013:no consensus 4012: 4006: 4000: 3997: 3977: 3970: 3963: 3956:this article 3945: 3921: 3906: 3863: 3821: 3817: 3807: 3780: 3774: 3730: 3691:Whisternefet 3648:Whisternefet 3632:nit-picky. 3629: 3625: 3605:Whisternefet 3602: 3582: 3515: 3453: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3350: 3346: 3323: 3301: 3275: 3256:JonRichfield 3237: 3219: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3170: 3149: 3142: 3141: 3121: 3110: 3100: 3093: 3092: 3086: 3082: 3080: 3062: 3029: 2996:appropriate) 2962: 2959:Jones' Point 2950: 2946: 2928: 2857: 2836: 2818: 2796: 2791: 2783: 2768: 2731: 2718: 2717: 2661: 2640: 2639: 2595: 2567: 2553: 2549: 2538: 2528: 2518: 2510: 2503: 2485: 2482: 2456: 2442: 2422: 2393: 2389: 2365: 2320:Each user's 2319: 2297: 2274: 2259: 2238: 2219: 2210: 2206: 2204: 2203: 2089: 2065: 2061: 2057: 1979: 1972: 1965: 1961: 1953: 1933:Translations 1932: 1915: 1859: 1856: 1848: 1844: 1836: 1829: 1825: 1822: 1817: 1798: 1786: 1744: 1742: 1611: 1603: 1517:(version of 1353:and thought 1074: 980: 976: 972: 968: 908:Gerda Arendt 858: 854: 849: 848: 833: 829: 824: 823: 787:published in 786: 783:the title of 739: 734: 733: 727: 722: 721: 703:Gerda Arendt 677: 671: 653: 497: 493: 476:in italics. 473: 400: 393: 389: 386: 380: 332:Gerda Arendt 327: 289:AP Stylebook 287: 279: 244: 182: 179:12, is a ... 172: 163: 162: 159:12, is a ... 147: 146: 143:12, is a ... 131: 130: 127:12, is a ... 115: 114: 109: 78: 43: 37: 12101:Page length 12082:EdgeNavidad 12044:There is a 11960:MOS:COMPSCI 11601:, passive). 11186:writing. - 10878:Well said, 10579:, though. — 10202:No, that's 9839:centralized 9816:Imzadi 1979 9160:generate a 8762:improvement 8200:John Smith 7887:John Smith 7810:BarrelProof 7747:BarrelProof 7664:Quick check 7604:Please see 7528:WP:ASTONISH 7477:? Thanks. 7221:Chattanooga 7200:Chattanooga 6360:Ananiujitha 6153:NOUN PLAGUE 6140:Austin jury 5390:BarrelProof 5316:BarrelProof 5267:BarrelProof 5231:Kwamikagami 5169:discouraged 4809:The April 7 4559:noun phrase 4054:parenthetic 4020:HJ Mitchell 3846:DocWatson42 3831:Startswithj 3472:So fix it. 3270:proper name 2693:Tim Hortons 2094:Binksternet 1935:section at 1880:BarrelProof 857:, English: 607:MOS:FOREIGN 377:MOS:FOREIGN 98:Archive 155 90:Archive 152 85:Archive 151 79:Archive 150 73:Archive 149 68:Archive 148 60:Archive 145 36:This is an 12148:Mitch Ames 12027:Rob Sinden 12001:Wavelength 11976:MOS:PSEUDO 11970:, however 11948:MOS:SYNTAX 11944:MOS:SOURCE 11936:MOS:PSEUDO 11833:Necrothesp 11805:Necrothesp 11791:Necrothesp 11560:SlimVirgin 11431:Ben Kovitz 11337:Ben Kovitz 