Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Archive 160

4468:"Official" isn't part of the guideline, though. In any case where a country (or the majority of what is now the country) was part of the British Empire, and is or has been in the Commonwealth of Nations, and/or has English as an official language, that's obviously a "strong national tie" to British English, unless it's developed it's own clearly recognized variety, as in Canada (for many others, e.g. .au, .nz, .sa, the written differences are not significant enough to worry about here). I.e., I think it's entirely normal to use (and change articles to use) British English for geographical topics like Sierra Leone. And we all know it doesn't mean temporary occupation zones. Extensive ones, different story. E.g. Okinawa should use US English; even several generations after WWII, the US still maintains a strong and influential presence there, and no other English variety has any foothold there. 7563:. I think that's the "argument doesn't carry through to its logical conclusion": WP:CREDITS makes no such exception. There are potential cases in which a credit could be valid, but it would be unusual. One type of case would hinge on the fact that images are the one area where people can effectively get away with original research and unverifiable claims if they're sneaky. So, if in a particular article's context, the average reader might believe a picture to be questionable, but the source would indicate that it's legit, then it might make sense to include the source in the caption, to forestall readers' "mental revolt". Another possible case might be illustration of the difference between image quality of astronomical pictures from the Hubble space telescope vs. a ground-based observatory's pictures, in which case labeling which one is which is necessary to make the point clearly. 4933:, etc. Ideally, I would like a very visible edit notice, but you could replace my "revisiting the wording" with "adding appropriate wording to tell the reader what version of English is being used". It's not a big deal, but I do (not extremely often) come across well-intentioned editors mis-correcting perceived spelling mistakes, resulting in inconsistent usage, which doesn't look very professional. Adding a hatnote to indicate the variety of English might not only help prevent this but avoid users going away with the impression that we can't spell. If the templates referred to here merely set a category, that still means that bots know which version to use when inconsistencies are detected. It would also help is the talk page and the article page coud be automatically synchronized. -- 8962:'Tis true :). However I think if were quoting a farm worker saying "folks was" we probably wouldn't include a sic sticker in the quote, sic can be used for grammar and spelling, Dan Quayle's potatoe, and the MOS of some publications - The Spectator magazine's MOS I was told is an example - but (sic) is only important for errors of incidental fact, where someone reports a statement "the company has been serving Malaysia's farmers since Malaysia achieved its independence in 1957 the company was nationalized" for example. The "was" in Sharpton's statement is an error but not one greatly adding to any material error of content, so unless it's applied to every grammatical error in quotes consistently across en.wp can't see the point. 4135:

conventions? For example, some of my edits on articles relating to Sierra Leone and Malaysia were recently reverted by an American editor because he considered that they constituted an attempt to change the variety of English used in them. However, both of those countries were part of the British Empire and both are still in the Commonwealth (English is actually the only official language of Sierra Leone), so if anything it would make more sense to use Commonwealth spellings ("colour" vs "color", "metre" vs "meter" etc – the latter spellings are not standard outside the USA). The articles in question had not previously used consistent spellings, and I had tried to make them consistent.

8093:

style guide in the world, being written by everyone with the patience and knowledge to debate its minutiae and their practical effects on the largest-scale writing project in history, instead of being controlled by a handful of paid pontificators who rarely acknowledge that anyone can have a differing opinion for valid reasons. I can't speak for anyone else, but the fact that MOS is going to slowly change how mainstream literature and non-fiction are written in the English language generally, because of WP's huge public mindshare, is one of the reasons I care about it so much. Anyway, our article at

2949:, "if it isn't clear which is most used, use the term the person or group uses". Because there is no self-designating consensus, but there is discrepancy in which term is used, there might be a case for the appropriate medical recommentations to arbitrate here. Alternatively, there is already an exception for gender identity, which is construed in terms of self-designation "even when source usage would indicate otherwise". Why should authoritative guidelines on responsible writing about suicide, backed by peer-reviewed research, not constitute another exception? 4556:

those two. A point to clarify is that there is no important difference between Kenyan or Pakistani English, on the one hand, and British on the other, for the purposes of writing Knowledge articles (regardless of local speech patterns and colloquialisms), but both are clearly distinguishable from US English and because of close national ties in those countries to British culture, we shouldn't use American English in their articles. It would be "Ugly American" dickishness. The inverse goes for using British English to write about Guam.

3049:, because unlike profanity or "obscene" imagery, the effects of suicide are very real, damaging, and well... you're a dick if you don't want to strive towards discouraging the act amongst the emotionally vulnerable. We should make every attempt to avoid anything remotely suggestive, and that can be very small for someone on the fence of committing the act. For that reason, I'm especially happy that the main page simply states that "Robin Williams dies at the age of 63." without the "by apparent suicide" part. - 31: 9445:

as for editing rules, one source is enough to put down a thousand agreeing ones if that one is simple and regular, and therefore reasonable and elegant, rather than complicated and variable, and therefore overruling and snobish-like. This is the case for a rule that sticks the footnote to one word and puts a coma or full point in between for the next one. All the more since footnotes rarely qualify a whole sentence but far more often a specific word or expression. The

9429:, where the reference clarifies a specific point in a sentence then it immediately follows the words or phrase it references. If the reference supports an entire sentence then it goes at the end of the sentence. However in all cases it goes after any punctuation at the point of insertion. Depending on what you are used to the insertion after the punctuation may seem nonsensical but it is the style that has emerged over the years and is unlikely to change now. 2540: 5117:. Of the English dialects listed there, most are essentially identical to British English in formal, written form and can simply be redirected to the British one. Most of the remainders are close enough to pidgins/creoles (in the linguistic sense) to present intelligibility issues if articles were actually written in them. Canadian English is an outlier. Aside from the lack of practical utility for these things, the commanding tone of "Use 495:

prose. "Compound predicates"? give.us.a.break. Most people can write very good prose without knowing all the technical terms relating to grammar. In recent years we seem to have been inundated with new phrases to "explain" English grammar, the object being, presumably, to analyse every paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, syllable, phoneme and letter so thoroughly that by the time we're finished we don't know where we started from.

8810:" which is essentially equivalent although the style is slightly different) the list of footnotes will appear at the bottom of the article. This is a new feature; until a few months ago the list wouldn't appear unless one of these codes was added. However, it is is better to have a heading for the footnote list. Also, we often don't want the footnotes at the very bottom of the article. So adding ""{{Reflist}}" (or "<references /: --> 7421:

section and say "well, I must be required to have one." To venture into hyperbolic territory, your argument implies that if our hypothetical editor watched a person jump off a bridge, they would follow, because they must blindly follow what came before without investigating why. It's pretty apparent that many of Knowledge's articles have significant differences, and I'd be surprised if most editors have not long since recognized that.

1345:"messing up"... and not worrying about messing up... The first is being pointy and disruptive... the second is not. The concern expressed by Jerzy was that following the MOS would make it more difficult and time consuming for him/her to edit. My advice to Jerzy was essentially... so don't worry about it... just go ahead and edit. Don't worry about whether you are conforming to the MOS or not (it's what most editors do). Let someone 9491: 9088: 5968: 3663: 4869:, etc. Collaborative editors can just follow what the template says for the sake of consistency, and confrontational editors are reminded in a non-confrontational manner to establish a consensus before trying to change the spelling. It also means gnomes or bots know what the existing consensus is when an article becomes inconsistent because of later editors being unaware of the issue. Personally I would prefer a change to 3730: 10027:"Mechanically" just means "without thought" here. The MOS isn't demanding people re-write sentences in any situation instead of simply uncontracting the words; it's offering it as a theoretical option at editor discretion. It's so that people don't feel stuck in a prescriptive rule in case there's an oddball situation in context. If you want an example of one of those oddball examples, I would suggest that 8144:(Not all Arab people write or converse in Arabic)". Honestly, I cannot believe that the MoS needs to address this matter in such a specific matter. There are many other ethnicities with similar problems, and furthermore, the "never to be confused" is just odd. Do we assume the lowest common denominator editor, who would make such a stupid mistake? Is it really the MoS's business to deal with such things? 3219:

suggesting criminality. In reality, we use the word "commit" in English in various ways (e.g. committing changes, after testing, to a software source code repository, committing to a long-term relationship, committing an error, etc.). All that the word implies in modern English, consistently, is that the decision/action is non-trivial and is likely to have long-term consequences. "Died by suicide" is

7898:. Often users dismiss such issues with the idea that we should simply rephrase the idea. While this is true, it doesn't always work for category names, which often are intended to conform to some sort of consistent standard in phrasing. So it's worthwhile to discuss, at least. Personally, I've never understood why the endash is recommended for the prefix situation but not the suffix situation. 1772: 6255: 2751:"Commit suicide" and "die by suicide" both seem like reasonable ways to say it to me. Suggest and defend your position on the article's talk page. But at this time I don't believe that Knowledge policy should prefer one of these expressions to the other. Like CombatWombat says, when general English shifts to exclude "commit," so should we, but that's not the case right now. 5939:? The question boils down to when someone stands suspect of a crime, do we allege they committed the crime and also have to allege the crime happend in the first place. There is also an overreaching question that the elements of the crime need to be established, and are the RS permitted to do that, or does that have to be determined in a legal setting. Thanks, 1938:

from compound adjectives. It's also no the subject of any bitter off-WP disputes like many capitalization issues are. No one's head asplode upon contact with a conventional use of single quotation marks where double could have been used; different quote glyphs don't signify anything terribly significant like the difference between proper and common nouns. MOS

4319:

the case of Commonwealth countries like India, Pakistan, Kenya, Nigeria etc., English has official status and is widely used by government, education, media and as a lingua franca, even if not many of the people are native speakers. So while one cannot speak of "German English", it's by no means a stretch to speak of "Kenyan English" or "Pakistani English".

3005:, which would be the obvious place for guidance). If "commit suicide" bothers some people, and "died by suicide" feels awkward to other people, then there are lots of other ways to get around it. For example, you can say, "He died on 23 Octember 1391. The cause of death was suicide" without introducing either unwanted or unusual language. 9635:

are not novel, but it isn't a style manual in itself. Additionally, linking in such a manner would give it the imprimatur of being The Official Stance, which is both not established and would be bad for the essay, as it would make it a focus for "correction" by people of varying POVs (says the editor who himself has been adjusting it...) --

4356:

writing (and which pronunciations he/she uses when speaking). The same phenomenon is happening (but to a lesser extent) in the former British colonies. Older Indians, Pakistanis, Nigerians, Singaporeans, etc. tend to use UK usages... while the younger ones tend to use US usages (probably due to the dominance of US usage on the internet).

10248:

tech side would propose the imposition of unitary systems where the en.WP community has painstakingly worked out solutions based on article-consistent binaries: engvar, weights and measures, and date formats. This would induce a permanent state of riot, I think, among editors and not least many readers!

9946:(There could be a small quibble in certain contexts that there is a difference in tone regarding active agency between "he was unhelpful that day" and "he did not help that day". But in that case, you're actually suggesting the one that is more open to misinterpretation from an original "didn't help"). 9969:

Right, but if neither one of us can think of an explicit example whereby the uncontracted form is displeasing, then why should the MoS suggest that not all uncontracted forms are preferable to avoidance. Maybe it's too prescriptive to suggest that sometimes writers rewrite sentences, which is stating

9845:

And finally, some of your edits are good, but not all of them have been considered helpful. When people disagree, bring it here to the talk page, instead of tying to work it out in guideline-space. Really, at this point, if you're making more than a trivial change, you should bring it here to discuss

9634:

No, for several reasons. It doesn't really give guidance, which is covered here; it gives explanation, but that is to a large degree a point-of-view thing. It's a good essay to have to point to in certain discussions, both to avoid reinventing the wheel discussionwise and to show that one's arguments

9198:

is almost as unwatched as MOS:MED's talk page. A paltry 360 watchers is practically nothing, especially given that many of them are not even active users any longer, and many who are only watching for changes to the guideline, not to the talk page. You're the one making questionable assumptions, like

7911:

is just one American university press's prescriptive work, and its advice sometimes reverses itself on various points from one edition to another, and we're not bound to do what it does, most especially when it proposes something that other style guides do not. In short, I wouldn't use an en dash as

7420:

Your argument doesn't carry through to its logical conclusion. They could also look at the citations and say "well, I need to format my short cites like that." They could look at the images and say "well, some of these are larger, so let me increase all of mine." They could look at the historiography

6904:

Agreed with Modal Jaig that this isn't reallyh a case of borders, but of real-world background, but the point is valid. It should really also be brought up at Commons; stuff uploaded here usually ends up over there, and most of what's uploaded there, other than people's damned genital pics, is mostly

6768:

per individual file). I think including hard-coded borders within images is a bad idea, as it hurts the image reuse possibilities (especially in cases where the images are free to use). For example, while those borders may be acceptable on a PC when viewed through a conventional web browser, they may

5648:

Both would seem to be of equal weight in that sentence, to me, and thus the exact ordering unnecessary. Alternatively, without context, I would guess that one of those references would be better in a previous sentence (eg if you're discussing the makeup of the expedition, ref 10 there would go on the

5608:

A question that is begged is what is a situation where you need to have multiple references in a specific order to support a single statement? I understand that when it comes to sourcing that some references are higher quality than others but nearly every thing I've had the case like that, I can work

4318:

That could get you tied into knots quite easily. Both Germany and Austria had British and American occupation zones after WWII, so which would be the correct choice? In any case, those occupations didn't have any lasting effect on the use of English in those countries, so it doesn't really matter. In

4156:

I can maybe buy this for countries that have English as an official language. I disagree for Europe. I see no reason that articles on German topics, for example, should prefer British English. I believe I have heard, for example, that the German educational system deliberately teaches both. There

3973:

canvassing (this time). Thank you for bringing it to this page without an overt bias. But you're copy-pasting it in an irrelevant place. Or you haven't personalized the message in a way that lets us know of the relevance. What repercussions? Why? When? Without that sort of info, it kind of feels like

3912:

Since this is verbatim from the Wikiproject Comics talk page, the clear and concise thing would have been a Wikilink. But even that might be too much. The further you (all of you) canvas, the more frequently you dispute. The more frequently you dispute, the more back-and-forth it goes. The only final

3218:

point of view, and we may do what they do, but we're doing it because of NPOV policy, not because they advocated the change. "Committed suicide" has not been shown to raise any genuine NPOV issues; it's an amazingly this stretch to suggest that everyone magically knows there's an etymological origin

1855:

The issue is where to draw the line. I would prefer to use single quotes for glosses, but I would also prefer to do so for words-as-words where italics is confusing or already present for a different reason, e.g. foreign words, scientific names. The simplest rule is the present one: always use double

1691:

Writing about language often uses italics for the word itself and single quotation marks for a gloss, with the two not separated by a comma or other punctuation, and with strictly logical quotation around the gloss – extraneous terminal punctuation outside the quotation marks – even in North American

1402:

This is super-mega-perennial. We cover this seemingly every other week, again and again. Various British (etc.) publications use the quotation mark style, typographer's quotation, that most American publications prefer, so it's not "American style". Meanwhile, logical quotation, as WP uses, is used

1298:

I'd prefer singles as default normally, but since we're wedded to straight glyphs, I have to say that singles look pretty bad (at least in WP's font). I know American WPians who prefer singles, and when I tell them that doubles are more usual in US English, they disagree. So ... take your pick: usage

494:

Is this really clearer? It seems to refer to Sinéad O'Connor's mother, or it could be Mary MacAleese's mother, so how is it clearer? Who writes this stuff anyway, I'm sure I'll do better myself. This document is very badly written, presumably by people who "know all about it" and never read their own

9444:

The rule is the rule and I will respect it but editing rules are not an encyclopaedic matter but an issue of pure form, taste and aesthetics; they do not need to be verified. We are editors and free to chose our own editing rules, as all editors do, each one with its small differences. Consequently,

7952:

PS: Same goes for "credit-card-sized"; that refers to something about the size of a credit card. "Credit card-sized", though a style once common, is naturally ambiguous and seems to imply card-sized credit. It's a construction I avoid like the plague on Knowledge, as this half-way-hyphenated style

7855:

necessary to use an endash, since they clarify the parse as (Pulitzer Prize)-winning. The MOS rationale for using endash is that it alters the binding compared to a hyphen. So is there an example where "X Y-A" could be parsed wrongly as "X (Y-A)" instead of "(X Y)-A"? If so, this would be a case for

7529:

Knowledge policy is not to place photo credits into captions, but to make credits accessible one click away. Knowledge is actually more careful than many other websites to make credits conveniently available to any interested reader, without cluttering up articles with source information not usually

7368:

Many of these images were uploaded or sent to me by outside parties specifically for use in this article (before anyone jumps, I'm not speaking in the copyright sense), and these credits have helped me attain additional imagery. In fact, I have more to upload once I find enough time to clean them up

6967:, Knowledge's MoS is different, and specifies an en dash only when the second element contains a space. I haven't managed to find any relevant discussion on this talk page, but regardless of the reason this MoS has for not following "usual" English usage, would it be a good idea to put a note in the 6865:

These are not really borders per se. The original bills have either been photographed on a black background or placed there with graphic software to give definition to the bills and their edges. Note the rough edges on the bills and the variable spacing of the "borders" – for example, the first bill

6822:

Borderless images should be the preferred format. Borders are easy to add if and as needed, but there is no "universal" border that will fit into all contexts worldwide. At the least, image uploaders should be informed of the preference for borderless images. Can somebody identify the appropriate

5431:

If it's not in the MOS, we should be following the professional standard used by nearly every single publication ever, which is to have them in numerical order. Readers do not impart any information from the order of the refs, but they certainly see a poor looking setup when they are out of order. -

5365:

Are there any guidelines on this in other style guides? I also prefer to have the refs ordered by importance and relevance, or simply in order of addition. In this context, sorting the numbers into order does not help searching (unlike sorting in other more useful contexts), and seems as unuseful

4852:

I suppose there will always be people who will make a confrontation out of anything, but I don't see that as an issue with these templates as such. Perhaps the usage and wording should be re-visited but it seems like a good idea to document for future editors what variety of English to use, to avoid

4138:

Likewise, English is also widely used throughout Europe, and it is an official language (and major working language) of the EU. English used in Europe generally follows British spelling conventions. Would the same argument apply here? I don't really see why articles about Europe should be written in

4073:

The message is supposed to be short, but give enough context as to what's going on. I could give more context at the risk of having a longer message and open to accusations of bias. I could have a shorter message that doesn't give enough context to let people decide if they're interested enough to

3550:

Our guidance on this seems a little weird, since it incorporates the rationale "...national varieties should not be changed, as these may involve changes in vocabulary." But what if someone just changes the spelling? The basis the guidance gives for itself wouldn't apply in that case. I think that's

3441:

I think the US spelling needs to be retained (despite the unfortunate dissonance within an article that this can cause). We are permitted to silently harmonise typography, font, font-size, etc, and to correct awfuls -- like double hyphens masquerading as dashes; but not spelling varieties. That's as

3069:

I applaud your dedication to the destruction of arguments nobody is making, Floydian, and especially your associated insinuation that anyone who questions your stance is callously endangering the "emotionally vulnerable". This is a truly clever and appropriate argument to make, and especially classy

2936:

Just to add that I'm not sure that "political correctness" or "policing of language" is quite the phrasing I'd choose to describe this. I've posted a link to respected medical resources showing that the way in which suicide is written about can contribute towards the decision of a suicidal person to

2838:

Second digression: There is nothing wrong with appropriate uses of the passive voice. It is the correct choice when the focus is on what was done, rather than who did it. It is especially useful in scientific and technical articles. I am certainly not saying this in support of Martin's position;

2119:

Single quotation marks look pretty bad (and are sometimes unclear to the eye) in straight glyphs and the font WP uses. This is why it's best to use the only slightly more American usage of doubles with singles (much less often, of course) inside; doubles for words-as-words are much easier to read in

1279:

Fair warning: If you go around using American punctuation, you might get brought up on ANI. It happened to me when I was gnoming (which is why I don't gnome any more). But in general, Blueboar is right. If you go around adding factual content, it's okay if you mess up on the punctuation. Someone

1259:

Here's my personal advice... consider WP:LQ (and anything else in the MOS you disagree with) as being irrelevant to your editing. Use what ever punctuation style comes naturally to you (it will probably be whatever you were taught to do back in school). Most of the time, no one will even notice or

731:

Why is there a special need for this? Creating a special MOS for each potential "protected class" leads to far too many rules and to much potential for conflict. The obvious argument that I believe is relevant is where does it stop? How many words do I have to knock off "Gay Transgender Republican

674:

This feels like it would be better as part of a Wikiproject guideline (which technically would be have more strength than a random WP-space essay). It's not stuff that can be MOS-enforcable but it can be things that as part of a Wikiproject we would know where to get advice for additional disputes.