11209:Darkfrog24 11115:Darkfrog24 11053:Wavelength 10933:Ben Kovitz 10915:Ben Kovitz 10906:User:Tony1 10833:Darkfrog24 10744:Ben Kovitz 10581:Ben Kovitz 10337:Ben Kovitz 10176:SlimVirgin 10156:Wavelength 10133:Ben Kovitz 9878:Rob Sinden 9486:Necrothesp 9295:Ben Kovitz 9253:Ben Kovitz 9232:Ben Kovitz 9227:Parse tree 9162:parse tree 9146:Ben Kovitz 8933:Ben Kovitz 8891:Ben Kovitz 8800:Ben Kovitz 8796:MOS:HYPHEN 8744:Ben Kovitz 8636:MOS:HYPHEN 8618:Ben Kovitz 8594:MOS:HYPHEN 8549:MOS:HYPHEN 8426:Ben Kovitz 8362:Ben Kovitz 8313:Reify-tech 8268:Necrothesp 8260:WP:POSTNOM 8247:SlimVirgin 7981:SlimVirgin 7903:SlimVirgin 7899:WP:POSTNOM 7843:Wavelength 7784:Wavelength 7687:Wavelength 7617:Wavelength 7524:Telescopes 7493:WP:MOSHEAD 7249:appositive 7092:Support 1D 6832:Early life 6715:Support 1A 6309:Thanks to 6190:adjective: 5969:John Cline 5925:preference 5744:John Cline 5700:John Cline 5655:John Cline 5364:should not 4936:courtroom. 4592:, meaning 4309:Reify-tech 3942:Blank line 3929:Wavelength 3888:Wavelength 3829:. Thanks! 3747:Reify-tech 3676:Mitch Ames 3668:MOS:ITALIC 3399:especially 3389:Yeah... I 3016:MOS:FOLLOW 2906:Mitch Ames 2870:Mitch Ames 2680:Mitch Ames 2574:Mitch Ames 2410:Reify-tech 2222:pp. 211–19 2197:MOS:ENDASH 2195:It does. 1698:Wavelength 1530:Wavelength 1443:Wavelength 1285:Wavelength 1154:Wavelength 828:(Russian: 679:Betty Blue 502:W. P. Uzer 207:Wavelength 11972:WP:PSEUDO 11902:MOS:JESUS 11709:BobEnyart 11471:requests. 11248:Kevin McE 11173:Trovatore 10990:Prhartcom 10910:WP:ESSAYs 10888:Prhartcom 10774:If there 10675:Prhartcom 10614:Prhartcom 10542:Prhartcom 10487:Kevin McE 10352:Trovatore 10308:Trovatore 10265:Kevin McE 10209:Trovatore 10129:one place 10061:Kevin McE 9996:Prhartcom 9963:oknazevad 9712:routinely 9708:routinely 9700:honorific 9654:Context? 9389:WP:STABLE 9384:WP:STABLE 9223:WP:LQUOTE 9166:Trovatore 9081:Trovatore 9017:BenKovitz 8976:Trovatore 8772:a bit. — 8412:Trovatore 8380:WP:ENGVAR 8338:User:NebY 7520:Telescope 7508:Telescope 7468:Infoboxes 7311:articles. 7258:Incorrect 7196:Tennessee 7135:Sentence 6657:Incorrect 6598:Incorrect 6564:Incorrect 6497:Incorrect 6447:Incorrect 6396:Incorrect 5845:MOS:COMMA 5698:opinion.— 5642:sentence. 5054:Incorrect 4899:ὁ οἶστρος 4856:ὁ οἶστρος 4783:ὁ οἶστρος 4728:ὁ οἶστρος 4716:Gates, NY 4614:Rochester 4563:Rochester 4553:However, 4544:Rochester 4512:ὁ οἶστρος 4118:Incorrect 4066:Incorrect 4041:MOS:COMMA 3820:prefixed 3773:Template 3626:incorrect 3559:Malcolm X 3541:WP:BULLET 3518:Malcolm X 3422:"correct" 2902:this edit 2697:Modal Jig 1783:cite book 859:Swan Lake 825:Swan Lake 585:Modal Jig 436:Modal Jig 284:APA style 267:Cite book 12091:Contribs 11924:MOS:ALGO 11912:MOS:CODE 11717:contribs 11705:unsigned 11628:(unlike 11478:provides 11378:" + PP. 11229:Floydian 11190:Floydian 11153:Floydian 11005:JHunterJ 10376:JHunterJ 10125:template 9859:Blueboar 9720:Blueboar 9641:Richfife 9593:Josve05a 9552:Blueboar 9550:occurs. 