10373:

IMO, it appears as an error. The use of italics at the second word fails to convey emphasis, as it's not at all clear what we are differentiating. Also, the sentence accomplishes the act of establishing what this MoS applies to, e.g., "is a style manual for all Knowledge articles". Would you object

10247:

I think getting readers to start clicking preferences before they view WP (even just the first time on a device) has not been on the table for a number of reasons. And it's not trivial, given that date formats within quotations and some other items have to be untouched. I suspect some people on the

10153:

My purpose in writing this thread is to flag that during the next six to 12 months we might need to extend ourselves to a new arm of negotiation—among ourselves, with the en.WP community, and with WMF CL(P), which is the bridge between the communities and engineering. Your opinions and reactions to

10128:

I believe it's proper that you, as developers and maintainers of language style and formatting on this site, be aware that product development is soon going to be an increasing part of our editing landscape. This is intrinsically a good thing: in many respects Wikimedia has been desperately slow to

7820:

The MoS currently allows an en dash "Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix (but not a suffix) to a compound that includes a space". This proscribes the use of an en dash in "a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist". The background for the current state of the MoS is an edit war that began in late

7466:

we have decided that if a reader needs to find a photo credit, they should look there so that we don't run into the issue of people simply looking for free advertising because they see other photos using that credit. IAR doesn't apply here, unless you want to argue for a full out change in the MOS.

7402:

You can have a citation in a caption to identify the source, but our MOS disallows the use of bylines simply to be consistent across the board. In this article it is clearly not advertizing but someone would see that and say "well, I need to have my photos with bylines". Better not to do it at all

7083:

If the doctrine is about the relationship between Adam and God, it should be an endash. On the other hand, if adherents of the doctrine use "Adam-God" as a single name, it should be a hyphen. (Some aspects of the MOS endash vs. hyphen "guidance" seem to be of theological complexity. Let's not start

6546:

No problem, it's a fun usage to speculate about, the lack of "can not" in dictionaries means nothing (two distinct words are not as often represented in dictionaries as actual compound uses), but ultimately its almost entirely harmless either way, despite individual preference, and neither side has

6348:

apply, to clear up confusion by editors mistakenly believing that it does apply. To the contrary, I think it would be instruction creep if we have wording that is ambiguous enough that an editor can point to this and say that we are prohibited from changing a word in the English language to another

6281:

I can't put my finger on it, but I've seen the same objection in a move discussion before. So, although it is understood by those in the know, I do think it would help to make it clear that, no, the language does not apply to moves made for conciseness or consistency, where there is no real English

4873:

to include spelling, for instance using the common spelling when various spellings are allowed in British English (possibly including a recommendation to use OUP spelling instead of non-OUP British spelling). I think it is right to get a consensus here (or somewhere similar) before going to TfD and

4555:

Neither of those comments are relevant, really; we already know that Britain has close national ties to British English and the US close national ties to US English, without any question of official languages or political ties to the British Commonwealth; this thread isn't about cases as obvious as

2791:

As a matter of style and good writing, I always prefer writing in the active, and not the passive voice whenever possible. Suicide is an affirmative act, and the most common expression in English, e.g., "Robin Williams committed suicide by asphyxiation," conveys that it was an act committed by the

1950:

PS: It's more important to get the single quotes right for glosses; whether to use parentheses/brackets or not, or even put a common between the foreign term and the English gloss, is a style matter best addressed at the article in question. I agree with DarkFrog that our goal is not apeing (aping,

873:

Titles of major published works (books, comic book series, TV shows, movies) in italics, minor works (episodes, story-lines, short stories) within them in quotation marks, toys no markup. We've been handling franchises as a whole in a very inconsistent manner, yes. I regularly encounter no markup,

737:

Some, and I do mean "... a small amount or number of people or things." with an emphasis on "small" could be incorporated into the MOS or other policies like NPOV (so they apply to all, not just these special articles), but creating a special set of rules just for one class of people is by its very

197:

I've read through the Manual of Style for lists and all of the examples give it as how I do it, but nothing is said (I may have missed it) on the preferred way to go. The thing is the NHL draft articles from 2010-2012 do it the 2nd way and the last couple years the first way. So which way should be

9833:

Also, the examples you're trying to include are very weak. The first ones you added didn't contain a single contraction. In your second attempt, there is nothing obviously wrong with the sentence you're telling people to avoid. It doesn't illustrate a problem. There's no stylistic reason to advise

8143:

What is the reason for the existence of the relatively bizarre specification on Arabs? It reads "the adjective Arab (never to be confused with Muslim or Islamic) refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term Arabic refers to the Arabic language or writing system, and related concepts

8092:

in mainspace unless we have good reason to make them), unless our own style guide has been deemed by external reliable sources to be so influential that it's notably affecting off-WP usage. That actually strikes me as quite likely by this point; MOS is the most broadly consultative and egalitarian

7723:

MOS:TM and other MOS rules, e.g. MOS:CAPS, as well as WP:COMMONNAME. Reliable sources almost always show that stylization of such names is routinely abandoned, even in the music press (or other relevant reporting - this isn't always about musical releases), and often even in promotional materials

6033:

SmC, I plan to check out this RfC because of your long history of spotting relevant issues, but I feel obliged to mention that I do not believe this message is suitably neutral in its current form. Publicizing RfCs is right and proper but you're not supposed to prime your audience before they get

4687:

Majority native anglophone countries aside, a lesson for us all is the unholy, arrogant colonial mess at en.Wikivoyage, which divides the whole of humanity up into those who shall use BrEng and those who shall use AmEng. So Indonesian articles use one, and across the Strait Malaysian articles must

3364:

I've got an article that should clearly and is in UK english dialect. One quote used in the article is from an American source which includes a word that would be spelled differently in UK english but is using the US version. To add, the quote is coming from a person that is clearly British. What

1946:

cause such conflicts and problems (e.g. we obey ISO, etc., on exactly how to write and even space-apart units of measure, even when they are not the most common in mainstream sourcess , as just one of innumerable examples). When italics are already used for another reason in the same context, use

1937:

case, because it doesn't conflict with real-world mainstream use (is IS such use) and it doesn't cause any confusions or reader-revolt responses, of the "Why the @#$ * is this capitalized?!" sort that over-capitalization does, or difficulty even understanding what is meant when hyphens are dropped

1911:

Absolutely support this. We're already using it all over the place anyway. Come to think of it, I have previously proposed this addition here (within the last 2.5 years) and I think it was unopposed and I just forgot to add it. Anyone with any linguistics or foreign-language learning experience

217:

I like the way you did it in the second version-- the indent in the first version is confusing generally, as we don't indent paragraphs on Knowledge and I don't see why we should look like one is being used here other than as an example of an outmoded form of presenting a paragraph (which is not a

8443:

article from the MOS hyphens section and when it and it's links within the body of the article didn't look helpful, I didn't think to check see alsos. I spent 20 minutes or more in Help and Knowledge looking through search results, archive discussions, etc. to try to find a good explanation for a

7590:

What's bad about the captions/footnotes, which should urgently be removed, is that they are misleading as to copyright. They say that some of the images are "courtesy of" a source. "Courtesy of" means that the copyright owner has allowed that particular use of the image. But there's no "courtesy"

6001:

issues like COMMONNAME and OFFICIALNAME, it's likely, as with so many Lady Gaga songs, that it will soon enough have its own article, and the RfC ongoing might as well get the title correct now rather than later. The RfC is being "advertised" because it was noted that the discussion was circular

5411:

I could have sworn this was a MOS or citation recommendation at one point, but I also see is logically making sense. All this usually requires to get right is reorder named references in a few places. Nearly every outside MOS that I've seen myself where numbered citations are used always have the

1930:

isn't some kind of mega-disaster, but anyone who knows the proper convention won't do it that way but the proper way. 174.141.182.82's style isn't "the typical practces for glosses on Knowledge"; rather (as Doremo pointed out) it's what those who don't know proper gloss-formatting do, by default

1836:

I think some people have been using double quotes because it isn't explicitly covered in MOS, and so they don't know how to handle glosses. For the same reason, some use parentheses (and others don't), and some separate words and glosses with a comma (and others don't). Standard linguistic format

1283:

And yes, our punctuation rules should follow ENGVAR. Right now, though, they don't. As for the single-vs-double rule, I heard somewhere that single quotes mess up search functions, so there might be a non-arbitrary reason to prefer double. I'm not sure that current web browsers still have this

597:

In principle no one could object to the notion of a style guide WRT disability. But this is just so weird—long and discursive, it takes risks and makes a lot of assumptions that I fear might meet disagreement with many people with disabilities. Where exactly is the stylistic advice for editors in

10012:

Maybe, but to state that "rewriting the sentence" is sometimes "preferable to ... mechanically expanding contractions" is the same thing, IMO, and you might be indulging in semantics. You still haven't provided an example where an uncontracted form should be rewritten. How about, "If expanding a

9780:

I don’t see any logic in requiring the hyphenation of compound proper nouns when they are used as adjectives. In fact, because they are capitalized, there is no need for additional bells and whistles to signal that they belong together: Rocky Mountain trails, New Hampshire maple syrup, SpongeBob

9258:

to seemingly keep WikiProjects, especially WP:Med, in line does not disrupt those WikiProjects. Yes, some WikiProjects have power, regardless of any assertion you might make to the contrary. And WP:Med is one such WikiProject. They have the power to say, "Medical articles are best organized this

3588:

Concurring with Pburka, Jc3s5h et al., but I think Peter Coxhead has it best: Yes retain the original spelling in a direct quotation even if the surrounding article is written in another variety of English, even if we can confidently guess that the speaker would spell his own words differently.

3565:

We already go beyond what some of us think is acceptable (and indeed have taught to be beyond acceptable) in changing what the MOS regards as "style" in the source to fit that preferred in the English Knowledge. Changing spelling as well is a step too far, at least for me. If the spelling in the

701:

has already done) until consensus is established. The first comment in this talk section is specifically asking for more input, acknowledging the small number of editors who originally wrote it (full disclosure: I'm one of them). I've just put an RFC tag on this discussion to help facilitate the

10232:

but I wonder if people's views would be different if there were a global setting in all Wikimedia wikis to display ISO dates (i.e. dates stored in the ISO format) according to a reader's preference. From a technical standpoint, that may be more workable/acceptable than implementing date display

8792:

If you edit any article with references, you'll see the "ref list" code near the bottom of the page. The "ref list" code creates the section where the refs are listed. It only has to be added once per article. The only reason it seems "automatic" to you is probably because an earlier editor had

7448:

The credits page is meant to prevent the use of bylines to fulfill GFDL/CC licenses, and it has exceptions built in. Anyway, again, there's IAR. These bylines, which are actively helping the Wikimedia world obtain media files, are a great use of IAR, one of Knowledge's core principles (in full:

4355:

Something else to consider... English usage outside of the UK and US themselves is actually shifting... and is somewhat generational... with older people using UK and younger people using US. You can often tell how old someone from Europe is (without seeing them) by which usages he/she uses in

2839:

actually I deeply dislike attempts to dictate language in order to conform more closely to what some PC group thinks about an issue, and that is my gut reaction to the "died by suicide" proposal, though on the other hand I certainly don't want the result of anything we do to be more suicides. --

1029:

I should have perhaps written "sub-section" rather than "section". I understand the general point about occasional repetition (when a point addresses two sub-topics) but it seems odd to repeat a point which is dealt with a few inches further down the page in a very short sub-section of the same

5543:

Keep in mind that most "professional" MOSs are written for paper publications or "static" electronic equivalents - not dynamic constantly changing website content such as a wiki. When compiling such static documents the superscript numbers are inserted (semi)manually unlike here where they are

4591:

That phrasing sounded snottier than intended. I mean that, while it's interesting as a side conversation, the official languages questions of the UK and US aren't very germane to resolution of the ENGVAR issue at hand. I meant it as "let's not get distracted" observation, not a "shut up, you"

4498:

official languages. You can speak Latin in a courtroom if you like, and they can't stop you. Sure, most of us speak English, but we don't have to (but it's difficult getting a half-decent job if you don't). However, the next-door country to the left, where the majority of people speak English,

2770:

Comment, I suggested Martin bring this to here only because I would think to adopt this language would need wide acceptance, instead of trying to fight for it on one page. I've seen enough of the types of edit wars that break out over political correctness that without MOS backing some type of

8889:

The "sic" should just be removed if the quote is accurate. It's distracting and can come across as calling undue attention for the purposes of editorialising in a bit of a snobbish way. It's not about vernacular, if a direct quote had some UK slang or less formal english, it also shouldn't be

7045:

My initial sense was en dash, but bearing in mind that the gist of the doctrine is that Adam and God are the same person or being, is this akin to the "wrong" example given in § 9.9.2.2 of "singer-songwriter", which uses a hyphen, not a dash, because it's "not separate persons" that are being

6219:

This should read "variety" rather than "valid use." As it is written it could be interpreted to forbid copyediting completely. For example, replacing slang with more formal language could fall afoul of the guideline, as both are valid uses of English. I believe it is intended only to refer to

5869:

to visually search by this arbitrary numerical ref). The potentially-longer "References" section is automatically sorted into numerical order, as it should be to facilitate visual searching. But obsessively sorting references in the text itself is unnecessary, and an example of artificially

4134:

In articles relating to countries which are not primarily English-speaking, or would not usually be considered part of the Anglophone world, but which use English as an official language (or are part of the Commonwealth) would it make more sense to standardise on Commonwealth English spelling

4069:

I wouldn't have imagined this was the wrong place to bring this until PBS brought up the poor separation of concerns at MOS:COMICS and WP:NCC. MOS:COMICS includes titling instructions, thus I was led to believe it was a MOS issue. As the result of the move ultimately will likely affect many

9016:

template, without "shaming" it with a visible one. PS: There is no such thing as "official" in English, so "official" vs. "just slang" is another false dichotomy. This same technique can be used for any other variances from mainstream English or from MOS in quoted printed material; e.g. use

8776:

Thank you for your answer, which I'm afraid I do not understand since all I know is that a reference begins with a "ref" sign and ends with another one, so that references automatically appear in a list down at the end of articles, don't they? So that there is no need to add anything, even a

10360:

I italicized Knowledge just to emphasize that there are many "Manuals of Style" in this world which have been produced for and by all kinds of organizations for all sorts of reasons and this is just one of a multitude. I didn't feel the need to continue the emphasis after the first mention.

7384:

in several of my articles to acknowledge institutions that have donated material—including several recent featured articles. The remaining captions are there to be consistency, a goal we as a project have only ever championed on an article-by-article basis. What here is actively hurting the

2666:

and others, and that have been adopted, at least nominally, by at least one national press standards body (UK Press Association). I would, therefore, recommend that Knowledge MOS avoid this wording even if others do continue to use "commit", which implies criminalisation from its etymology.

1884:

Parentheses might be atypical in linguistics, but they are typical in almost all other contexts. This is a general-English publication and we should use general-English rules and formatting. We should not prefer the LSA style sheet to sources that address Knowledge's needs more directly.

5792:

As to whether we should add something to the MOS about this... I wouldn't... I think trying to put the citation numbers sequentially would be a colossal waste of time, and would not be worth the effort it takes to do it... if we did institute a rule about it, I would just ignore the rule.

4373:

That is a large part of why I'm resisting the attempt to take a prescriptive, flag-planting mindset towards the matter. Articles on subjects of nation X are much more likely to be accurately weighted towards common usage in X by being left to their organic development than by theorycrafted

1122:

The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. However, attribution is unnecessary with quotations that are clearly from the person discussed in the article or section. When preceding a quotation with its attribution,

1049:

10149:

I've corresponded with Sherry Snyder, Community Liaison (Products) on the matter, so that the WMF is aware of the need for stylistic liaison. She informed me that in any case that glitch has been fixed by changing the output to ISO (which will eventually need our consideration, I guess).

7743:

styled that way (if it were, then it would be one of those rare exceptions and the article would be at that title), so either being explicit that the stylizing isn't universal, or being specific about when it is so stylized, is relevant. I think many articles don't do this yet, e.g. at

3145:

Sure, but you can extend that to any accident. Everyone who dies in a crash made at least one contributing stupid or short-sighted mistake. It's just a matter of taste where we draw the line between the idiots who "didn't know any better" and the idiots who "should have known better".

6156:, for example by moving the title from an uncommon name to a more recognizable name, moving from an unnecessarily long title to a more concise title, moving from an ambiguous title to a precise or making the title consistent with a title preference that is otherwise uniformly applied. 1372:

On the specific point re quotation marks, I'm not sure there is an agreed "British" style or "American" style, whether in respect of straight vs curly or single vs double. There's no way this could be made an ENGVAR issue or style variations agreed on that basis even if we wanted to.