9543:together 9331:reverted 9327:reverted 9317:Dicklyon 9291:Dicklyon 9099:MOS:ITAL 9088:MOS:ITAL 9024:MOS:ITAL 8925:MOS:ITAL 8766:MOS:DASH 8740:MOS:DASH 8614:MOS:DASH 8440:Dicklyon 8155:Blueboar 8128:Dicklyon 8124:this one 7915:Dicklyon 7632:Blueboar 7479:Acabashi 7295:Blueboar 7169:Blueboar 7154:Blueboar 7062:Dohn joe 7004:Blueboar 6989:Blueboar 6951:Blueboar 6929:Blueboar 6901:Blueboar 6881:separate 6851:OK, but 6818:Blueboar 6756:Support 6701:contribs 6693:Dohn joe 6689:unsigned 6544:Blueboar 6315:Dohn joe 6311:Dicklyon 5937:Blueboar 5919:I could 5561:DreamGuy 5360:WT:PLACE 5281:Dohn joe 5177:prohibit 4880:" with " 4872:" with " 4567:New York 4548:New York 4380:Dohn joe 4148:context. 3971:Josve05a 3672:MOS:ITAL 3634:Blueboar 3474:Blueboar 3434:Blueboar 3373:Dicklyon 3369:Blueboar 3355:Blueboar 3333:Blueboar 3309:Dicklyon 3242:Blueboar 3204:Blueboar 3124:Blueboar 2967:Blueboar 2801:Blueboar 2763:Blueboar 2695:is one. 2619:MOS:POSS 2505:MOS:POSS 2368:MOS:HEAD 2161:Dicklyon 2122:Dicklyon 1894:Formerip 1861:Formerip 1765:Formerip 971:and the 923:Formerip 869:Formerip 794:FormerIP 751:Formerip 688:Formerip 11898:MOS:JEW 11888:MOS:APO 11660:(talk) 11617:(talk) 11476:Pullum 11388:One of 11376:located 11366:(talk) 10969:(talk) 10855:(talk) 10789:(talk) 9851:broader 9664:(talk) 9622:(talk) 9547:support 9472:Johnbod 9447:trumps 8830:cleanup 8569:Hyphens 8565:hyphens 8557:en dash 8553:en dash 8513:Portals 8463:(talk) 7672:WP:TPOC 7503:assumed 7436:history 7377:history 7283:another 7267:Correct 7109:Support 6887:" and " 6873:already 6670:Correct 6611:Correct 6577:Correct 6510:Correct 6460:Correct 6409:Correct 6061:Ontario 5921:support 5739:achieve 5544:(talk) 5508:(talk) 5091:support 5063:Correct 5023:(talk) 4876:" and " 4848:April 7 4840:April 7 4651:smaller 4596:in the 4448:Support 4375:Support 4355:Support 4339:Support 4322:Support 4305:Support 4280:Support 4267:Amakuru 4263:Support 4234:Support 4131:Correct 4079:Correct 3913:(talk) 3737:(talk) 3563:Rumiton 3522:Rumiton 3405:change. 3240:names? 