641:

Me too. It's a well-intentioned and informative essay about the use and styling of language, but it's not a clear and practical style guide. Some of the suggestions built into it look to me to be contentious as well, eg re capitalisation of Deaf. Even if it were more focused and more

622:

I agree with Tony; there should have been wide community input on whether or not to make that page a guideline; otherwise, an editor can create any essay and then label it a guideline or a policy. The guideline tag should be removed from that page until, if ever, it has achieved wide

3388:...national varieties should not be changed, as these may involve changes in vocabulary, and because articles are prone to flipping back and forth. For example, a quotation from a British source should retain British spelling, even in an article that otherwise uses American spelling. 3112:"Died by suicide" sounds awkwardly passive to me. Suicide is killing yourself, not being killed by yourself. Well, it's that, too, but that means it's also the first thing, which is a common phrase and doesn't make the reader wonder about the intentions behind the unusual phrasing. 3345:

says, 'Suicide was decriminalised in 1961 and since then the use of the term "commit" is considered offensive by some people. "Take one's life" or "kill oneself" are preferable alternatives.' I think "Plath killed herself" will at least not be considered too politically correct.

2754:

As for neutrality, because "commit" is the common English expression, replacing it could be considered advocating a position that current mainstream views of suicide are too harsh. In this way, doing so is not neutral. In this case, I wouldn't call it a big deal, but it's there.

1779: 7698:

The two alternative wordings you give are functionally equivalent, and can even by hybridized as 'stylized as "channel ORANGE" on the CD cover'. There's no standard wording, and mentioning the styling isn't required, it's just sometimes thought to be encyclopedically relevant.

2964:

So I'm not saying whether I think it would matter or not. However, as it happens, your external link is broken. I found the Samaritans' recommended "best practices" for reporting on suicides, but I didn't find anything suggesting that the word "commit" is likely to encourage

1407:

recognizes this. Meanwhile, logical quotation is not even actually identical to the majority British/Commonwealth usage, just mostly coincides with it, so it isn't "British style", either. The curly vs. straight debate is even older, and not related to ENGVAR matters at all.

7914:"Spanish guitar-player" is wrong unless it's a compound adjective ("her Spanish guitar-player approach to arpeggios"), in which case a) I would hyphenate the entire compound as "Spanish-guitar-player", since "Spanish guitar-player" is ambiguous, and b) it should be linked as " 5830:

issue. I would be strongly opposed to adding a "rule" that they have to be in order. No one cares enough, it's impossible to enforce (people move content and citations with it all the time), no one cares, it would discourage editing and sourcing, and, oh yeah, no one cares. :

10388:

Removing the italics on Knowledge as you suggest would be the best choice. I could see how some might have an argument for bolding Knowledge, but this isn't an article, we're describing our manual of style internally. On other pages it's described as "the English Knowledge's

5089:

And I'll add that the text a template generates on the talk page is of no value. How many editors check there to see what version of English is used in the article? In fact, I'll ask what purpose to those templates serve of the ones in the article? Should those be deleted?

1264:

someone come along and "correct" your usage to a style they prefer, remember the advice given in Star Wars... just "let the wookie win". Ask yourself whether it is really worth all the time and energy that would be required to argue about it. Most of the time, it isn't.

9180:. It's simply that hardly anyone cares that WP:Med wants to include something in MOS:MED about preferring to include citations in the lead. WP:Med advises on other things when it comes to designing a medical article, and I don't see why the WP:Lead should be an exception. 4404:. I mistook some of them for Americans, and vice versa. We managed just fine without a MoS when speaking to each other. But a true Brit I can pick out easily when speaking: it's difficult for a non-Brit to manage any of the various British accents - except Jodie Foster in 1838: 1951:

however you like to spell that) every single aspect of an external style guide like LSA's. That said, it's not correct to say that bracketing glosses is "typical in almost all other contexts"; that's wishful thinking. It's not even typical on WP, just somewhat common.

1793: 1786: 1982:

that style, I thought it was already in place. But since you seem to know what you’re talking about here and I admittedly don’t (I think I’ve only seen such glosses in the first lines of some articles with non-English titles), I have no objection to LSA-style glosses.

5480:

I feel that it's a bit jarring to see numbers out of order. However this also feels like something that could easily have a technical solution. When there is a sequence of consecutive references, it should be simple enough to sort them automatically before rendering.

10136:

rules and guidance in the English language). The message is that we need to make sure we keep abreast of the stylistic patterns in WMF products under development; if we don't, we're likely to experience roll-outs that cause massive dissonance—and no one wants that.

7825:

and centered around the typography of "credit card-sized". I think "credit card-sized" was a poor choice of poster child for the general debate about hyphens vs. dashes. In cases like "Pulitzer Prize–winning", the capital letters change the situation. The WP article

2487:, and MOS generally.) The opener of the RfC cited style authorities agreeing, but some of the push-back is not appearing to grasp the issue in these terms. Light rather than more heat is needed there; fans get very emotional and protective of what they're fans of. 9330:

1/ References are normally attached to the words (notably persons) they qualify and this often happens in the middle of sentences. They should not be discriminated should the word be inside or at the end of the sentence but indeed, this is not yet a universal rule.

3070:

given its agency-stripping nature in a discussion of a group whose self-perceived lack of agency is considered to widely be a causative factor in their actions. Please give us more of your compelling insights about how we need to discuss this sensitive topic. --

5891:(readable, understandable, accessible) references are listed before those references that are more there for completeness. By default, references should just be sequenced in the order they are added, which is what happens now, for the most part. Don't let a 3953:: it's the same verbatim message I've put on each talk page I thought was relevant—the discussion's not at Wikiproject Comics. It's supposed to invite people to the discussion, not start a discussion here. "Canvassing"? Under what definition of canvassing? 2968:

It seems to me that this would be a very difficult thing to establish, particularly the causal aspect of it. I did a cursory search and didn't find any claimed connection. I did find reports about how it made those who had attempted suicide, and survived,

3589:

While it is often possible to find more than one transcript of an interview that was given out loud, it looks like this is the official transcript from the interviewer's own organization. Don't switch to a lesser source for the sake of a sense of neatness.

3167:

died of asphyxiation, both intentionally asphyxiated themselves, but only one of them did it with the intent to die, and that is a vital difference when discussing the situation. The term "suicide" is understood to be the intentional killing of one's self.

642:

prescriptive/proscriptive, I'm not sure we should be declaring whole new pages, which may have been worked on only a small group, to suddenly be part of the MoS in this way and their directives as a result supposedly enforceable across WP out of the blue.

8192:

is a matter of copyediting cleanup, and has nothing to do with the purpose of the section. I would generalize it and use Arab and Jew and something not Middle-Eastern as examples. Then it would be both more useful and less oddly focused on Arab/Arabic.

5785:

format. This will keep the citation number of the first appearance of the citation, no matter how many times it is subsequently used. So even if you try to manually order the sequence, some citation numbers are going to end up "out of order" (as in:

10140:

An example: my alarm bells started ringing when I viewed the video of the July 31 WMF monthly metrics meeting yesterday. A demonstration of an automated device for creating references for Visual Editor produced this date format for URL access dates:

6509:

Perfectly good faith question, but hopeless as a standards proposal. When the rest of society settles on one or the other, so should we then. We're not likely to do it sooner. It would probably be easier to either standardize or eliminate all uses of

5864:

at all is to allow indexing and searching of large numbers of entities. It is highly doubtful that any single point in the text of a Knowledge article will accumulate enough references that searching will be needed at that location (also, there is

2976:

Now, I have nothing against people who have attempted suicide and survived, and I certainly have no active desire to make them feel bad. So if you want to reframe your argument in those terms, obviously it's weaker than if the terminology actually

1821:

is to use parentheses and double quotes. Please correct me if I’m wrong. As for the proposed addition: If we already have a format for it in our house style, I would oppose introducing contradictory MOS guidance. If not, it seems reasonable to me.

8566: 3551:

what any other publication would do, whether a British publication quoting a British person in an American source or vice versa. I'm not suggesting we should just ignore the guidance, but maybe we should just not fastidiously pay attention to it.

879:

proposing that it be no markup for franchises, even where they contain all or part of the name of work. It's far too easy to confuse italicized or quoted franchise names for names of specific works within them that share the same name. So, use:

8488: 8055:

article to avoid pushing the use of en dashes in this situation, or at least explain that their use is common, but discouraged or forbidden within Knowledge? I would make a change, but it would likely be viewed as too sarcastic by some editors.

6996:

isn't the only manual of style which recommends this usage; I had assumed it was more or less universal and have been employing it here on Knowledge for years. I'll stop now though I would probably support a move to change our own style guide.

4820:

and its siblings, and the categories they populate, should be deleted. Thoughts? This is not a !vote poll to delete them (that's what TfD and CfD processes are for). Just trying to gauge whether I'm along in thinking these badly misconstrue

6804:

With all respect, "a bit of extra work" is indeed a barrier to reuse when the alternative is "no extra work at all". MediaWiki already generates borders for images when the correct settings are used, so the hardcoded borders seem superfluous.

4288:

I'm not sure how much it helps us think about these issues clearly, but would Knowledge have an analogous preference for US English in formerly American-occupied countries where English is not now an official language, such as Cuba and Japan?

9861:

Fair enough, but before I attempted to improve the language it read: "But contractions should not be expanded mechanically. Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is preferable", which I think is empty and nebulous without an example of

6643:

I'd say use only "cannot". Logically "I can not do it." should (or at least could) mean that it's possible for me not to do it but if that's the intended meaning, it would be better rephrased. At least that's my take on things at a glance.

9263:

matter. I am well aware that, for a Knowledge page with a lot of watchers, a significant number of those watchers are inactive, which is why I emphasized my WP:Lead point by stating, "I've seen many editors at that talk page, as recently as

7606: 3423:

It is an interview specific to the US source and cant easily find a similar quote in other works. It is also a response cited directly to the UK person, so I'd interpret it as the US source making their assessment on the UK person's words.

525:

Without the gender distinction, the second is bad, yes. Jodosma, I don't know what "compound predicates" are, but I do use a different grammatical system. The use of less well-known terminology should be kept to a minimum in the MOS itself.

218:

reason here, of course). A clean, left edge makes more sense to me, and for consistency it seems that this should be used as the preferred format for all years of a type of article such as the NHL drafts from the past which you mentioned.

3718: 1305:

editors to "mess up". It's fine to go against the house style through not knowing (anyone can edit, and we're nice to people), but wilfully and persistently adopting home-grown preferences that make more work for gnomes is not productive.

9882:

is arguably even better. I'm not sure why you see this as a bad example in terms of content or syntax. Can you give an example of when it's better to avoid the uncontracted form, because without an example this is hollow and meaningless?

2638: 7702:

The purpose for readers (the more important purpose) is to be informative/accurate. The subordinate purpose (for editors) is to forestall more annoying rehash, like repeated attempts to move articles to WP article names that violate

7046:

referred to? According to the doctrine, saying "Adam" and saying "God" is referring to one being—not separate persons—so should it not be a hyphen? (In a literal sense, it's the "Adam=God doctrine"). Any insights or opinions on this?

3158:

I don't think that's the line we're drawing; I think we're drawing the line between those who took action with the specific intent to kill themselves and those who did not intend to kill themselves. By the current understanding, both

2792:

decedent. Conversely, "Robin Williams died by suicide" is written in the passive voice, and does not clarify that suicide was an affirmative act of the decedent. Either way, I would not spend a great deal of time fighting over it.

4264:

It's not always just a case of political/historical ties to Britain or America, though. In the Sierra Leone and Kenyan examples, we should use British English because that is the variety of (written) English used in those countries.

5953: 808: 6077: 4708:

The language ghetto is of our own making, and I for one would be in favour of removing WP:ENGVAR and of unification towards one single code. We just need to agree to what that code should be, or agree to disagree (as at present).

7673:

I speculate that it's connected with the (common) name versus (common) style issue in the MOS. If "channel ORANGE" is a stylized version of "Channel Orange" then it can be restyled in accordance with the MOS. If it were accepted

8564:

The reason it refers to Spain, and not Spanish, is because it is about the reaction of the Spanish government (of which Spain is a synonym), not of the Spanish people in general. If you really want to remove the posessive, then

7015:

without being absolutely clear as to the alternative, e.g "credit-card-sized" is plausible. Google ngrams don't distinguish hyphens from endashes, but "credit card - sized" and "credit - card - sized" are similar in occurrence.

4742:

Choosing a single variant of English has a big problem. Realistically it will be either American English (upsetting the non-Americans) or British English (upsetting the Americans). Either way we will upset half of our editors.

7354:

There is absolutely no prohibition against lengthy captions, and most of the captions are only extended by a few words. The João Cândido Felisberto image was an unfortunate exception, but I've compromised; see the end of this

7146:

But ONLY on a keypad that has numbers locked. The numbers on the main keyboard won't work and since I keep my keypad set without numbers locked, and I use ndash a lot, I had to create a macro so alt+F12 would create an ndash.

3999:

I know the discussion isn't at the Comic talk. What I meant was brief invitations to longer summaries of the longer discussions are simply shorter and sweeter than form letters. Though I can see how a little exposition can be

9337:

2/ When a reference comes after the full point or coma, it may be difficult to know whether it qualifies the last word or the whole sentence of part of sentence, and even hasty users may think it qualifies the next sentence.

6718:

They're not equivalent. I cannot eat a boulder, i.e. I cannot eat a boulder. I can not eat fatty foods (i.e. I can not eat fatty foods. The latter usage, "can not", is ambiguous and confusing, and should be avoided. Use

9943:

That example doesn't illustrate a problem to me. "Unsupportive" and "not supportive" are functionally and stylistically identical. Anybody reading the MOS will be more confused about what they should do after reading that.

6764:, which has a number of currency images. I'm fine with the quality level of the images, however, the author/uploader has opted to include large black borders around the images (as well as between them, as there are actually 2909:

Why not follow whatever conventions the mainstream uses? Once English-language news outlets make the change, then so should we; if this hasn't happened yet, we shouldn't be the forerunners, no matter how noble the cause.

3390:

Have you searched to see if you can find the same quote with UK spelling in another source? Also, is the quote from something the subject wrote or spoke? If the former, I'd be particularly reluctant to risk changing it.

3258:"grammatically passive" but rather "a choice of phrasing that connotes passivity" or some such, but there are enough people who could get confused on the point that I would prefer commentators found different wording. -- 1931:

because MOS seems to require double quotation marks for them. (It doesn't anywhere require parentheses/brackets, and using them for this is often visual clutter, or a problematic for other reasons like nested bracketing.

7815: 2670:

I hope this is the right place, but I would suggest that the MOS adopt a set of conventions that are in line with research on responsible writing about suicide. I appreciate that there have been previous discussion on

9997:

All that means is that contractions should usually be spelled out, and if it looks awkward to the editor in context, then the sentence can be re-written at editorial discretion. You're overcomplicating this, I think.

9991:

Uncontracted forms such as do not or it is are the default in encyclopedic style; don't and it's are too informal. But contractions should not be expanded mechanically. Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is

3274:

Just speaking for myself, I find it's short for "Johnny was killed by Johnny", and the other is short for "Johnny killed Johnny". So it connotes a grammatically passive sentence to me, rather than general passivity.

8830: 7664: 7752:

by adding "frequently". Adding something like "on the CD cover" is usually too specific (since it make turn out that it's also done in the label's print advertising for the album, and on the tour T-shirt, etc.).

7430:

However, this is in our MOS, which is a standard all articles are expected to follow. There are some things we do blindly follow as to prevent edit warring over trivial differences like the inclusion of bylines.

998:

Hey, Peter. Don't you think a cross-reference to the main section on point would be better than duplicate instructions that have the potential to introduce conflict as the two sections are modified over time?

9949:

The main point of the section is to prefer uncontracted words, but to not mechanically reverse all instances on Knowledge. Giving complicated examples of exceptional cases seems to take the attention away from

4986:

I think a big issue with using the page notice is that only admins can create/edit this. If the consensus here is to move this to a page notice, then it should also include the use mdy and dmy templates also.

1490: 1238:) and, as you've noticed, double quote marks must be used even in British English. Some of us have disagreed from time to time, but the consensus has been to uphold the separation of punctuation and ENGVAR. 453: 7845: 6027: 5832:;-) To those who actually do care (yes, I lied), there are already bots and AWB scripts that make precisely this correction. I don't know how frequently they run, but they turn up in watchlist regularly. 2958: 2691: 7233:

Another reason that I think an en dash is called for, although I don't care enough to actually look at the rules again, is the possibility that Adam~God could be someone's last name if a hyphen was used.

7358:

If consistency were an issue, we'd have a standard system of citations with a rigid system of determining image sizes and infoboxes on every article. But we don't have any of that, so you're advancing an

6954:

For years, I have been using an en dash instead of a hyphen in compound modifiers where one element (at least) is open (contains a space), e.g. "a Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist". This agrees with the

3945: 3786: 2931: 6689:

We shouldn't over-worry about what editors can do, or what they can not do, when the use is interchangeable. It cannot be denied that "cannot" is more common, but they're both acceptable and non-errors.

4825:, are moving woard an us-vs-them, anti-collaborative environment, and are pretty bollocksy/bullshitty to begin with, since in encyclopedic writing there's essentially no difference between most of them. 5350:

There are editors who go around reordering adjacent references in the text so they are sequential. I find this annoying when I've ordered them by importance or date, but I know of no "rule" either way.

5244: 5148:

Bots and script tools need a way to see which way a page goes in some cases to let them do their work (particularly in achieving date format confortity in an article), which these templates provide. --

4193:

Only where "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." does not apply. In African Commonwealth countries it would apply.

4126: 2869: 2904: 2887: 6175: 706:

agree with the prospect of moving the page back to the WikiProject namespace, as it is about a very general topic that may be relevant to many Wikipedians, only a fraction of which are involved with

2355:

when those marks are actually part of the title. Are they subject to standard rules for quotations, or do they need special handling because they are an artistic part of the title? Have your say at

1457: 3310: 2291:

Oh, I wasn't claiming any kind of national split on this. I said "American" to restrict my answer to U.S. English because I'm more familiar with U.S. English than with British English. If there

10129:

adapt technically to rapid changes in the internet (the extraordinary shift to mobile devices is creating something of an emergency for our platform, right now—if you take a look at the stats).

8526:, and so on and so forth) there may have been some sort of written policy on the subject, but I haven't found any. Any help pointing me in the right direction would be much appreciated. Thanks!-- 5634:

where the first reference supports the fact that H. C. Bush was in charge of the base camp, and the second source is a list of the expedition members, that gives his full name as Howard C. Bush.

9073: 8883: 8523: 6003: 5721:

Not necessarily. Say there is one grouped cite that uses references A, B, and C, and another grouped cite with B and D. There's no clean way to do this without repeating the citation of B. --

1912:

already knows that glosses go in single quotes. We don't necessarily need an entire section about this, just one sentence and an example, distinguished from general words-as-words usage, e.g.