3057:Jay Z's 2797:part of 2631:changes 2301:Georgia 2293:Update: 2278:Georgia 2211:through 2090:pedants 280:Chicago 39:archive 12016:MOS:TM 11958:& 11956:MOS:CS 11868:MOS:TT 11589:(e.g. 11402:by God 11398:by God 10811:(talk) 10430:TRPoD 9742:Paul B 9411:trump 9366:Dsimic 9352:Dsimic 9348:WP:BRD 9329:, and 9273:Dsimic 9197:Dsimic 9106:Dsimic 9038:Dsimic 8846:Dsimic 8774:Dsimic 8718:Dsimic 8644:Dsimic 8640:Dashes 8580:Dsimic 8573:Dashes 8561:Dashes 8036:(talk) 8010:(talk) 7935:(talk) 7530:, of " 7291:better 7096:Frungi 7032:Frungi 6985:better 6957:do not 6936:Frungi 6344:Frungi 5933:always 5929:oppose 5635:Oppose 5557:Oppose 5496:Oppose 5481:Frungi 5454:write 5438:Mangoe 5413:Oppose 5368:Frungi 5335:either 5255:Oppose 5216:Frungi 5196:Oppose 5181:Frungi 5101:Frungi 4998:Frungi 4989:Powers 4985:Oppose 4874:recent 4852:Toledo 4844:Toledo 4750:Darwin 4700:should 4647:larger 4486:Oppose 4435:Inglok 4367:(talk) 4326:Orlady 4221:Frungi 4108:etc.). 3866:WP:MOS 3426:should 3324:behind 3238:Proper 3196:proper 3083:matter 2933:Mangoe 2784:titles 2554:adding 2425:Ypnypn 2226:64–75% 293:there. 12025:. -- 11670:Hoary 11638:Hoary 11581:; or 11546:Hoary 11531:Boson 11505:Hoary 11408:Hoary 11384:agent 11320:Boson 11276:Boson 11110:help. 11019:style 10981:often 10884:Tony1 10652:WP:OR 10577:essay 10405:Boson 9847:local 9843:local 9574:12 km 9407:Does 9344:might 9335:Tony1 9141:this, 8971:looks 8927:says 8884:Frege 8686:edits 8407:could 8390:too. 8266:. -- 8094:Kerry 8065:Kerry 8061:(FRS) 8057:,FRS, 8003:could 7768:" and 7576:WP:AN 7444:watch 7440:links 7385:watch 7381:links 7242:would 7028:never 6919:wiser 6915:older 6426:Tony1 6055:, or 5877:Slash 5835:Slash 5783:Slash 5650:avoid 5639:avoid 5592:Avoid 5583:Avoid 5452:would 5293:avoid 5202:kwami 5179:it. — 5150:Isaac 4882:local 4708:Gates 4691:(one 4685:could 4610:Gates 4594:Gates 4582:Gates 4347:wiser 4343:older 4158:Avoid 4105:Dates 4050:Dates 3783:WP:SS 3543:. -- 3430:which 3410:don't 3395:names 3347:which 3188:think 3143:Names 3094:Names 3053:Jay'Z 3049:Jay Z 3045:Jay-Z 2951:Names 2947:NAMES 2929:given 2827:Jay Z 2823:Jay-Z 2758:added 2719:Names 2641:Names 2507:says: 2298:Sandy 2275:Sandy 1793:Boson 979:with 656:kwami 617:. -- 249:Boson 16:< 12152:talk 12087:Talk 12031:talk 12005:talk 11857:MOS: 11837:talk 11795:talk 11776:talk 11713:talk 11674:talk 11654:Tony 11642:talk 11634:CGEL 11611:Tony 11550:talk 11535:talk 11509:talk 11501:here 11497:Here 11435:talk 11412:talk 11380:This 11360:Tony 11341:talk 11324:talk 11280:talk 11252:talk 11213:talk 11177:talk 11119:talk 11057:talk 11040:See 11032:talk 11028:John 11009:talk 10994:talk 10963:Tony 10937:talk 10919:talk 10892:talk 10880:John 10870:talk 10866:John 10849:Tony 10837:talk 10783:Tony 10776:must 10748:talk 10739:MOS: 10694:talk 10690:John 10679:talk 10671:that 10660:talk 10656:NebY 10618:talk 10603:talk 10599:NebY 10585:talk 10546:talk 10491:talk 10409:talk 10403:. -- 10380:talk 10372:Like 10356:talk 10341:talk 10312:talk 10269:talk 10227:talk 10223:John 10213:talk 10194:talk 10190:John 10160:talk 10147:See 10137:talk 10065:talk 10000:talk 9967:talk 9951:talk 9916:... 