1440:

SMC, neither of these styles is more traditional than the other, and neither is more or less accurate. It's a matter of personal preference and of correctness with respect to regional ties.

1205:" which seems to me an exception to the principle of sticking to the original editor's choice of British and American usage, and IIRC at least recommending (to article creators or in general) 1202: 8678:

Indeed, when references are used, they automatically come at the end of the article, and therefore, in a list, don't they? Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

4688:

use the other. And Thai articles use the first. China had no instruction when I last looked, so god knows. I objected on cultural and logistical grounds and was howled down by the old guard.

4148: 9265: 9255: 9173: 7270:, 2. It is a duplication of information, all of the information is included on the photo page itself. 3. It makes the captions unreadable long especially for mobile devices, in violation of 6790:

Note that the borders are no barrier to reuse, apart from presenting a bit of extra work. All images on Knowledge (with the exception of fair-use images) may be freely modified for any use.

4298: 4250:

In cases like that, the process would simply be to establish editorial consensus that it was a topic of sufficient connection to Britain to change the spellings. Doesn't need a new rule. --

984:

Some small duplications are useful, I think. Not everyone reads every section of the MOS! I don't have strong feelings on the ordering issue, but I would be against reverting the addition.

789:... I feel strongly that this isn't the right place to discuss whether an essay should be promoted to guideline or not. That discussion should occur on the talk page of the essay itself. 5802: 5284: 4681: 3297:

provided by MartinPaulEve gives a "Page Not Found" response. The phrase "commit suicide" is widely used in sources. I don't see any convincing reason why we should not follow the sources.

714:. The current namespace is the most logical one, with a possible argument for adding an "...(essay)" suffix. It's highly unlikely that any other page would want to use the same namespace. 5594:

I agree with Dodger67. Further we should assume that editors who put immediately following refs in a particular order did so for a reason and not reorder them, automatically or manually.

474: 9114: 7056:

So what you're saying is you'd like to resurrect one of the most passionate (to the writers) and boring (to the readers) debates in Knowledge history, but with a religious twist about a

9508:, a mass request of a large number of moves, consisting of the commingling of about 7 different (even contradictory) types of renaming proposal, many of which raise various MOS issues. 3765: 9286:

Sounds like more of us may need to keep an eye on this page here... As this is simply a clarification of what is already implicitly allowed all this extra effort is not really needed.

7994:

can be used for "suffixes" in compounds, then other workarounds can be used for "prefixes" in compounds. Why "prefixes" and "suffixes" are treated differently remains to be explained.

1502: 1434:

For curly vs straight, no there's no British/American split that I know of. For single vs. double, American English requires double in almost all cases, but British can go either way.

8675:"When ref tags are used, a footnote list must be added, and is usually placed in the Notes and References section near the end of the article in the standard appendices and footers." 4807: 582:. Interested editors are invited to review and improve the page as it was created by only a few editors and might not yet fully comply with the requirements of being part of the MOS. 9121:. If the proposals are seen as having merit, they need to be made outside of that talk page backwater, and in a venue people actually notice, and should probably be advertised via 6932:

Thanks for the replies, I will bring the issue up on Commons (perhaps they already have guidance on this somewhere, I'm a lot less familiar with Commons than I am with en-wiki). =) —

5609:

the inlines around so that instead of grouping all the references at the back end of the sentence, I can sprinkle them around the sentence such that there's no grouped references. --

4074:

click through. I could avoid copy & pasting, and then risk being accused of tailoring the message to influence different groups. You're right, everyone can't be totally happy.

3223:

passive, and would be rewritten by almost anyone upon contact with it; even if we (wrongly) decided to make it some kind of "WP standard" it would be the least enforced of all time.

1065:

attributed and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose changes within square brackets (for example,

359:

have no 'indentation' and is the most confusing and whatever is the proper way to do should be used for that. In the years before a table was used, so nothing needs to be changed.--

8499: 8358:

link could be added. It seems to be much better than what is in the MOS. (When looking for a guideline to post for a review, I didn't think the MOS was clear enough - and found the

7789:

I've been trying to do a bit of cleanup in the area of block quotations. I would appreciate it if someone would pick that up, since I won't be able to spend more time on it. I have

948: 10304:, has the term Knowledge three times, but only italicized at the first mention. I assume this is intentional, but can anyone explain why it's italicized on the first mention only? 3324:" However the Samaritans does not acknowledge the fact that the word "commit" has more than one meaning. Nor does the website describe any "research" as implied by MartinPaulEve. 2701:

naming debate, we cannot contradict our sources for political correct, social justice or psychological reasons. When the sources start using your language, you can start using it.

1771:

is consistent with LSA guidelines: italics for a word as a word, and single quotes for a gloss. Parentheses with double quotes is an atypical format in linguistics. More examples:

1252:

Note... the guidance in favor of using logical quotation is very contentious here on Knowledge. It has been the subject of endless debates. Some editors love it... some hate it.

8484: 7727:

Because that's how someone wrote that sentence in the article. I would actually keep the "stylized" wording, and use a hybrid sentence as I outlined. It's important to some to

4333:

Yes, best not to get tied in knots, as someone said above. Aside from articles related to majority anglophone countries, we should be a little relaxed about the choice, I think.

9420: 8802: 7611:

The insert (stylized as COVER LETTERING) is a formula which is used in a number of leads of entertainment product articles (albums, singles, video games, comics, anime, films):

3713: 1885:

Explaining what a word means, because of language or for any other reason, is a very common activity and there are plenty of ordinary ways to do it, as Anon174 has pointed out.

9477: 7050: 5388:

system, references are numbered in the order they are defined. Reused references keep the initial number when invoked. This is not a guideline or policy, it is technically how

4236:

that it were made completely clear that "specifically EU" means, for example, articles about the European Parliament, but not articles about France or a French chess player. --

9379:"However, this interpretation of the US constitution is in contradiction to important court rulings to the effect that parents may not martyr their children based on parental 978: 372: 8824: 3677: 3294: 2659: 9438: 7266:

that all of the photos have the source in the caption. This did not make sense to me for a number of reasons: 1. It is an indirect form of advertising that seems to violate

5462:

is an example of a MOS with numbered citations that uses numerical order. I am also unaware of examples of MOS that order numbered citations by perceived relevance or date.

3938:

If you can't compromise, I propose each side choose a representative for an all-or-nothing game of skill (recorded for posterity). Preferably one neither has played before.

3652: 1613: 8071: 7655:(3) why is the term used "stylized" rather than just "shown as on cover"? Wouldn't (shown as "channel ORANGE" on the CD cover) be a better reflection of what is happening? 6220:

national variations. This also solves the specific issue, as "last name" and "surname" are both valid, but neither is characteristic of any national variation of English.

268: 250: 5948: 4033:

comics don't appear in other media (a link would suffice there, too) and have other powers (enthralment, I guess). The name isn't italicized, either. It's about the guy.

2479:, including patent original research about "artistic intent". I've posted what I think is an clear explication of the grammatical and policy/guideline rationales (under 1719: 7902: 7293: 4968:

then I would be strongly opposed. Like Boson (but it seems more often) I come across well-intentioned editors mis-correcting spellings much of which could be avoided if

1674: 1571:

Therefore, what is the proper formatting for such a case? Is there a WP:MOS already for that? Actually, I couldn't even find any HELP for using the ({{CJKV}} templates.

447: 235: 9458: 9400: 9272:." It's not much of a questionable assumption to state that more editors who watch that page would have weighed in on the MOS:MED matter if they were interested in it. 7865: 6048:

In what way? I've been careful not to identify a position, only to specify why it's relevant to both MOS and AT, and that input has been too spotty to gauge consensus.

2742: 1947:

double quotes for words-as-words examples that aren't translation glosses; it's a linguistic convention for one specific thing, not a general words-as-words convention.

4207:

OK, but in the case of say, Kenya or Sierra Leone, where English is an official language and widely used by media from those countries? I mean like this sort of thing

2937:

kill him- or her- self. Among the secondary literature, particularly in news sources, there is discrepancy in the way in which suicide is reported, with some sources (

2679:

violation. I cannot see that this change would engender a similar problem given that the removal of "commit" actually makes the term more neutral and less pejorative.

2550:

This question is not related to a Knowledge article, but I thought I would ask here as being the best place to get a quick answer. When writing a list of names, with

1679:

The section on quotation marks would benefit from adding the standard use of single quotes for glosses in linguistic usage. The text of the section can be copied from

1130:

The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced. Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose changes within square brackets (for example,

490:"this is Clearer: The author thanked President Obama, Sinéad O'Connor, and her mother; or The author thanked President Mary McAleese, Sinéad O'Connor, and her mother." 8757:

at the location in the article where you wanted the references to actually show up (usually in a section at the end of the article entitled "Notes" or "References").

8130: 7974: 7584: 6353:

of English. I think Pburka's fix does help there, but is that enough to prevent misuses of the rule like the one raised in the move request that prompted my concern?

513:

If the author doesn't want people to mistakenly assume she's thanking Sinead's mom, she should mention her mom first. Not sure what serial commas have to do with it.

7547: 7033: 7006: 2721: 1151:

to show that the error was not made by Knowledge. However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct

1086:

to show that the error was not made by Knowledge. However, trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct

10355: 7687: 7202: 7078: 5997:

issues. While the song in question is at this moment only treated inside the article on the album on which it was released (and thus in a formal sense involves no

5808:

They're not talking about skipping numbers as in "Statement of fact", they're talking about those numbers themselves being out of order, as in "Statement of fact".

10402: 10172: 10098: 10084: 10070: 10052: 10022: 10007: 9979: 9963: 9938: 9892: 7228: 7156: 7093: 4328: 3119: 3014: 2399: 2031:

Actually, SmC, the glossing system does contradict standard U.S. English rules, which say to use double quotes for things like this. This is a specialist system.

1992: 1664: 1639: 798: 591: 8310: 7774: 7600: 7245: 6181:

I think it's unnecessary to expand the current guidance. The objection at Talk:Mikhaylovsky is a misunderstanding, and the page looks pretty certain to be moved.

5290:

Note that the relevant guideline is "Punctuation and footnotes". It does not cover in-text reference order, and there is no way to guarantee that order using the

5099: 4996: 4981: 4313: 4101: 4085: 4040: 3964: 3322:

Avoid labelling a death as someone having 'committed suicide'. The word 'commit' in the context of suicide is factually incorrect because it is no longer illegal.

3244: 2801: 2345: 2307: 1627: 1022: 1008: 941: 775: 761: 10383: 10328: 8940: 7886: 7633:(shown as "channel ORANGE" on the CD cover) is the debut studio album of American recording artist Frank Ocean, released on July 10, 2012, by Def Jam Recordings. 7025: 6986: 5922: 3598: 2764: 2476: 9563: 8971: 8957: 8710: 8601:

How is TSC relevant? Apostrophes are not mentioned, as they are not special characters. (Other than curly typographic apostrophes which aren't the issue here.)

8463: 8422: 8385: 8345: 8214: 7177: 7129: 5234: 5084: 4447: 4202: 3193: 3177: 2994: 2470: 747: 10230: 8242: 8233:

Generally concur with SmC. This is a problem, and clarification is needed, because in the current world political context "Arab" is often a hot-button term. ~

8228: 8040: 8006: 7822: 7141: 6926: 6069: 6043: 5775: 5603: 5360: 4779: 4489: 3879: 3624: 3583: 3282: 3153: 3140: 2626: 2589: 2522: 2391: 2369: 1449: 1274: 459: 8931:

Elderly farm workers in Somerset also say "folks wuz slower in the ol' days". Mistakes in grammar made in Somerset are not considered a different language.

6832: 6608: 6591: 5899:

of writing an encyclopedia overshadow the fundamental reasons for building said infrastructure. If it doesn't advance the goals of Knowledge, leave it out.

5819: 5755: 5557: 5538: 5070: 4972:

articles were marked with the ENGVAR they use. The best approach in my view is to use the "page notice" – then any editor immediately sees the ENGVAR notice.

4793: 4737: 4654: 4628: 4613: 4523: 4463: 4245: 4166: 4157:

is really no such thing as "German English"; a lot of Germans speak English, but very few speak it as a first language, so it does not develop organically. --

3267: 2848: 2832: 2630: 2612: 2026: 1850: 1831: 1808: 1758: 567: 10120: 9755: 9644: 9625: 9050: 8926: 8515: 7315: 6875: 6852: 5853: 5402: 4756: 4723: 4219: 4188: 2508: 2430: 2258: 2171:, so from this example it's not possible to claim that the first is un-American punctuation. Dictionaries have their own internal style anyhow; for example, 1879: 1865: 520: 211: 10224: 10206: 9581: 9529: 9281: 9220: 9189: 8786: 7715:) just to conform to usually fannish insistence on what the name of something "really is" <insert eye-rolling and hollow-fisted stroking motion here: --> 6638: 6577: 5908: 5716: 5621: 5375: 5197: 4544: 4368: 3040: 1997:

I should also point out that it's not just LSA with the single quotes for glosses (although it is a major authority). The same style is used by the British

1535:

Does anybody know if there is a guideline for formatting sentences with multilingual terms? Let me take a quite confusing example. So, there is a sentence:

1293: 1247: 1184: 993: 834: 820: 723: 10368: 9607: 8999: 8766: 8656: 8610: 8188:. The paragraph needs to be expanded with more problematic entries (start with "Jew", which has at least 3 distinguishable meanings), not eliminated. The 6560: 6541: 6402: 6368: 6339: 5304: 4422: 4259: 1972: 1527: 861: 539: 10414: 8982:

To me, the basic question is this... is it likely that people reading the quote will think Knowledge made an "error" and try correct it. If so, then the

8636: 8596: 8173: 6817: 6799: 6769:

be quite large when viewed on a mobile device or a low resolution device. They also prove problematic for printed forms as well (wasting ink/toner, etc).

5887:

sorting references within a text into numerical order, whether manually or by computer. It would be better to order multiple references so that the most

5447: 5160: 4883: 4395: 4388:

If I may plant a flag anyway, I always favour the use of Canadian English to solve the US vs. UK debate as our variant tends to be a mixture of both. ;)

4383: 4346: 4274: 3560: 3545: 3353: 3099: 3079: 2102: 2054: 2040: 1894: 9239: 8899: 8552: 7377: 6523: 6270: 6243: 6190: 5733: 5325: 3862: 3846: 3832: 3809: 3317: 3250:

OK, sorry to be a broken record here, but I would really like people to stop saying "passive" here. It's not passive, at least not grammatically. It's

2783: 1429: 1319: 698: 636: 10261: 10242: 8291:

I assume that there's a community of folks that are responsible for the updates to the MOS - but if can/should made the edit myself, that's fine, too.--

6897: 6669: 6493: 6473: 6309: 5589: 5490: 5471: 5339: 4942: 4908: 3532:"saviour", but the American author wrote it down as "savior". My understanding of the guideline is that we should leave the quote as it was originally 3064: 10313: 9796: 9307: 9069: 8879: 8864: 8578: 7505: 7488: 7479: 7458: 7443: 7425: 7415: 7257: 6648: 5661: 5643: 5424: 4701: 3523: 3506: 3492: 3469: 2892: 1358: 687: 615: 573: 8285: 7397: 6582:"Can't" is a perfectly acceptable contraction (although it's also perfectly acceptable for Knowledge not to use contractions). Do you mean "ain't"? 6229: 5531:

numbers in order. I think it's a very bad idea to reorder references to make the numbers in order, since they will not generally be consecutive. —

3528:

OK... I gather that the situation is this: an American publication has conducted an oral interview with a Brit. Now, the Brit, in speaking, may have

3418: 2079:

Of course. Most of them don't call it "glossing." It's usually referred to as "words-as-words." Here's what I found in five minutes: Purdue example:

1216:

Perhaps what i recall has been enhanced with what may be a newer insight (but do i recall where it was enunciated??), and if not perhaps it should be.

7493:

But IAR still has to work by consensus, and judging by the discussion, you don't have that. IAR is not evoked on the whim of one person's opinion. --

6933: 6806: 6773: 4094:

into brevity sometimes (though in Talk I use parentheticals and sometimes speak in riddles). Maybe you're right on that part. Thanks for explaining.

3436: 3400: 2196: 2133: 1521: 665: 9812: 9355:..." Discussion (first paragraph), in Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. 8533: 5142: 4846: 3455: 1485:). Not only is the contradiction itself troubling, the fact that the contradiction was made in a subsidiary manual of style rather than in the main 7946: 7328: 5930: 2356: 867: 579: 7620:(stylized as channel ORANGE) is the debut studio album of American recording artist Frank Ocean, released on July 10, 2012, by Def Jam Recordings. 4359:

I don't think the shift is far enough along to amend ENGVAR... but in say 20 or so years we should probably take a good look at our assumptions.

1837:

would be clearest because (in addition to being standard) double quotes are already used for so many other purposes: quoted speech, scare quotes,

309: 5544:

automagically generated by the software. The effort required to perform this "fix" would be a waste of editorial resources - frankly we have far

2593: 289:, is also broken, and is also not acceptable. Again, please supply a link to a real example, so that we can show how list markup should be used. 3337: 2651:, I had changed the wording "commit suicide" to "died by suicide" which was reverted on the grounds of following normative writing conventions. 1466: 9736: 9534: 4304:

No, it only applies where English is used as a local rather than a foreign language in some context, whether on the street, in education etc.

3377: 5982: 10433:

I've requested opinions regarding the appropriate usage of categories when the verifiable information appears at a "sub-article". Discussion

9598:

majority. And there are definitely a lot of editors who disagree with it. I don't think we can say it reflects a true community consensus.

9369:

thought..." Article, first paragraph, in van der Kolk BA. The compulsion to repeat the trauma: re-enactment, revictimization, and masochism.

9065: 9004:

It's actually quite likely that someone will mistake that for a typo and "fix" it, but the debate here is presenting a false dichotomy. Use

8875: 7731:, i.e. to emphasize that trademark and other stylistic shenanigans are in fact only stylistic (with rare exceptions, e.g. iPod, Deadmau5 and 7207:

Peter coxhead had this one right. In this case it looks to be en dash, because the doctrine is about the relationship between two entities.

6761: 4889: 3871:

to the Manual of Style page. The thread that you have started has nothing to do with improving the MoS. This should be closed and collapsed.

10446: 10132:

So, as you might imagine, there's something of a disconnect between tech developers and the stylistic rules and guidance in the MOS (indeed

9169: 6750: 6102:. Notably, Knowledge has literally thousands of articles on surnames from all cultures at titles using "(surname)" as a disambiguator (e.g. 2093:

In my brief web search, I did notice a preference for italics over punctuation. I'll have access to my paper style guides when I get home.

428: 8691: 8154: 9656: 6713: 6699: 462:

regarding an apparent discrepancy between the documentation for that template and current MOS guidelines on formatting block quotations.

10434: 10039:. Having said that, I think an example like that is not need in the section, because it's a distraction. Better to just tell people that 8697: 8627:

makes it clear that possessives aren't specifically discouraged in policy. It seems to depend more on the nuance of the individual title.

8219:

Concur with SmC. This is a real problem. If other ethnic groups also have real problems, then they should also be listed or linked to.

7790: 6426: 2327: 1470: 9454: 9449:

rule is simple, regular and elegant. Considering the immmense population that reads us, it's likely that other editors will imitate us.

9396: 8782: 7810: 7678:

as the name of the work, which "shown on the cover" might imply, then it would be argued by some editors that it should not be altered.

6944: 6784: 6002:

between two or three participants, and even after RfCization, it's still mostly the same parties, and so needs broader input. See also

3756:. This has long been a contentious issue—the page has been moved back and forth several times, and has had several discussions at both 3745: 6760:

Is there a MOS section that deals with how images may be formatted (specifically, may images have hardcoded borders)? For example, see

6459: 1477:

section of "Citing sources" to choose any citation style for an article (including but not limited to external citation styles such as

1437:

So the doubles-only rule does not require anyone to punctuate any variety of English incorrectly; it just walls off one correct option.

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 9855: 9547:

gives further explanation and guidance about how we handle subject's gender on Knowledge. Would it be appropriate therefore to add a "

9259:

way," and to enforce that standard; they've done that for years...with the help of editors outside of WP:Med; MOS:MED is not simply a

7953:

quite often leads to sentences that are very difficult to understand on first reading, especially for non-native speakers of English.

6314:

Hopefully, the DrKiernan/Pburka change just made, above, to clarify will resolve this problem. I don't see any cause for a change as

3365:

would be the right spelling to use for this quoted word? Should we change the dialect from the quote or leave the quote untouched? --

7071:

is God. But you should use whichever thing you're supposed to use, according to the result of the last war. That's why they're held.

859:

and the like is currently fairly inconsistent IMO, and I don't understand from the MOS page which way the articles should be edited.

502: 7038:

I have a specific question about the en dash vs. hyphen issue for anyone particularly fluent in the difference: In the article name

1227: 9483: 9158: 9117:

that conflict with the main MOS in multiple ways, yet virtually no one knows the discussion exists but participants in wikiproject

6417:

Change "can not" to "cannot"? Change "cannot" to "can not"? Leave as first written? Barring any ambiguity of course. Thanks! -

5213: 5182: 1817:

practice, not LSA. “Words as words” doesn’t mention single quotes, but it’s my understanding that the typical practice for glosses

1396: 9468:

is closer to what you want ("...parenthetical references are placed before adjacent punctuation such as commas and full stops").

6565:

My schoolteacher said that there's no such word as "can't". Mind you, that was 40 years ago, it's probably been invented since. --

9387:" Committee on Bioethics. Religious exemptions from child abuse statutes. chapter "Ethical and Legal Issues", last paragraph, in 7641:(1) what is the purpose/benefit of stating what casing is used on the cover of the CD/game/DVD/anime/manga in the lead like this. 7555:, you seem to be making an argument based on your personal appraisal of the sources you want to credit in the article, i.e. that 6949: 4893: 2856:

If we're going to be prescriptive about it, "committed suicide" and "died by suicide" are both sterilized soft descriptions. The

2333: 7907:

I'm with Peter coxhead on this. There's no reason to use an en dash as a "giant hyphen" just because something's capitalized.

7389: 7278: 5784:

Something to remember... when a citation is used multiple times through out an article, we recommend using the <refname=: -->

1539:

Shinnyo-en followers must accept sesshin and undertake three forms of activity (the “Three Activities,” mittsu no ayumi 三つの歩み):

9774:. I have come across a couple instances of hyphenating the word Asian American. May I point towards CMOS answer to this issue: 9225:

Are all assumptions by default wrong? One would surmise that those who actually do care about MEDMOS are going to watch it. --

7728: 7348:

You're going to call it advertising? Are you joking? Please tell me that you are. They're nearly all GLAMs or academic sources.

6653:

It's my understanding that it is always "cannot" and never "can not" as two words. But you don't have to take my word for it:

9450: 9392: 8778: 5707:

to references — then it is clear that only a single note is necessary at any point in the text. And the question goes away. ~

5188:

that put articles into different categories? I've only ever used the second kind and was actually quite unaware of the first.

1234:

Punctuation is not regarded as part of ENGVAR here. For example, logical quotation must be used even in American English (see

9465: 8475: 6837: 5205: 5172: 3761: 10340: 10058: 8909:

Is AAVE a formal, official dialect of English (like British English or American English) or just a variation of slang (like

8868: 7830:

recommends an en dash in this case, per Chicago Manual of Style. WP:MoS should at least allow, if not require, the en dash.

7162: 6091: 4762: 9347:"At the neck of the penis, it is folded upon itself to form the prepuce or foreskin, which covers the glans for a variable 8519: 7351:

Duplication is not necessarily a bad thing, and in this case, I'm purposely doing it. See this list's subsequent paragraph.

5744:

and never have to worry about someone coming around and reordering your citations (and have a nicer-looking page to boot).

4439: 2945:) adhering to the practices laid out in medical/suicide prevention guidelines and others not. In the current guidelines on 2584:

Please don't start a debate... if different style guides say different things, just tell me which ones say what. Thanks.

2422: 2383: 2337: 2250: 2201:

The problem with using italics for glosses is that we also use italics for foreign words, so it might end up looking like:

1984: 1823: 1750: 848: 4728:

Who mentioned a ghetto? No one. Uniformity is overvalued; ENGVAR isn't perfect but it's better than the alternatives. --

809:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disability-related_articles#Making this page into a guideline without community-wide input?

10202: 9505: 8986:

is helpful (informing the editor that the "error" is part of the quote, and thus intentional). If not likely, then the

8840: 2981:

suicide, but still, you could make the argument. Is that the argument you want to make? If you really want to make the

1870:

I think glosses would count as one of the special cases; comments on the issue by additional linguists would be welcome.

305: 9324:

Full points end sentences. It looks weird that references would come after them but, at first, this is mere aesthetics.

8160:

I agree that it is odd for the main Manual of Style page to so specifically regulate one word. Also, our own article on

8011:

Oh, I agree. I'm opposed to using en dashes as "giant hyphens" at start or end. It seems to me that, as often happens,

9952:"Avoid contractions as the default. If you change one, be thoughtful. Sometimes rewrite the sentence if it bothers you" 8913:)? If it is an official dialect then the sic marks are not neccessary. If it is just slang then sic marks should stay. 2927: 1934: 443: 368: 281:- that's idiocy of the highest order, and should be removed on sight. But your second example, which has item one with 264: 207: 8615:

After a little looking, I don't see a good way to choose one over the other beyond case-by-case editorial discretion.

4210:. The EU is a bit more complex, although there are EU style guides for English use, and hence a kind of "EU English". 3186:

from the gene pool" through foolishness. It's not relevant to the pure "suicide" question, just the Darwin side note.

954: 9520: 9319: 9268:; I'm certain that a significant number of editors who took part in that debate still have the WP:Lead page on their 9211: 9176:; I'm certain that a significant number of editors who took part in that debate still have the WP:Lead page on their 9149: 9041: 8410:" has sufficient prominence. (I could nominate very many things for increased prominence, but limits are necessary.) 8250: 8205: 8121: 8031: 7965: 7765: 7575: 7363:

weak argument. Article writers are given wide leeway, within wide parameters, to choose how to present their content.

7219: 6917: 6741: 6393: 6330: 6060: 6018: 5844: 5133: 4837: 4645: 4604: 4568: 4480: 3704: 3615: 3359: 3235: 2923: 2600: 2499: 1963: 1420: 1124: 1051: 1037:

As regards re-ordering but not reverting, that would make the duplication (and any conflicts) more obvious and yield:

932: 378:

This is how such indents should be done (by 'cascading' list markup), which also prevents the lists from restarting:

9828:

Alternatively, sometimes it may be preferable to rewrite a sentence so as to avoid the uncontracted form altogether.

8491:. However, I closed the request when I noticed that there are 13 other pages with the same issue on the same topic. 4888:

These templates can't have the wording revisited, because there isn't any. All they do is add the page to cats like

2513:

Yes, the double quotes are converted to single. The fact that they were placed by the artist does not change this.

598:

relation to this topic? Shouldn't it be an essay and subject to review before it's suddenly launched as part of the

9164:

Your assertion of "yet virtually no one knows the discussion exists" is false. A WP:Med editor clearly brought the

8543:

is titled that way instead of "Spanish music" is because it might be confused with "Music in the Spanish language".

6941: 6814: 6781: 4619:

Guam, of course, is part of the US, albeit not a state. Maybe the Philippines would be a corresponding example. --

3293:

I was not aware that anyone infers criminality by the use of the word "commit" in the phrase "commit suicide". The

2622: 2585: 2180: 1349:

conform it to the MOS. And when someone does... Don't waste time in arguments. Just move on and continue editing.

707: 7749: 4454:

I'd say go with first major contributor unless the country has an official tie to a specific variety of English.

3764:. The outcome will likely have repercussions throughout WikiProject Comics, especially in light of the result of 3001:

I've seen several of these discussions; they are usually not conclusive (oddly, they don't ever seem to happen at

1733:

Yeah, that wouldn’t work in the example you quote. Don’t we typically use quotes in parentheses for that, though?

958: 953:

The last edit to the project page added the words "Quotations must be verifiably attributed and " to the section

10229:

I know that dates formatted per user preferences have been discussed and rejected here at English WP in the past,

7263: 5523:

I don't see anything wrong with that. Most MoSs suggest that references be order in order of relevance, but the

5036:

and its siblings into an editnotice, because editnotices don't categorise the pages that they're associated with.

8164:

suggests that the line in the MOS may be oversimplifying the distinction between the various terms it mentions.

2160: 2091: 1403:

by plenty of American publications when they prefer accuracy over traditionalism, and even the heavily American

1301:

A sitewide approach is desirable in whatever ways we can manage it. Now you two should resist the temptation to

10273: 8255:

I was trying to find a clear guideline for hyphenated compound words with numbers - and found that the article

6660:

says that "cannot" is merely the "more common" spelling, though some of them refer to "can not" as non-modern.

6547:

proven which use is better at preventing the spread of scurvy and dysentery. It could probably be considered a

5442: 5114: 5013: 3094: 3084:

Hey it was mentioned above, so I just added my two cents, but feel free to continue the superiority charade. -

3059: 2532: 2045:

Can you provide a source for standard U.S. English rules requiring double quotes for glosses of foreign words?

1201:

the stylistic standards, let alone stay up to date on them. For the first time in my 11 years, i just noticed "

47: 17: 3409:

Using the original spelling when quoting a source is normal practice in all publications, not just Knowledge.

710:. There are already numerous "X-related articles" pages within the MOS, the full list of which can be seen at 7484:

And again, IAR tells us that "if a rule prevents your from improving or maintaining Knowledge , ignore it."

7303:

we do not give photographic/courtesy byline credit in captions but use the file description page for that. --

3792:

A MOS talk page is not he palace to address article tile problems. The title of an article is covered by the

3734: 2734:

are remotely relevant here. We're not talking about Wikipedians nor about restricting access to information.

2014: 842: 435: 360: 256: 199: 10319:

Arguably it should be bold as it's (sort of) part of the page title, but I don't think it should be italic.

8856: 8362:

when I did a Google search to find a good write-up with more examples/written words.) I'm just wondering if

3182:

No, I get that. The line I'm talking about is the one between saying someone died accidentally and "removed

2166: 1491:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Date format consistency between body and reference sections

752:

We have a special MOS page for Islam and Mormonism. In what way is disability less deserving than religion?

10428: 9650: 9299: 8495: 7114: 5576:

is a MOS that reuses reference numbers and requires numerical order. I do not know of any such MOS that do

5031: 4815: 3032: 914: 105: 7284:?, and in general, do we have/need a wikipedia wide policy for "courtesy of" style citations in captions? 6529: 3342: 1764: 1280:

else will come along and render it MOS-compliant. No Wikieditor is expected to be a master of all things.

9808: 8069: 7922:

it should be reworked anyway to be less clumsy to begin with ("her approach to arpeggios, reminiscent of

7843: 7806: 6984: 6315: 5944: 4535:; the just-around-the-corner-and-always-will-be issue of Puerto Rico statehood could shake things up). -- 3867:

While this is near the top of the page I will copy it here so you can read it "This is the talk page for

9172:, a talk page that currently has 360 watchers; I've seen many editors at that talk page, as recently as 7739:

as the name of the work", as Peter put it). However, it's usually wrong to imply that the title/name is

1030:

section, especially since the new point exactly addresses the topic named by the other heading and does

10379: 10309: 10094: 10066: 10018: 9975: 9934: 9888: 9761: 8619:

looks fine compared to "Jupiter's moons" and might be the term most people would search for first, but

8259:

does a great job of explaining compound words. Perhaps it could be a "See also" or wikilink within the

8019:

has imported their rule into Knowledge, without much discussion as to whether that makes sense or not.

7784: 6286:

says, any less sophisticated editor could point to this language to say that no change should be made.

3818: 3757: 1680: 1660: 1609: 1389: 887: 856: 658: 38: 9788: 8487:

and thought that the possessive in the title sounded strange, and made a proposal to move the page to

4438:

Now I’m curious, do you know why this is? My first thought is to blame American TV shows and movies. —

2231:

This is just my opinion, but I’d prefer quotes, whether single or double. And I note that our article

874:

quotation marks, and italics, with no rhyme or reason but sometimes very hot tempers about the matter.

10233:

preferences on en.WP via templates or JavaScript of whatever we would otherwise have to resort to. –

9587: 9550: 9544: 9536: 4927: 2663: 8839:

was being quoted and he was using (as far as I can tell, I'm not a native speaker) perfectly normal

5936: 3214:

of external organizations, no matter what their goals. Sometimes they are right, from an objective

2152:

Darkfrog24's first example (Purdue writing lab) is fair enough; however, linguists at Purdue (e.g.,

10013:

contraction creates an awkward construction, rewrite the sentence to avoid the uncontracted form"?

9303: 9260: 8507: 8457: 8379: 8304: 8279: 7289: 6412: 5019: 4962: 4917: 4443: 4309: 4198: 3797: 3036: 2717: 2426: 2387: 2341: 2254: 2159:

also lists LSA first under its resources. The Oxford example uses single-quote glosses in both its

1988: 1827: 1754: 1175:

In any case, I think it would be sensible for the text about attribution to be mentioned earlier.--

852: 771: 743: 8109:. We must just observe what different sources say about dashes, without editorializing ourselves. 7341:

This is ridiculous, and Jimp, thanks for denigrating my work as "rubbish". Greatly appreciate it.

5075:

I'd like to be clear that this is what SMcCandlish means and not just your and my interpretation.

10198: 8967: 8936: 8687: 8138: 7861: 7683: 7660: 7637:

This typically occurs in agreement with, or restatement of, the infobox .jpg so three questions:

7596: 7271: 7242: 7152: 7089: 7021: 6866:(Albert Gallatin). The rationale is understandable; perhaps another method is more appropriate. 5918: 5599: 5356: 5193: 5080: 4977: 3766:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Comics#RfC: Proposed rewording for instructions for disambiguation

3579: 3350: 2954: 2820: 2687: 1861: 1243: 1018: 989: 564: 301: 8855:

I thought seemed incorrect because I couldn't see any mistakes or unusual word choices and so

7929:

The phrase would not be hyphenated at all otherwise: "She is a Spanish guitar player", but this

6959:

article, which says that is the usual treatment in English, per the Chicago Manual of style. As

2090:

Also note the standard British punctuation under "Origin" in their OED's definition of "gloss":

825:(Tweaked the link so it points to the relevant section as mentioned, not just the talk page). -- 9804: 9235: 8238: 8057: 7831: 7712: 7138: 7075: 6972: 6971:

article to prevent other editors from trying to use en dashes in these cases within Knowledge?

6099: 5990: 5940: 5813: 5749: 5712: 5535: 5028:

display text. It's part of a different group, often used as editnotices. It's pointless to put

4098: 4079: 4037: 3958: 3942: 3856: 3826: 3780: 3279: 3190: 3150: 3116: 3010: 2480: 2153: 1192: 732:

Buddhist Smokers from Uzbekistan" before they deserve their own special protections in the MOS?

517: 9594:

essay. It may reflect the views of a majority of our community... but, if so, it is a fairly

7530:

of general interest. An occasional exception may be made when the originator of the image is

7110: 4504: 3678:

Knowledge talk:Article titles#Clarifying that common (vernacular) name doesn't mean COMMONNAME

10375: 10305: 10090: 10062: 10014: 9971: 9930: 9884: 9795:, as one reason why it (the hyphen) is dropped. In addition it appears that ASA, as cited by 9621: 9517: 9208: 9146: 9038: 8723:

What the sentence is saying is this... (until recently?) in order to make the coding format:

8667: 8202: 8151: 8118: 8028: 7962: 7762: 7572: 7369:

and ensure that they are out of copyright—although sadly, I wasn't been able to do so before

7216: 7039: 6914: 6755: 6738: 6587: 6390: 6327: 6057: 6015: 5841: 5130: 5095: 4992: 4870: 4834: 4777: 4721: 4642: 4601: 4565: 4477: 4324: 4215: 4144: 3749: 3720: 3701: 3612: 3232: 3046: 3045:

Both seem fine to me, but suicide is one of those cases where we shouldn't just throw around

2919: 2797: 2735: 2496: 1960: 1656: 1619: 1605: 1417: 1004: 929: 479: 8890:

shame-tagged with a "sic" unless there was a more honest chance of serious reader confusion.

6344:

It's not really instruction creep if we are clarifying an instruction to state when it does

4232:

rather than its member countries — I personally wouldn't raise too big a stink about that.

343:

to see how it was done before hand (They are minor differences between them that are mostly

10351: 10211:

Andy: interesting. Perhaps we can explore this suggestion more widely when the time comes.