9882:talk 9863:talk 9802:talk 9746:talk 9724:talk 9687:talk 9658:Tony 9645:talk 9616:Tony 9568:NBSP 9556:talk 9503:and 9490:talk 9476:talk 9461:talk 9451:and 9439:and 9415:and 9370:talk 9364:. — 9356:talk 9337:and 9321:that 9299:talk 9277:talk 9257:talk 9236:talk 9218:ever 9201:talk 9170:talk 9150:talk 9110:talk 9090:. :) 9042:talk 8980:talk 8937:talk 8895:talk 8850:talk 8826:edit 8804:talk 8778:talk 8748:talk 8722:talk 8712:and 8680:talk 8673:N-HH 8648:talk 8622:talk 8610:hand 8584:talk 8547:Hm, 8530:Evad 8503:talk 8499:Izno 8477:talk 8457:Tony 8444:talk 8430:talk 8416:talk 8396:talk 8392:NebY 8388:e.g. 8384:i.e. 8366:talk 8350:talk 8346:Izno 8340:and 8317:talk 8295:sroc 8272:talk 8262:and 8159:talk 8132:talk 8098:talk 8069:talk 7919:talk 7847:talk 7814:talk 7808:). — 7788:talk 7751:talk 7741:and 7733:and 7715:talk 7691:talk 7650:talk 7646:John 7636:talk 7621:talk 7588:talk 7584:John 7582:? -- 7572:here 7568:here 7543:talk 7483:talk 7475:here 7459:talk 7448:logs 7432:talk 7428:edit 7400:talk 7389:logs 7373:talk 7369:edit 7320:sroc 7299:talk 7228:sroc 7207:sroc 7182:sroc 7158:talk 7147:need 7121:talk 7100:talk 7079:sroc 7066:talk 7036:talk 7013:sroc 6993:talk 6965:sroc 6940:talk 6905:talk 6893:Best 6877:best 6869:need 6861:best 6857:best 6839:sroc 6822:talk 6794:talk 6780:talk 6776:Stfg 6772:talk 6768:Stfg 6741:sroc 6722:sroc 6697:talk 6672:: 6630:sroc 6613:: 6579:: 6530:sroc 6512:: 6462:: 6411:: 6364:talk 6348:talk 6340:this 6322:sroc 6313:and 6297:sroc 6164:sroc 6146:and 6138:and 6109:sroc 6102:here 6091:The 5973:talk 5959:talk 5955:Stfg 5941:talk 5890:sroc 5872:Red 5856:sroc 5830:Red 5811:sroc 5778:Red 5748:talk 5725:sroc 5704:talk 5674:sroc 5659:talk 5619:sroc 5603:: 5565:talk 5538:Tony 5526:talk 5502:Tony 5485:talk 5467:sroc 5442:talk 5421:talk 5394:talk 5372:talk 5342:sroc 5320:talk 5301:sroc 5271:talk 5240:sroc 5220:talk 5206:talk 5185:talk 5122:sroc 5105:talk 5093:it. 5077:sroc 5065:: 5038:sroc 5017:Tony 5002:talk 4968:sroc 4950:talk 4903:talk 4860:talk 4842:", " 4829:talk 4787:talk 4761:sroc 4732:talk 4697:ever 4687:say 4671:part 4657:from 4649:and 4629:sroc 4516:talk 4494:here 4490:here 4471:talk 4439:talk 4418:talk 4402:talk 4384:talk 4359:must 4330:talk 4313:talk 4296:talk 4271:talk 4254:talk 4250:Stfg 4225:talk 4198:sroc 4173:: 4160:: 4133:: 4081:: 3933:talk 3907:Tony 3892:talk 3850:talk 3835:talk 3818:both 3795:talk 3775:main 3751:talk 3731:Tony 3719:talk 3680:talk 3638:talk 3630:that 3567:talk 3549:talk 3526:talk 3495:ASEM 3486:The 3478:talk 3461:talk 3438:talk 3418:name 3381:talk 3359:talk 3351:that 3337:talk 3313:talk 3277:sroc 3260:talk 3246:talk 3221:sroc 3208:talk 3172:sroc 3128:talk 3087:NAME 3064:sroc 3031:sroc 3024:iPod 3022:and 3020:eBay 2982:For 2971:talk 2937:talk 2910:talk 2874:talk 2838:sroc 2805:talk 2792:only 2770:sroc 2701:talk 2684:talk 2648:e.g. 2597:sroc 2578:talk 2543:e.g. 2539:only 2487:sroc 2444:sroc 2429:talk 2414:talk 2395:sroc 2306:Talk 2283:Talk 2240:sroc 2228:; 2224:; 2183:talk 2165:talk 2147:talk 2126:talk 2112:talk 2098:talk 2073:talk 2037:talk 2005:talk 1898:talk 1884:talk 1865:talk 1808:talk 1769:talk 1752:talk 1702:talk 1620:talk 1534:talk 1447:talk 1432:here 1364:talk 1289:talk 1219:talk 1158:talk 1084:talk 1028:talk 927:talk 912:talk 873:talk 806:talk 769:talk 765:Stfg 755:talk 707:talk 692:talk 660:talk 623:talk 589:talk 574:talk 521:talk 506:talk 483:talk 440:talk 430:and 417:talk 351:talk 336:talk 309:talk 253:talk 230:talk 211:talk 201:See 191:talk 12123:); 12076:or 12064:or 12055:or 11823:007 11810:Mat 11751:007 11738:Mat 11468:": 10803:and 10638:__ 10564:__ 10374:-- 10204:way 9855:not 9718:). 9539:not 9522:__ 9293:. — 8929:not 8764:in 8606:eye 8526:. 8378:as 8239:FRS 8230:FRS 8221:FRS 8212:FRS 8203:FRS 8194:FRS 8185:FRS 8146:FRS 8059:or 7966:FRS 7949:FRS 7890:FRS 7881:FRS 7872:FRS 7666:to 7287:and 6897:not 6891:" 6865:not 6853:why 6424:As 6199:On 5356:not 5283:in 5158:Vex 5147:Van 4823:". 4710:or 4693:can 4681:now 4612:in 4608:of 3822:and 3414:are 3331:. 3192:why 3111:not 3055:or 2858:not 2825:to 2761:by 2732:not 2662:not 2654:. ( 2519:not 2272:. 2209:or 1799:CMS 1145:or 1141:or 1137:or 686:). 498:the 177:BWV 175:), 157:BWV 141:BWV 125:BWV 12154:) 12127:; 12112:. 12089:· 12033:) 12007:) 11954:, 11950:, 11946:, 11942:, 11938:, 11934:, 11930:, 11926:, 11922:, 11918:, 11914:, 11900:, 11839:) 11815:ty 11797:) 11743:ty 11719:) 11715:• 11676:) 11644:) 11575:be 11552:) 11537:) 11511:) 11437:) 11414:) 11343:) 11326:) 11318:-- 11282:) 11254:) 11215:) 11179:) 11171:-- 11121:) 11059:) 11034:) 11011:) 10996:) 10939:) 10921:) 10894:) 10882:. 10872:) 10839:) 10750:) 10696:) 10688:-- 10681:) 10662:) 10620:) 10605:) 10597:. 10587:) 10548:) 10493:) 10411:) 10382:) 10358:) 10343:) 10314:) 10271:) 10229:) 10215:) 10207:-- 10196:) 10162:) 10139:) 10067:) 10002:) 9969:) 9884:) 9876:-- 9865:) 9804:) 9748:) 9726:) 9689:) 9647:) 9603:) 9589:) 9580:? 