9817: 9732: 9722: 9698: 9675: 9640: 8921: 8860: 8652: 8592: 8503: 8418: 8341: 8224: 8002: 7882: 7708: 7543: 7002: 6937: 6828: 6810: 6777: 6665: 6039: 5986: 5904: 5371: 4751: 4459: 4294: 3654: 3594: 3210:

a political correctness debate. WP (and MOS) are not bound by the language-reconstruction

3173: 2760: 2727: 2706: 2608: 2518: 2303: 2098: 2036: 1890: 1445: 1289: 816: 757: 719: 485: 410: 356: 352: 340: 336: 332: 328: 324: 320: 316: 186: 141: 8644:, I hurriedly interpreted "typographic apostrophes" incorrectly as "straight apostrophes". 2639:

Wording on articles about suicide in line with recommended best practice based on research

2475:

Yes, the inner quotes become single quotes. This is currently under heated discussion at

397:

Buffalo previously acquired this pick as the result of a trade on March 5, 2014 that sent

173:

Buffalo previously acquired this pick as the result of a trade on March 5, 2014 that sent

128:

Buffalo previously acquired this pick as the result of a trade on March 5, 2014 that sent

8: 10238: 9792: 9577: 9559: 9269: 9195: 9177: 8953: 8511: 7899: 7559:

magically doesn't apply just because the sources (or as you said, just most of them) are

7285: 7277:

My question is two fold, in this specific case as addressed by this revert of my changes

7199: 7173: 7125: 7047: 6960: 6871: 6848: 6709: 6604: 6573: 6239: 6186: 6111: 5871: 5572: 5458: 5267: 5230: 5066: 4958:

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "and its siblings". If you did mean templates like

4904: 4789: 4733: 4624: 4540: 4519: 4418: 4305: 4241: 4194: 4162: 3876: 3263: 3136: 2990: 2857: 2844: 2828: 2731: 2713: 2710: 2648: 2295:

a national split on this, it wouldn't be the first, but I don't specifically know of one.

1474: 961:. However, rather than simply reverting, I thought it might be better to first move the 892: 883: 767: 739: 711: 624: 7165:- you need to expand the "Are you sure you want the long explanation?" box to see it. -- 4508: 4494:

A curious thing is that English is not the official language of England - we don't have

3475: 2702: 10189: 9659:, with the edit summary "fixed comma splice". This is the passage before the revision. 9616:) of these editors people who still disagree with it even after reading it carefully?? 9603: 9473: 8995: 8963: 8932: 8874:

I couldn't see any official policy on this so I thought I'd ask everybody's opinion. --

8762: 8683: 8559: 8106: 7857: 7679: 7656: 7592: 7236: 7148: 7085: 7017: 6537: 6469: 6422: 6298: 6153: 6103: 6083: 5914: 5798: 5741: 5639: 5595: 5553: 5440: 5352: 5335: 5280: 5189: 5076: 5051: 5003: 4973: 4677: 4392: 4379: 4364: 4270: 4255: 4184: 4131:

I'm unsure whether this question has been raised here before, so forgive my ignorance.

3753: 3575: 3556: 3541: 3502: 3465: 3347: 3211: 3092: 3075: 3057: 2950: 2865: 2683: 2466: 2437: 1857: 1435: 1354: 1270: 1239: 1014: 985: 830: 794: 587: 558: 387: 292: 157: 119: 9800: 6126:), and other than the page under review, none using the disambiguator "(last name)". 5389: 3913:

outcomes to back-and-forth are back and forth. If either side wants to be happy, they

10442: 10411: 10393:" so it doesn't seem like "Knowledge" is necessarily part of our formal title for it. 10365: 10324: 9277: 9254:

SMcCandlish, I care not that you've "rolled your eyes." What I do care about is that

9185: 8606: 8574: 8494:

I assumed that, since we pretty much always avoid possessive apostrophe's in titles (

8445: 8440: 8399: 8367: 8326: 8292: 8267: 8102: 8089: 8015:

is recommending something stupid, and some who's a bigger fan than they should be of

7556: 7531: 7300: 7135: 7100: 7072: 7067:

for using whichever one -this- is, because that's the one I have on my keyboard. And

6657: 6138: 6134: 6119: 5809: 5745: 5532: 4500: 4406: 4095: 4075: 4070:

articles, I thought it was inappropriate simply to announce the one RfC sans context.

4034: 3954: 3939: 3852: 3822: 3776: 3772: 3689: 3685: 3276: 3187: 3147: 3113: 3006: 2900: 2883: 2544: 2362: 1580: 908: 632: 514: 499: 421: 232: 2771:

statement, its one of those things that will draw the attention of edit warriors. --

2697:

Knowledge is an encyclopedia that needs to follow its sources. As happened with the

9771: 9710: 9694: 9671: 9617: 9511: 9295: 9202: 9140: 9061: 9032: 8820: 8616: 8530: 8407: 8403: 8363: 8359: 8355: 8318: 8256: 8196: 8145: 8112: 8022: 7984: 7956: 7756: 7566: 7210: 6908: 6795: 6732: 6583: 6488: 6454: 6384: 6363: 6321: 6266: 6225: 6198: 6170: 6149: 6142: 6130: 6123: 6107: 6095: 6079: 6051: 6009: 5875: 5835: 5585: 5486: 5467: 5321: 5124: 5091: 5041: 5009: 4988: 4953: 4828: 4822: 4768: 4712: 4636: 4595: 4559: 4528:

The United States also has no official language, though some individual states do (

4471: 4320: 4211: 4176: 4140: 3695: 3606: 3478: 3414: 3396: 3226: 3028: 2911: 2793: 2490: 2192: 2156: 2088: 2050: 2022: 2010: 1954: 1875: 1846: 1804: 1715: 1498: 1462: 1411: 1141:). If there is a significant error in the original statement, use or the template 1076:). If there is a significant error in the original statement, use or the template 1000: 923: 6596:

IIRC it was in the context of "I can't do this, miss" in response to some task. --

5501:

reference numbers which require references numbers to be in order?. For example:

2172: 2085:

The English word nuance comes from a Middle French word meaning "shades of color."

10347: 10256: 10219: 10167: 9728: 9636: 9434: 9078: 8915: 8812: 8648: 8588: 8414: 8337: 8322: 8234: 8220: 8169: 7998: 7878: 7802: 7539: 7501: 7475: 7439: 7411: 7311: 7267: 6998: 6892: 6824: 6661: 6115: 6035: 5900: 5729: 5708: 5657: 5617: 5420: 5367: 5263: 5253:

mandate that when more than one reference is used, the numbers must be in order?

5156: 4938: 4879: 4745: 4696: 4455: 4341: 4290: 3590: 3519: 3488: 3460:

I think I agree but, for the sake of being sure, what's the wording in question?

3450: 3432: 3373: 3169: 2779: 2756: 2698: 2644: 2604: 2514: 2405:

Moved from lower in page and made a subtopic here, since it's a duplicate thread.

2299: 2128: 2094: 2032: 1886: 1516: 1441: 1314: 1285: 1223: 1180: 974: 898: 812: 753: 715: 683: 610: 534: 406: 182: 137: 8088:

and other major style guides recommend, but need not ever mention MOS (we avoid

7991: 5983:

Talk:Artpop#RfC: Should a song title be listed with non-standard capitalization?

255:

There was only one entering and I didn't know it was going to restart my way.--

46:

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

10394: 10234: 10076: 10044: 9999: 9955: 9847: 9767: 9747: 9570: 9555: 9414: 9231: 9165: 9115:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#References in the lead

8946: 8891: 8794: 8704: 8628: 8620: 8544: 8540: 8330: 8181: 8098: 7942: 7923: 7915: 7871: 7629: 7616: 7560: 7325: 7166: 7118: 6867: 6841: 6705: 6691: 6645: 6630: 6597: 6566: 6552: 6548: 6515: 6235: 6182: 5896: 5827: 5769: 5762: 5396: 5385: 5298: 5291: 5223: 5059: 5047: 4897: 4785: 4729: 4620: 4586: 4582: 4536: 4512: 4411: 4237: 4158: 3872: 3259: 3215: 3160: 3129: 2986: 2840: 2824: 2676: 2655: 2554:(as in "Blow, Joseph T.")... do you put a comma before Jr., Sr., III, IV, etc. 2352: 1647: 1631: 1383: 957:. In my opinion, this duplicates (or, if not, should be added to) the section 912:

the comic book and graphic novel series extending the story after the film, or

652: 470: 402: 383: 244: 178: 153: 133: 115: 9705:

Both versions are grammatically correct, and the first version did not have a

4208: 2658:

that recommend against using this wording. These recommendations are based on

2002: 148:

I instinctively corrected it as I'm used to seeing lists formatted like this:

9690: 9667: 9599: 9469: 9130: 9126: 9122: 9118: 8991: 8910: 8758: 8624: 8584: 8185: 8051:

No consensus seems imminent, so can we come up with a sensible change to the

7745: 7607:

Are "(stylized as...)" inserts in article leads in line with MOS:TM MOS:CAPS?

7552: 7485: 7454: 7450: 7422: 7393: 7381: 7370: 6964: 6533: 6465: 6418: 6287: 5994: 5955: 5874:

that detracts from rather than adds useful content. It is akin to building a

5794: 5635: 5549: 5434: 5331: 5276: 5055: 4673: 4433: 4389: 4375: 4360: 4266: 4251: 4180: 3842: 3805: 3552: 3537: 3498: 3461: 3335: 3308: 3125: 3086: 3071: 3051: 3002: 2875: 2861: 2816: 2462: 1630:. They also have advice for other scenarios in the other parts of that page. 1486: 1350: 1266: 826: 804: 790: 583: 7816:

Allow en dash in a compound modifier where the first element contains spaces

6160:

Would there be any objection to the addition of this clarification? Cheers!

3851:

How is it inappropriate to advertise it here? What are you accusing me of?

1592:

Ps. I have no idea what is the corresponding {{CJKV}} language template for

811:. I'm going to remove the RFC tag from this section and add it to that one. 10438: 10408: 10362: 10336: 10320: 10299: 9706: 9273: 9181: 9020: 9007: 8848: 8811:" allows us to put the list exactly where it belongs. This is explained at 8641: 8602: 8570: 7821:

2010 and wound down in February 2011. The last significant skirmish was in

7106: 5998: 5959: 3793: 3251: 2946: 2896: 2879: 2812: 2672: 2375: 1145: 1080: 920:

Major works in italics, minor in quotation marks, no markup for franchise.

628: 496: 460:

Template talk:Centered pull quote#Outdated MOS guidelines in documentation?

398: 220: 174: 129: 8851:

in 1994 that, "White folks was in caves while we was building empires ".

8831:

Quoting different dialects of English to the one the article is written in

7343:

Do we still wonder why article writers get discouraged and leave the site?

9714: 9426: 9407: 9287: 8836: 8816: 8809:

Yes, even if you neglect to add ""{{Reflist}}" (or "<references /: -->

8527: 7451:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Knowledge, ignore it

7042:, should it be an en dash (as it is now) or a hyphen (as it used to be)? 6791: 6479: 6445: 6354: 6283: 6262: 6221: 6161: 5581: 5482: 5463: 5317: 5250: 3410: 3392: 3164: 3020: 2188: 2155:) are using standard single-quote glosses in linguistic contexts and the 2081:

Sic is from the Latin, and translates to "thus," "so," or "just as that."

2046: 2018: 1871: 1842: 1800: 1711: 1494: 1197:

I think my editing output would drop drastically if i endeavored to read

1062: 391: 161: 123: 9701:. These are the only punctuation marks used to end sentences in English. 9113:

the proposed changes, I have to note that changes are being proposed at

6654: 2819:. The distinction you're looking for is not active–passive, but rather 1137:, where the context identifying "him" is not included in the quotation: 1110:

Another alternative would be to merge the two sub-sections, for example:

1072:, where the context identifying "him" is not included in the quotation: 10249: 10212: 10160: 9718: 9430: 8165: 7794: 7494: 7468: 7432: 7404: 7304: 6885: 5861: 5722: 5650: 5610: 5413: 5149: 4934: 4875: 4689: 4334: 3914: 3512: 3481: 3443: 3425: 3366: 2772: 2175:

uses no punctuation at all on glosses ("... akin to Middle High German

2121: 1509: 1307: 1219: 1176: 970: 676: 603: 527: 9129:, especially since they would affect more than the topic areas within 8480:

Hey everyone, apologies if there's a better place for this question.

7591:

involved: the image is not in copyright or it wouldn't be in Commons.

6152:

does not apply where a page move brings a title into conformance with

3497:

I take it you mean "savior" and "saviour"? Nothing to do with French?

2374:

The more relevant question here, I think, is what ought to be done if

1589:; English: joyful giving, financial contribution to the organization)" 1543:, recruitment of new members (otasuke お救け), and service (gohōshi ご奉仕). 454:

Discrepancy with template documentation on formatting block quotations

9686: 9663: 9226: 8260: 6209:

An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one

5892: 3383: 1623: 1482: 1376: 645: 550:

The author thanked President Mary McAleese, Sinéad O'Connor, and her

548:

If this is truly confounding, the word "own" could be added, to read

466: 110:

I recently came across an editor who was formatting lists like this:

1541:

joyful giving (kangu 歓喜, financial contribution to the organization)

8659:

and 22:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC) and 22:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

8569:

might be better, but personally I don't see the need to change it.

7649: 6656:...but it seems this position is not universal. A list of sources 5245:

When more than one reference is used, must the numbers be in order?

4127:

ENGVAR and articles relating to Commonwealth and European countries

3838: 3814: 3801: 3681: 3325: 3298: 2942: 766:

Its not, and we shouldn't. What are the arguments for having them?

508:

I've fixed your link. Hope you don't mind. Just needed a capital S.

488:(sorry, I don't know how to do this properly yet) we are told that 10089:

Thanks for your help! I hope I wasn't too difficult to work with.

9105:, but more need to do so, perhaps. Without advocating a position 7823:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Archive 119#en dash in compounds...

5878:, and would be a complete waste of editors' time and mental focus. 4507:

to recognise both English and Welsh as official languages, as are

1856:

quotes except for a very few special cases (e.g. cultivar names).

851:

on media franchises? The use of italics in the titles and text of

240:

How are you keeping the list from restarting after each indent? --

9134: 9102: 9079: 7057: 4401: 2351:...the famous David Bowie song, needs you input on how to handle 1013:

Not sure about better, but this would be fine as an alternative.

969:

section, so that related content is closer together. Thoughts? --

10154:

this general issue would be helpful, even at this early stage.

8567:

Reaction of Spain to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

3566:

original written source jars, then quote it indirectly, ie. not

2421:, or would that be considered unacceptably changing the title? — 8489:

Spanish reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

8485:

Spain's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence

7934: 7704: 7645: 7198:

would apply to this situation. I appreciate the humor, though.

6880:

I heard a rumour that in the recent changes to font, etc, they

6528:

That's what I thought. For the record, this is in relation to

4761:

It's splintered beyond BritEng and AmEng, with there now being

4503:

for everyday life, although the National Assembly for Wales is

4025:

For what it's worth (you can copy-paste this if you'd like), I

2675:

about adding a helpline but that this was rejected for fear of

2484: 2332:

Any editors knowledgeable about punctuation, please comment at

1628:

Knowledge:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles#Japanese_terms

1235: 9897:

I really don't think that I'm going out on a limb to say that

9678:, the only punctuation marks used to end sentences in English. 7933:

ambiguous, and our standard fix for this situation is to use "

5860:

Let's get back to fundamentals. The reason to bother with any

5740:

If the order of cites is really that important, you could use

918:

the 2005 role-playing game set in the same fictional universe.

9012:

to wrap the variance from mainstream English in an invisible

7938: 7324:

Rid us of this rubbish, Wombat, per all your reasons stated.

7281: 6992:

Yes, either that or start a new proposal to change our MoS.

6006:(ongoing), which involves much of the same sort of question. 10057:

Okay, I guess I've come around to your thinking, but I made

8444:

non-native writer. But, it's entirely likely that it's me.--

6840:, probably the upload wizard (which I never use) as well. -- 6729:

is, when you mean "am able/willing to refrain from doing ".

5580:

require reused referenced numbers to be in numerical order.

3951:

Since this is verbatim from the Wikiproject Comics talk page

10182:

dates in templates in ISO format, and code the template to

9351:

The current tendency to eliminate the prepuce from anatomy

8161: 8094: 8081: 8052: 7827: 7536:

this mention must satisfy the usual criteria for notability

6968: 6956: 6772:

Thoughts? Or is this covered somewhere in MOS already? =) —

5545: 5366:

as sorting books on a shelf by the color of their spines.

3746:

Talk:Wolverine (character)#Page move back discussion, again

2654:

However, there are prominent guides for media writing from

1626:? It looks like they have a suggested order of terms here: 1575:

Up to this point, I was considering a formatting such as: "

10178:

Regarding the date issue, I've long argued that we should

10041:

Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is preferable.

9824:

Sometimes rewriting the sentence as a whole is preferable.

7280:, is there precedent for "having constancy" and following 1284:

problem, though. The rule was laid down a long time ago.

9494: 9091: 8398:

The introduction to sub-section 3 already has a link to "

5971: 5270:

and smaller wing bones than flying birds of similar size.

3666: 2938: 2440:(and the section it links to), wikitext might look like: 2232: 1299:

and variety are not as simple as is being portrayed here.

949:

Ordering of sections on original wording and attribution.

627:

to be labeled a guideline. Demote it to an essay pronto.

9717:"punctuation marks", which (in the first version) is in 6464:

Works for me. Let me just write up a bot real quick. -

5954:

An RfC and an RM involving imaginary "conflict" between

5761:

Officially the in-text element is "footnote marker" per

5695:

tags used to create notes. Once it is understood that a

5165:

Sure, but what is the point of the duplication of, say,

5058:

also have the ability to create and edit editnotices. --

4090:

It was fairly concise. Better than some. I can be a bit

3817:: The discussion is not on any MOS talk page. It is at 3748:

concerning whether the page in question should be named

3124:

Suicide involves killing yourself, but killing yourself

1034:

address the topic of the sub-section where it was added.

9822:

Rationalobserver, the longstanding sentence is simple:

8354:

Yep, that was the general area where I wondered if the

8180:

Because it's necessary for reader clarity and to avoid

7380:. Given all this, I've been invoking a limited form of 6197:

I think there is a slight, unintended ambiguity in the

5690:. The numbered links being referred to derive from the 4175:

It's been raised dozens if not hundreds of times over.

1692:

publications, which might otherwise prefer them inside:

1458:

Subsidiary manual of style contradicts "Citing sources"

807:

makes an excellent point, especially the other comment

9554:" link after the paragraph in this page about gender? 8793:

already added it to any article you've ever worked on.

6004:

Talk:Ultra high definition television#Requested move 4

5412:

numbering of multiple citations in numerical order. --

2477:

Talk:"Heroes" (David Bowie song)#RFC: Quoting "Heroes"

9746:. That means it's all good at the moment, full stop. 9064:'s advice and used the hidden sic as a compromise. -- 8321:, sub-subsection 3, point 8, for compound words with 2417:, would we change the double quotes to singles as in 434:

Thanks for input. Looks like that's the way to go.--

9383:

and that children cannot be denied essential health

2985:

argument, then you have a higher burden, I think. --

9984:The MOS does not say there aren't situations where 8623:is more natural and concise than "Orbit of Earth". 7793:

and made it a subpage of this corner of the wiki. —

7274:4. It is inconsistent with the rest of Knowledge. 7190:No, I didn't want to open the underlying issue for 7161:I use the 'Edit page "Insert"' method described at 5765:. I gave up trying to change the term years ago. -- 5113:(Outdent) Yes, I'm talking about the templates in 4224:So if people wanted to specify British English for 1729:? Is the guidance there inappropriate for a gloss? 390:as the result of a trade on July 1, 2014 that sent 160:as the result of a trade on July 1, 2014 that sent 122:as the result of a trade on July 1, 2014 that sent 9506:Talk:Teeswater sheep#Requested move 25 August 2014 8402:", which has in its section "See also" a link to " 2413:which contains a word in quotation marks, such as 2357:Talk:"Heroes" (David Bowie song)#Quotes in article 1687:style sheet of the Linguistic Society of America: 1489:is also concerning. Please discuss this change at 279:      9334:Some persons go up to put footnotes after comas. 8741:work, you also needed to add the coding command: 8184:pushing and confused correlations that amount to 7534:as the creator of a particular iconic image, but 7034:En dash vs. hyphen: Specific application question 6884:decided to remove default borders around images. 6444:Let's split the baby and make them all "cain't". 6129:It is well understood that the entire purpose of 8847:Sharpton was quoted as saying to an audience at 7947:Category:Australian players of English billiards 5309:Is question about adjacent references? That is, 3740:This has nothing to do with the Manual of Style. 9770:. I would like to bring up something regarding 8945:If it were in Zomerzet, 'twould be "zlower". -- 7624:In this case what that is saying appears to be 6551:endeavour to be avoided on those grounds alone. 6349:word in the English language, even in the same 5218:is for use on the article's talk page or (with 3477:("savoir" vs "savoiur") the external source is 1683:, along with the accompanying example from the 6145:preference. It should be clearly stated that: 5629:Howard C. Bush was in charge of the base camp. 5202:They shouldn't both be used on the same page: 2444:Chris said "Shakespeare wrote Foo 'Bar{{' "}}. 1584: 10121:Wikimedia product development and en.WP style 10061:to the prose, which I think we can agree on. 9766:Greetings, from an active editor attached to 7735:– cases where the stylized name is "accepted 7194:again—I was just wondering how the guideline 7163:Knowledge:How to make dashes#Long explanation 6762:Large denominations of United States currency 6092:Talk:Mikhaylovsky (last name)‎#Requested move 4890:Category:Use British English from August 2014 3254:, if you like. I get your point; you didn't 2656:a well-known national suicide prevention body 2235:for example quotes the gloss in parentheses: 1923: 1914: 9327:However, two rationales must be considered: 8097:shouldn't be "pushing" anything at all, per 6141:merely because one editor or another has an 4765:represented in articles now being tagged. -- 1942:follows specialist conventions when they do 1813:Sorry for the confusion—I was talking about 1528:Formatting sentences with multilingual terms 1203:Reasons to prefer ... double quotation marks 10281:I noticed that the guide's first sentence, 10186:them in house- (or user-preferred-) style. 9466:WP:Citing_sources#Parenthetical_referencing 8682:Only if the {{Reflist}} code is added too. 8366:could be added as a wikilink. That's all.-- 7856:differentiating between endash and hyphen. 6728:, including whatever the <something: --> 5497:Are there any manuals of style which allow 4177:The "first major contributor" rule applies. 2643:As per a conversation that I just had with 2376:the quote marks are semantically meaningful 1933:Anwyay, single quotes for glosses is not a 1471:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers 1167:), unless the slip is textually important. 1102:), unless the slip is textually important. 877:I would suggest we deal with this in an RFC 10407:I'm happy to go along with your decision. 9709:. In both versions, the word "used" is a 9306:) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 7945:", depending on what is meant. See, e.g., 5977:Pointer to relevant discussions elsewhere. 5050:, and it's not just an admin-only action. 3039:) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 2298:Purdue Linguistics is a specialist guide. 1567:financial contribution to the organization 1209:British quotes for Commonwealth topics and 1125:avoid characterizing it in a biased manner 1052:avoid characterizing it in a biased manner 896:TV series, and is not to be confused with 697:with declaring the guideline an essay (as 574:Disability guide has been added to the MOS 9826:It is not an improvement to expand it to 9500:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. 9097:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. 8863:disagreed and we had a brief discussion ( 5913:I couldn't agree more with these points. 3019:I do not see either wording as an issue. 2860:is likely "killed himself on purpose." -- 1675:Suggested section "9.2.4. Linguistic use" 1655:! That's exactly what I was looking for! 9682:This is the passage after the revision. 3672:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere 3653:Organisms: common (vernacular) name vs. 2336:about our representation of that name. — 1921:. The format 174.141.182.82 proposes – 1565:(4) An English definition for the term: 1473:which contradicts the freedom stated at 890:" was the original pilot episode of the 849:Knowledge:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Neither 729:Oppose this becoming official in any way 198:used in wikipedia articles for lists.-- 10290:(often abbreviated within Knowledge as 9744:Both versions are grammatically correct 9025:rather than change a quotation to read 8698:Automatically generated reference lists 7912:a hyphen replacement even for prefixes. 7652:as they apply to the leads of articles? 7392:the lengthy captions with short cites. 7011:It's not helpful that the MOS condemns 5570:To answer Arthur Rubin's question, the 4894:Category:Use dmy dates from August 2014 4501:has Welsh as its only official language 847:Could I ask for some clarification re. 14: 6090:A discussion is currently underway at 5686:. You all are saying "reference", but 5222:) in an editnotice for the article. -- 5210:is for use on the article itself; and 5046:Page notices are more properly called 4672:I think we have answered the question 4029:. As the article's currently written, 3320:on the Samaritans website. It states " 2453:Chris said "Shakespeare wrote Foo 'Bar 2162:British & World English dictionary 1681:Quotation mark#Use–mention distinction 1260:care what style you used. However... 1256:of us don't care one way or the other. 394:to Buffalo in exchange for this pick. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 9988:...The original text you changed was 9876:John was not supportive of his pupils 8539:This sounds case-by-case. The reason 7851:The capital letters actually make it 6838:Knowledge:Preparing images for upload 6318:as the big insertion proposed above. 6098:as a reason not to move that page to 5678:The question reflects a confusion of 4913:Ah, so this is not meant to apply to 3796:and it naming conventions (see also 3762:Knowledge:Naming conventions (comics) 3511:Errr, yes. That's the distinction. -- 3343:One of the BBC's Editorial Guidelines 2217:is from the Latin, and translates to 164:to Buffalo in exchange for this pick. 126:to Buffalo in exchange for this pick. 9872:John wasn't supportive of his pupils 9866:it might be preferable to avoid the 9612:Are some (not necessarily many, but 8524:Spain's colonization of the Americas 8520:Spanish colonization of the Americas 6723:when you mean "am not able to", use 3719:Frequently disputed move request at 3536:, not as it night have been spoken. 386:'s second-round pick will go to the 156:'s second-round pick will go to the 118:'s second-round pick will go to the 25: 9880:John was unsupportive of his pupils 9842:based on avoidance of contractions. 9739:and 18:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC) 9266:the big four-paragraphs lead debate 9174:the big four-paragraphs lead debate 8672:I do not understand the following: 7870:There is "Spanish guitar–player" (" 5883:If anything, the MOS should advise 4410:where she made only one mistake. -- 3723:with potentially wide repercussions 2328:Nesting or omitting quotation marks 1768: 1726: 23: 7729:separate content from presentation 4228:topics — that is, about the union 3771:There are also concerns regarding 3572:X wrote that Jones was his saviour 2382:possible cases would be helpful. — 1839:gestures in American Sign Language 409:, Winnipeg's second-round pick in 185:, Winnipeg's second-round pick in 140:, Winnipeg's second-round pick in 24: 10457: 10075:That looks good to me. Nice work. 9986:uncontracted forms are preferable 8777:mysterious to me "Reflist code". 7403:on article pages than partial. -- 6627:say "au revoir" but not "goodbye" 6282:variation issue. Otherwise, like 6133:is to avoid changing titles like 2601:Knowledge:Reference desk/Language 276:The first example above includes 10374:to my removal of these italics? 9655:The Manual of Style was revised 9489: 9484:Mass RM of animal breed articles 9086: 8406:". I believe that the article " 7258:"courtesy of" in photo captions? 6253: 5966: 5024:is not in that category, and it 3728: 3661: 2858:guideline-supported construction 2807:Digression — strictly speaking, 2538: 2334:Talk:"Heroes" (David Bowie song) 1119:Attribution and original wording 29: 10437:. Thank you for your feedback! 8731:text of reference </ref: --> 7264:South_American_dreadnought_race 6950:En dashes in compound modifiers 6823:place(s) to notify uploaders? 6381:Time will surely tell us that. 6078:Can we make it more clear that 5214:British English Oxford spelling 5183:British English Oxford spelling 2179:to glow, shine ..."), nor does 1508:Re OC's edit: it's about time. 906:the novelization of that film, 10447:14:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 10415:12:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 10403:21:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 10384:20:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 10369:19:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 10356:19:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 10329:19:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 10314:18:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 10262:00:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC) 10243:23:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 10225:12:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 10207:12:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 10173:10:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 10099:21:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 10085:21:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 10071:21:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 10053:21:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 10031:would be better re-written as 10023:20:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 10008:20:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 9980:20:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 9964:20:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 9939:19:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 9893:19:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 9856:19:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 9813:18:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 9756:18:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC) 9737:18:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC) 9645:16:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC) 9626:16:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC) 9608:15:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC) 9582:15:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC) 9564:09:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC) 9530:16:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC) 9478:10:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC) 9451:Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau 9393:Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau 9308:11:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC) 9074:02:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC) 8825:16:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC) 8803:15:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC) 8787:15:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC) 8779:Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau 8500:List of New York's state parks 6613:That is better suited for the 5931:Crimes and the use of "allege" 5688:references do not have numbers 5115:Category:Use English templates 5016:, none of which display text. 5014:Category:Use English templates 4511:(including the law courts). -- 2436:Change the inner quotes. From 2400:Question about quotation marks 2157:Purdue Linguistics Association 1341:There is a difference between 785:I am going to ask everyone to 18:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style 13: 1: 10035:than to force people to read 9459:06:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC) 9439:19:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 9421:16:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 9401:09:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 9282:17:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 9240:12:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 9221:05:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 9190:23:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 9159:23:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 9051:22:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 9000:12:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 8972:00:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 8958:23:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC) 8941:23:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC) 8927:05:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC) 8900:01:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC) 8884:00:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC) 8767:19:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 8711:12:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 8692:11:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 8657:22:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC) 8637:21:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC) 8611:21:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC) 8597:21:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC) 8579:21:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC) 8553:21:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC) 8534:21:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC) 8476:Possessives in article titles 8464:02:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 8423:02:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 8386:01:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 8346:01:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 8311:00:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC) 8286:22:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 8243:22:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 8229:21:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 8215:23:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 8174:20:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC) 8155:02:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC) 8131:03:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 8072:01:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 8041:03:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 8007:00:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC) 7975:23:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 7903:22:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 7887:19:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 7866:19:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 7846:18:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 7811:11:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 7775:22:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 7719:So, yes. This usage evolved 7688:14:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 7665:23:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC) 7601:22:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC) 7453:." Pretty applicable here.). 7246:14:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC) 7026:14:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 7007:14:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 6987:14:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC) 6945:05:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC) 4633:Sure, that is a better case. 4577:00:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 3837:So why advertise it here? -- 3735:Knowledge talk:Article titles 3568:X wrote "Jones was my savior" 2378:. But of course guidance for 1978:A small correction: I wasn’t 1550:(1) The English translation: 458:Please see the discussion at 405:to Minnesota in exchange for 181:to Minnesota in exchange for 136:to Minnesota in exchange for 9791:, referring to the issue of 9689:(also called "full stops"), 9666:(also called "full stops"), 8496:List of New York state parks 7115:Knowledge:How to make dashes 7105:The one on your keyboard is 6094:where an editor is invoking 5206:Use British (Oxford) English 5173:Use British (Oxford) English 3733:Wrong venue. Please move to 1555:(2) Japanese romantization: 1212:American quotes for US ones. 7: 10302:for all Knowledge articles. 9657:at 18:20, 14 September 2014 9101:Few MOS regulars watchlist 8483:I stumbled across the page 7585:02:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC) 7548:15:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 7506:15:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 7489:15:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 7480:05:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 7459:04:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 7444:04:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 7426:04:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 7416:00:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 7398:00:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 7329:17:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC) 7316:17:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC) 7294:17:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC) 7229:02:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC) 7203:22:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 7178:23:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 7157:22:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 7142:21:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 7130:18:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 7094:08:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 7079:08:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 7051:02:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 6927:14:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 6898:01:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 6876:15:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 6853:14:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 6833:13:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 6818:05:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 6800:19:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC) 6785:15:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC) 6751:01:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC) 6714:13:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC) 6700:11:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC) 6670:00:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC) 6649:17:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC) 6639:17:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC) 6609:16:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC) 6592:16:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC) 6578:16:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC) 6561:20:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC) 6542:20:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC) 6524:20:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC) 6494:18:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC) 6474:18:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC) 6460:18:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC) 6427:16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC) 6403:01:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC) 6369:14:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 6340:14:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 6310:04:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 6271:12:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 6244:08:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 6230:21:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC) 6191:20:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC) 6176:15:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 6070:01:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC) 6044:01:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 6028:07:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 5949:05:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 5923:20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC) 5909:20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC) 5854:14:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 5820:21:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5803:21:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5776:21:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5756:20:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5734:20:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5717:20:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5662:20:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5644:19:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5622:19:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5604:19:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5590:19:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5558:18:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5539:16:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5491:14:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5472:14:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5448:14:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5425:13:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5403:13:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5376:13:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5361:08:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5340:19:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5326:05:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC) 5305:21:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC) 5285:21:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC) 5235:13:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC) 5198:09:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC) 5161:13:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 5143:10:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 5100:20:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 5085:19:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 5071:19:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4997:17:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4982:17:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4943:16:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4909:15:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4884:14:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4847:07:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4794:07:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4780:06:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4757:05:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4738:04:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4724:04:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4702:01:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4682:00:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4655:07:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4629:01:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4614:07:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 