9558:) 9511:. 9492:) 9478:) 9463:) 9395:. 9372:) 9301:) 9279:) 9259:) 9238:) 9203:) 9195:— 9172:) 9152:) 9112:) 9044:) 9036:— 8982:) 8974:-- 8939:) 8897:) 8852:) 8806:) 8780:) 8750:) 8724:) 8650:) 8624:) 8586:) 8533:37 8505:) 8479:) 8446:) 8432:) 8418:) 8410:-- 8398:) 8368:) 8352:) 8319:) 8299:💬 8274:) 8161:) 8134:) 8100:) 8071:) 7999:If 7921:) 7849:) 7816:) 7790:) 7779:". 7753:) 7717:) 7702:RP 7693:) 7652:) 7638:) 7623:) 7590:) 7545:) 7485:) 7461:) 7446:| 7442:| 7438:| 7434:| 7430:| 7416:}} 7410:{{ 7402:) 7387:| 7383:| 7379:| 7375:| 7371:| 7357:}} 7351:{{ 7324:💬 7301:) 7269:: 7260:: 7232:💬 7211:💬 7186:💬 7160:) 7137:1D 7123:) 7102:) 7083:💬 7068:) 7038:) 7017:💬 6995:) 6969:💬 6942:) 6917:≠ 6907:) 6843:💬 6824:) 6796:) 6782:) 6763:1D 6759:1A 6745:💬 6726:💬 6699:• 6634:💬 6534:💬 6366:) 6350:) 6326:💬 6301:💬 6168:💬 6113:💬 6104:. 5975:) 5961:) 5943:) 5894:💬 5860:💬 5827:? 5815:💬 5750:) 5729:💬 5706:) 5678:💬 5661:) 5623:💬 5567:) 5528:) 5487:) 5471:💬 5444:) 5423:) 5396:) 5374:) 5346:💬 5322:) 5305:💬 5273:) 5244:💬 5222:) 5208:) 5187:) 5155:WS 5126:💬 5107:) 5081:💬 5042:💬 5004:) 4972:💬 4952:) 4905:) 4862:) 4831:) 4789:) 4765:💬 4734:) 4714:/ 4633:💬 4550:." 4518:) 4441:) 4420:) 4404:) 4386:) 4345:≠ 4332:) 4315:) 4298:) 4273:) 4256:) 4238:—— 4227:) 4202:💬 4190:. 4024:| 3981:) 3967:) 3958:) 3952:}} 3948:{{ 3935:) 3894:) 3884:. 3852:) 3837:) 3797:) 3789:. 3753:) 3721:) 3711:is 3698:· 3682:) 3670:, 3655:· 3640:) 3612:· 3603:— 3569:) 3551:) 3528:) 3502:) 3480:) 3463:) 3440:) 3408:I 3391:do 3383:) 3361:) 3339:) 3315:) 3281:💬 3262:) 3248:) 3225:💬 3210:) 3186:I 3176:💬 3130:) 3068:💬 3047:→ 3035:💬 2973:) 2965:. 2939:) 2912:) 2876:) 2842:💬 2807:) 2774:💬 2703:) 2686:) 2601:💬 2580:) 2572:. 2491:💬 2463:: 2448:💬 2431:) 2416:) 2399:💬 2370:: 2308:) 2285:) 2244:💬 2220:• 2207:to 2185:) 2167:) 2149:) 2128:) 2114:) 2100:) 2092:? 2075:) 1900:) 1886:) 1867:) 1771:) 1754:) 1704:) 1536:) 1449:) 1291:) 1160:) 929:) 914:) 875:) 832:/ 808:) 771:) 757:) 709:) 701:-- 694:) 662:) 625:) 591:) 508:) 494:an 442:) 434:. 353:) 338:) 265:{{ 255:) 213:) 205:.— 94:→ 64:← 12150:( 12119:( 12093:) 12085:( 12029:( 12003:( 11999:— 11962:) 11910:( 11904:) 11896:( 11890:) 11886:( 11880:) 11876:( 11870:) 11866:( 11835:( 11819:. 11793:( 11747:. 11711:( 11672:( 11640:( 11597:( 11548:( 11533:( 11507:( 11490:" 11464:" 11433:( 11429:— 11410:( 11339:( 11322:( 11278:( 11250:( 11237:¢ 11211:( 11198:¢ 11175:( 11161:¢ 11117:( 11055:( 11051:— 11048:. 11030:( 11007:( 10992:( 10935:( 10917:( 10913:— 10890:( 10868:( 10835:( 10746:( 10742:— 10692:( 10677:( 10658:( 10616:( 10601:( 10583:( 10544:( 10489:( 10407:( 10378:( 10354:( 10339:( 10335:— 10310:( 10267:( 10225:( 10211:( 10192:( 10158:( 10154:— 10151:. 10135:( 10063:( 9998:( 9965:( 9938:: 9934:@ 9880:( 9861:( 9822:→ 9800:( 9744:( 9722:( 9685:( 9643:( 9600:c 9597:( 9586:t 9583:( 9554:( 9488:( 9474:( 9459:( 9419:? 9368:( 9354:( 9297:( 9275:( 9255:( 9234:( 9230:— 9199:( 9168:( 9148:( 9108:( 9101:. 9083:: 9079:@ 9040:( 9026:! 9019:: 9015:@ 8978:( 8935:( 8893:( 8889:— 8848:( 8802:( 8776:( 8746:( 8720:( 8683:/ 8646:( 8620:( 8582:( 8501:( 8475:( 8442:( 8428:( 8414:( 8394:( 8364:( 8348:( 8315:( 8292:— 8270:( 8157:( 8130:( 8096:( 8067:( 7917:( 7845:( 7841:— 7812:( 7786:( 7782:— 7771:" 7760:" 7749:( 7713:( 7689:( 7685:— 7682:. 7648:( 7634:( 7619:( 7615:— 7586:( 7541:( 7481:( 7457:( 7450:) 7426:( 7398:( 7391:) 7367:( 7317:— 7297:( 7273:, 7225:— 7204:— 7179:— 7171:: 7167:@ 7156:( 7119:( 7098:( 7076:— 7064:( 7034:( 7010:— 7006:: 7002:@ 6991:( 6962:— 6953:: 6949:@ 6938:( 6934:— 6931:: 6927:@ 6903:( 6836:— 6820:( 6792:( 6778:( 6770:( 6738:— 6719:— 6695:( 6659:: 6627:— 6600:: 6566:: 6527:— 6499:: 6449:: 6398:: 6362:( 6346:( 6319:— 6294:— 6284:. 6241:… 6161:— 6106:— 5971:( 5957:( 5939:( 5887:— 5853:— 5808:— 5746:( 5722:— 5718:" 5702:( 5671:— 5657:( 5616:— 5563:( 5524:( 5520:— 5483:( 5464:— 5440:( 5419:( 5392:( 5370:( 5339:— 5318:( 5298:— 5269:( 5237:— 5233:: 5229:@ 5218:( 5204:( 5183:( 5119:— 5103:( 5074:— 5035:— 5000:( 4965:— 4948:( 4901:( 4858:( 4838:" 4827:( 4785:( 4758:— 4730:( 4626:— 4514:( 4499:" 4460:, 4437:( 4416:( 4400:( 4382:( 4328:( 4311:( 4294:( 4269:( 4252:( 4223:( 4195:— 4120:: 4068:: 4056:. 3978:c 3975:( 3964:t 3961:( 3931:( 3927:— 3890:( 3886:— 3848:( 3833:( 3793:( 3749:( 3717:( 3702:) 3700:c 3696:t 3694:( 3678:( 3659:) 3657:c 3653:t 3651:( 3636:( 3616:) 3614:c 3610:t 3608:( 3565:( 3547:( 3524:( 3500:t 3498:( 3493:M 3476:( 3459:( 3436:( 3379:( 3357:( 3335:( 3311:( 3274:— 3258:( 3244:( 3218:— 3206:( 3169:— 3126:( 3061:— 3028:— 2969:( 2935:( 2908:( 2872:( 2835:— 2803:( 2767:— 2699:( 2682:( 2594:— 2576:( 2484:— 2441:— 2427:( 2412:( 2392:— 2304:( 2281:( 2237:— 2199:: 2181:( 2163:( 2145:( 2124:( 2110:( 2096:( 2071:( 1983:. 1968:) 1964:( 1896:( 1882:( 1863:( 1832:) 1828:( 1795:: 1791:@ 1767:( 1750:( 1700:( 1696:— 1532:( 1528:— 1445:( 1441:— 1438:. 1287:( 1283:— 1156:( 1152:— 925:( 910:( 871:( 861:) 853:( 836:) 804:( 767:( 753:( 742:) 738:( 730:) 726:( 705:( 690:( 658:( 621:( 587:( 504:( 438:( 405:. 396:) 392:( 349:( 334:( 251:( 209:( 171:( 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Manual of Style/Archive 150 - Knowledge

Index