4545:23:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 4524:23:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 4490:22:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 4464:15:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC) 4448:12:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC) 4423:19:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 4396:16:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 4384:16:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 4369:15:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 4347:14:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 4329:13:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 4314:09:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 4299:06:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 4275:23:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 4260:23:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 4246:23:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 4220:22:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 4203:09:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 4189:22:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 4167:22:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 4149:21:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 4102:06:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 4086:05:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 4041:05:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 3965:05:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 3946:04:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 3880:04:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 3863:03:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 3847:03:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 3833:03:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 3810:03:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 3787:02:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 3714:10:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC) 3625:22:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 3599:21:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 3584:13:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 3561:13:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 3546:00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 3524:00:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 3507:00:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 3493:00:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 3470:00:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC) 3456:23:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 3437:23:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 3419:23:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 3401:23:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 3378:23:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 3354:20:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 3338:19:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC) 3311:19:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC) 3283:22:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC) 3268:19:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC) 3245:12:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC) 3194:21:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 3178:20:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 3154:19:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 3141:19:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 3120:16:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 3100:17:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 3080:16:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 3065:16:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 3041:16:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 3015:16:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 2995:07:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 2959:07:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 2932:05:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 2905:03:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 2888:03:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC) 2870:20:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 2849:20:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 2833:19:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 2802:19:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 2784:19:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 2765:19:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 2743:12:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC) 2722:19:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 2692:18:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 2631:16:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 2621:Thanks. I will ask there. 2613:16:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 2594:15:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC) 2523:13:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC) 2509:11:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC) 2471:06:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC) 2431:02:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC) 2392:01:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 2370:21:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC) 2346:19:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC) 2308:02:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC) 2259:22:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC) 2197:03:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC) 2134:02:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC) 2103:01:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC) 2055:16:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC) 2041:16:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC) 2027:13:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC) 1993:12:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC) 1973:12:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC) 1935:WP:Specialist style fallacy 1895:14:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 1880:08:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 1866:08:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 1851:04:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 1832:04:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 1809:03:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 1759:01:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 1720:20:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC) 1665:10:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 1646:Thanks a lot for the link, 1640:16:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC) 1522:02:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC) 1503:15:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC) 10: 10462: 9846:with your fellow editors. 9487: 9084: 8700:, but there are issues. -- 6478:Cain't do it fast enough. 5964: 5790:). no matter what you do. 4896:- they display nothing. -- 3819:Talk:Wolverine (character) 3758:Talk:Wolverine (character) 3726: 3659: 3603:I also concur with Peter. 2536: 2247:, "thus was it written") … 1614:20:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC) 1601:So, what do you think? =P 1450:21:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC) 1430:02:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC) 1185:18:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC) 1023:15:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC) 1009:13:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC) 994:13:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC) 979:10:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC) 942:02:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC) 884:Firefly/Serenity franchise 857:Transformers: Generation 1 835:20:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC) 821:00:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC) 9551:Knowledge:Gender identity 9545:Knowledge:Gender identity 9537:Knowledge:Gender identity 9320:Full points and footnotes 9060:Thanks everybody. I took 8439:Fine. Yes, I went to the 8251:Hyphenated compound words 8190:clumsiness of the wording 7724:for the work in question. 7644:(2) is this in line with 7262:I noticed in the article 6615:Idiomatic Manual of Style 5935:Can we get some folks to 5121:English" is very unwiki. 4533:oops, forgot about Hawaii 3744:There is a discussion at 3474:Specific example is here 3442:I understand it, anyway. 3360:May be stupid question... 2664:World Health Organisation 1585: 1397:15:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 1359:12:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 1320:09:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 1294:19:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC) 1275:16:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC) 1248:14:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC) 1228:06:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC) 868:13:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC) 799:22:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 776:22:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 762:21:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 748:19:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 724:18:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 702:"community-wide" part. I 688:15:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 666:15:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 637:09:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 616:09:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 592:05:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC) 568:23:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 540:23:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC) 521:20:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC) 503:19:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC) 475:04:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC) 448:20:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC) 429:20:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC) 373:19:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC) 310:22:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC) 269:20:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC) 251:22:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC) 236:20:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC) 212:21:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC) 10335:You can ask the editor ( 9713:adjective modifying the 9543:The collaborative essay 9170:to the WP:Lead talk page 8329:for compound words with 5649:previous statement). -- 4808:TfD and CfD pre-proposal 4400:I met several Canadians 3798:disambiguation guideline 2183:("... compare Icelandic 1139:"Ocyrhoe told his fate" 1074:"Ocyrhoe told his fate" 965:section in front of the 853:Transformers: Beast Wars 738:nature, discriminatory. 708:the relevant WikiProject 438:Everyone Dies In the End 363:Everyone Dies In the End 259:Everyone Dies In the End 202:Everyone Dies In the End 10343:at 19:27, 24 July 2014. 10033:It is the fault of Isis 9970:the painfully obvious. 9840:John was not supportive 9838:is somehow better than 9787:This is also discussed 9371:Psychiatr Clin North Am 9199:"hardly anyone cares". 8508:Germany's reunification 7909:Chicago Manual of Style 7060:this time? Fair enough. 6316:WP:Instruction creeping 6234:Yes, that makes sense. 5626:These are very common: 5012:means the templates in 5008:By "and its siblings", 4763:more that a dozen codes 3869:discussing improvements 1763:The LSA style sheet is 1479:Chicago Manual of Style 1405:Chicago Manual of Style 10059:this slight adjustment 9994: 9783: 8080:Our actual article at 7635: 7622: 7388:As a compromise, I've 7084:discussing it again!) 7058:longer, similar debate 6725:can <something: --> 6704:First search result: 6213:of English to another. 6158: 6100:Mikhaylovsky (surname) 5937:join this conversation 4530:always English, so far 2809:Robin Williams died... 2556:in other words is it: 2533:Non Knowledge question 2409:If we were to quote a 2013:), De Gruyter Mouton ( 2007:Lepizig Glossing Rules 1999:Journal of Linguistics 1924: 1915: 1547:So far, we have here: 1545: 1169: 1104: 9989: 9874:could be written as, 9836:John was unsupportive 9781:SquarePants lunchbox. 9778: 9194:<Rolling eyes: --> 8084:should document what 7626: 7613: 6147: 5895:fascination with the 5699:can contain multiple 4027:Support "(character)" 3898:Unproductive venting: 3750:Wolverine (character) 3721:Wolverine (character) 2168:US English dictionary 1537: 1116: 1043: 843:Italics re. toy lines 353:2009 NHL Entry Draft 42:of past discussions. 10429:Request for opinions 9905:is best rendered as 9830:This is overwriting. 9723:terminal punctuation 9721:to the noun phrase " 9699:terminal punctuation 9676:terminal punctuation 9651:Comma splice absence 9425:As Gadget says, see 9391:1988; 81(1):169-71. 9376:- ILLOGICAL EXAMPLE 9373:1989;12(2):389-411. 8861:User:Knight of Truth 8504:German reunification 8263:section of the MOS? 7941:" or "player of the 7791:moved my status page 7711:by over-focusing on 7196:as currently written 6436:But seriously, folks 3974:indiscriminate spam. 3775:for the discussion. 3126:isn't always suicide 2878:to this discussion. 2580:Blow, Joseph T., III 2577:Blow, Joseph T., Jr. 2574:Blow, Joseph T., Sr. 1747:("horse") are nouns. 1475:the "Citation style" 902:the follow-up film, 486:Wp:MOS#Serial commas 357:2008 NHL Entry Draft 341:2010 NHL Entry Draft 337:2011 NHL Entry Draft 333:2012 NHL Entry Draft 329:2013 NHL Entry Draft 325:2014 NHL_Entry Draft 321:2015_NHL Entry Draft 317:2016 NHL Entry Draft 106:Formatting for lists 10043:in plain language. 9793:Hyphenated American 9029:to conform to MOS. 8512:Judiciary of Russia 7345:Now, CombatWombat: 6961:User:Good Olfactory 6112:Jaramillo (surname) 5872:constrained writing 5573:AMA Manual of Style 5459:AMA Manual of Style 5032:Use British English 4816:Use British English 4509:other public bodies 3794:Article tile policy 2821:ergative–absolutive 2649:Talk:Robin Williams 2566:Blow, Joseph T. III 2563:Blow, Joseph T. Jr. 2560:Blow, Joseph T. Sr. 2011:passim, interlinear 1061:Quotations must be 712:Template:Style wide 331:and take a look at 10037:It is Isis's fault 9899:was not supportive 9803:on this subject.-- 9762:No Hyphen required 9588:WP:Gender identity 9344:- LOGICAL EXAMPLE 8516:Russia's judiciary 7785:Quotations cleanup 6104:Bukowski (surname) 6082:does not apply to 5546:bigger fish to fry 5527:system is that of 5518:Further analysis.. 4812:I'm thinking that 3754:Wolverine (comics) 2811:is phrased in the 2682:Thoughts welcome. 2450:which appears as: 2243:("thus"; in full: 2120:this environment. 1767:(see section 6e). 1707:'horse' are nouns. 1622:, did you look at 388:Montreal Canadiens 285:and item two with 158:Montreal Canadiens 120:Montreal Canadiens 10398:E L A Q U E A T E 10080:E L A Q U E A T E 10048:E L A Q U E A T E 10029:It's Isis's fault 10003:E L A Q U E A T E 9959:E L A Q U E A T E 9903:wasn't supportive 9851:E L A Q U E A T E 9805:RightCowLeftCoast 9751:E L A Q U E A T E 9695:exclamation marks 9672:exclamation marks 9447:BJU International 9362:- COMMON EXAMPLE 9359:1996;77:291-295. 9261:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 8895:E L A Q U E A T E 8798:E L A Q U E A T E 8632:E L A Q U E A T E 8563: 8548:E L A Q U E A T E 8441:Compound modifier 8400:Compound modifier 8186:original research 7344: 7040:Adam–God doctrine 7013:credit card–sized 6695:E L A Q U E A T E 6634:E L A Q U E A T E 6556:E L A Q U E A T E 6519:E L A Q U E A T E 6505: 6504: 6139:Center (geometry) 6135:Centre (geometry) 6120:Surtees (surname) 5941:Two kinds of pork 5788:Statement of fact 5703:— or preferably, 4776: 4720: 4616: 4592:observation. :-) 4407:Anna and the King 4382: 4258: 4187: 4123: 4122: 3285: 3270: 3078: 2868: 2835: 2786: 2703:WP:NOT#JOURNALISM 2245:sic erat scriptum 2237:The Latin adverb 1651:E L A Q U E A T E 1635:E L A Q U E A T E 1597: 1395: 664: 473: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 10453: 10400: 10399: 10376:Rationalobserver 10306:Rationalobserver 10303: 10259: 10254: 10222: 10217: 10205: 10196: 10192: 10170: 10165: 10091:Rationalobserver 10082: 10081: 10063:Rationalobserver 10050: 10049: 10038: 10015:Rationalobserver 10005: 10004: 9972:Rationalobserver 9961: 9960: 9931:Rationalobserver 9928: 9924: 9920: 9916: 9912: 9908: 9904: 9900: 9885:Rationalobserver 9881: 9877: 9873: 9853: 9852: 9797:Purdue Univesity 9753: 9752: 9711:past participial 9573: 9528: 9501: 9493: 9492: 9419: 9292: 9229: 9219: 9157: 9098: 9090: 9089: 9062:User:SMcCandlish 9049: 9028: 9024: 9011: 8949: 8925: 8924: 8897: 8896: 8800: 8799: 8709: 8634: 8633: 8617:Moons of Jupiter 8557: 8550: 8549: 8460: 8454: 8453: 8408:English compound 8404:English compound 8382: 8376: 8375: 8364:English compound 8360:English compound 8356:English compound 8323:cardinal numbers 8307: 8301: 8300: 8282: 8276: 8275: 8257:English compound 8213: 8148: 8129: 8067: 8062: 8039: 7973: 7841: 7836: 7798: 7773: 7583: 7498: 7472: 7436: 7408: 7378:on the main page 7342: 7308: 7272:WP:ACCESSIBILITY 7239: 7227: 7169: 7121: 7104: 7014: 6982: 6977: 6925: 6895: 6890: 6844: 6749: 6697: 6696: 6636: 6635: 6600: 6569: 6558: 6557: 6521: 6520: 6486: 6452: 6432: 6431: 6413:Cannot / can not 6401: 6361: 6338: 6307: 6304: 6296: 6295: 6261: 6257: 6256: 6168: 6124:Zhuang (surname) 6108:Ghatak (surname) 6068: 6026: 5978: 5970: 5969: 5876:ship in a bottle 5852: 5826:This is a total 5778: 5774: 5726: 5694: 5693:...</ref: --> 5654: 5614: 5550:Roger (Dodger67) 5437: 5417: 5401: 5315:...similar size. 5311:...similar size. 5303: 5264:Flightless birds 5226: 5221: 5220:|form=editnotice 5217: 5209: 5187: 5181: 5177: 5171: 5153: 5141: 5062: 5056:template editors 5052:Account creators 5045: 5035: 5023: 5007: 4967: 4961: 4957: 4932: 4928:American English 4926: 4922: 4916: 4900: 4845: 4819: 4775: 4772: 4766: 4755: 4754: 4719: 4716: 4710: 4699: 4694: 4653: 4612: 4590: 4578: 4576: 4515: 4488: 4437: 4414: 4378: 4374:declarations. -- 4344: 4339: 4254: 4183: 3894: 3893: 3741: 3732: 3731: 3712: 3673: 3665: 3664: 3623: 3516: 3485: 3453: 3448: 3429: 3370: 3334: 3330: 3307: 3303: 3273: 3249: 3243: 3132: 3089: 3074: 3054: 3025: 2916: 2864: 2806: 2776: 2769: 2726:I don't see how 2542: 2541: 2507: 2456: 2445: 2368: 2365: 2230: 2211: 2131: 2126: 1971: 1929: 1927: 1920: 1918: 1769:§ Words as words 1748: 1727:§ Words as words 1657:Jayaguru-Shishya 1653: 1652: 1637: 1636: 1620:Jayaguru-Shishya 1606:Jayaguru-Shishya 1591: 1588: 1587: 1519: 1514: 1463:User:Ohconfucius 1428: 1392: 1386: 1379: 1374: 1317: 1312: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1144: 1140: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1079: 1075: 1058:Original wording 967:Original wording 955:Original wording 940: 919: 864: 680: 661: 655: 648: 643: 613: 608: 584:Roger (Dodger67) 561: 537: 532: 463: 440: 427: 424: 365: 350: 346: 308: 299: 295: 288: 284: 280: 261: 249: 234: 230: 225: 204: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 10461: 10460: 10456: 10455: 10454: 10452: 10451: 10450: 10431: 10397: 10395: 10391:Manual of Style 10288:Manual of Style 10282: 10279: 10257: 10250: 10220: 10213: 10194: 10188: 10187: 10168: 10161: 10145:Thu Jul 31 2014 10125:Dear friends, 10123: 10079: 10077: 10047: 10045: 10036: 10002: 10000: 9958: 9956: 9926: 9922: 9918: 9914: 9910: 9906: 9902: 9898: 9879: 9875: 9871: 9850: 9848: 9820: 9764: 9750: 9748: 9653: 9586:Not so sure... 9571: 9541: 9526: 9509: 9502: 9499: 9497: 9490: 9486: 9411: 9322: 9288: 9227: 9217: 9200: 9155: 9138: 9099: 9096: 9094: 9087: 9083: 9047: 9030: 9026: 9018: 9005: 8990:is not needed. 8947: 8920: 8914: 8894: 8892: 8833: 8797: 8795: 8701: 8670: 8631: 8629: 8547: 8545: 8478: 8458: 8447: 8446: 8380: 8369: 8368: 8331:ordinal numbers 8305: 8294: 8293: 8280: 8269: 8268: 8253: 8235:J. Johnson (JJ) 8211: 8194: 8146: 8141: 8139:Arab exception? 8127: 8110: 8063: 8058: 8037: 8020: 7971: 7954: 7900:Good Ol’factory 7837: 7832: 7818: 7796: 7787: 7771: 7754: 7748:, which I just 7713:WP:OFFICIALNAME 7609: 7581: 7564: 7496: 7470: 7434: 7406: 7306: 7260: 7237: 7225: 7208: 7200:Good Ol’factory 7167: 7119: 7098: 7048:Good Ol’factory 7036: 7012: 6978: 6973: 6963:pointed out at 6952: 6923: 6906: 6893: 6886: 6842: 6758: 6747: 6730: 6694: 6692: 6633: 6631: 6623:never say never 6619:there is no try 6598: 6567: 6555: 6553: 6518: 6516: 6506: 6480: 6446: 6437: 6415: 6399: 6382: 6355: 6336: 6319: 6306: 6305: 6302: 6299: 6289: 6288: 6254: 6252: 6162: 6116:Smith (surname) 6088: 6066: 6049: 6024: 6007: 5991:WP:OFFICIALNAME 5985:, which raises 5979: 5976: 5974: 5967: 5963: 5933: 5850: 5833: 5766: 5760: 5724: 5709:J. Johnson (JJ) 5691: 5652: 5612: 5445: 5435: 5415: 5393: 5384:When using the 5295: 5266:have a reduced 5247: 5224: 5219: 5211: 5203: 5185: 5179: 5175: 5169: 5151: 5139: 5122: 5120: 5060: 5039: 5029: 5020:British English 5017: 5001: 4965: 4963:British English 4959: 4951: 4930: 4924: 4920: 4918:British English 4914: 4898: 4843: 4826: 4813: 4810: 4770: 4767: 4750: 4744: 4714: 4711: 4697: 4690: 4651: 4634: 4610: 4593: 4580: 4574: 4557: 4513: 4505:legally obliged 4486: 4469: 4431: 4412: 4342: 4335: 4226:specifically EU 4129: 4124: 3899: 3742: 3739: 3737: 3729: 3725: 3710: 3693: 3674: 3671: 3669: 3662: 3658: 3621: 3604: 3514: 3483: 3451: 3444: 3427: 3368: 3362: 3332: 3326: 3305: 3299: 3241: 3224: 3130: 3097: 3087: 3062: 3052: 3021: 2930: 2912: 2774: 2699:Chelsea Manning 2645:User:Coolcaesar 2641: 2552:last name first 2548: 2547: 2539: 2535: 2505: 2488: 2481:WP:OFFICIALNAME 2454: 2443: 2402: 2363: 2360: 2353:quotation marks 2330: 2213: 2202: 2173:Merriam-Webster 2129: 2122: 2087:(italics mine) 2003:item 12, page 7 1969: 1952: 1922: 1913: 1734: 1677: 1650: 1648: 1634: 1632: 1530: 1517: 1510: 1487:Manual of Style 1460: 1426: 1409: 1390: 1384: 1377: 1315: 1308: 1195: 1170: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1142: 1138: 1105: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1077: 1073: 951: 938: 921: 881: 862: 845: 678: 659: 653: 646: 611: 604: 576: 559: 535: 528: 484:In the section 482: 456: 436: 422: 419: 407:Torrey Mitchell 361: 348: 344: 297: 291: 290: 286: 282: 277: 257: 241: 226: 221: 219: 200: 183:Torrey Mitchell 138:Torrey Mitchell 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 10459: 10430: 10427: 10426: 10425: 10424: 10423: 10422: 10421: 10420: 10419: 10418: 10417: 10344: 10332: 10331: 10278: 10272: 10271: 10270: 10269: 10268: 10267: 10266: 10265: 10264: 10147: 10146: 10122: 10119: 10118: 10117: 10116: 10115: 10114: 10113: 10112: 10111: 10110: 10109: 10108: 10107: 10106: 10105: 10104: 10103: 10102: 10101: 9995: 9911:not supportive 9895: 9819: 9816: 9785: 9784: 9763: 9760: 9759: 9758: 9726: 9703: 9702: 9691:question marks 9680: 9679: 9668:question marks 9652: 9649: 9648: 9647: 9632: 9631: 9630: 9629: 9628: 9590:is a somewhat 9540: 9533: 9524: 9488: 9485: 9482: 9481: 9480: 9442: 9441: 9423: 9321: 9318: 9317: 9316: 9315: 9314: 9313: 9312: 9311: 9310: 9247: 9246: 9245: 9244: 9243: 9242: 9215: 9153: 9085: 9082: 9077: 9058: 9057: 9056: 9055: 9054: 9053: 9045: 9027:37 ft 8980: 8979: 8978: 8977: 8976: 8975: 8974: 8904: 8903: 8853: 8852: 8832: 8829: 8828: 8827: 8806: 8805: 8774: 8773: 8772: 8771: 8770: 8769: 8755: 8754: 8753: 8752: 8751: 8750: 8749: 8739: 8738: 8737: 8736: 8735: 8734: 8733: 8716: 8715: 8714: 8713: 8669: 8666: 8665: 8664: 8663: 8662: 8661: 8660: 8645: 8639: 8581: 8555: 8541:Music of Spain 8477: 8474: 8473: 8472: 8471: 8470: 8469: 8468: 8467: 8466: 8430: 8429: 8428: 8427: 8426: 8425: 8411: 8391: 8390: 8389: 8388: 8349: 8348: 8334: 8314: 8313: 8252: 8249: 8248: 8247: 8246: 8245: 8231: 8209: 8191: 8177: 8176: 8140: 8137: 8136: 8135: 8134: 8133: 8125: 8075: 8074: 8048: 8047: 8046: 8045: 8044: 8043: 8035: 7995: 7979: 7978: 7969: 7943:Spanish guitar 7932: 7924:Spanish guitar 7921: 7916:Spanish-guitar 7905: 7892: 7891: 7890: 7889: 7875: 7872:Spanish guitar 7854: 7817: 7814: 7786: 7783: 7782: 7781: 7780: 7779: 7778: 7777: 7769: 7742: 7738: 7725: 7722: 7717: 7693: 7692: 7691: 7690: 7677: 7668: 7667: 7653: 7642: 7630:Channel Orange 7617:Channel Orange 7608: 7605: 7604: 7603: 7579: 7527: 7526: 7525: 7524: 7523: 7522: 7521: 7520: 7519: 7518: 7517: 7516: 7515: 7514: 7513: 7512: 7511: 7510: 7509: 7508: 7386: 7366: 7365: 7364: 7356: 7352: 7349: 7334: 7333: 7332: 7331: 7319: 7318: 7286:CombatWombat42 7259: 7256: 7255: 7254: 7253: 7252: 7251: 7250: 7249: 7248: 7223: 7188: 7187: 7186: 7185: 7184: 7183: 7182: 7181: 7180: 7061: 7035: 7032: 7031: 7030: 7029: 7028: 6951: 6948: 6930: 6929: 6921: 6902: 6901: 6900: 6862: 6861: 6860: 6859: 6858: 6857: 6856: 6855: 6757: 6754: 6745: 6687: 6686: 6685: 6684: 6683: 6682: 6681: 6680: 6679: 6678: 6677: 6676: 6675: 6674: 6673: 6672: 6641: 6503: 6502: 6501: 6500: 6499: 6498: 6497: 6496: 6439: 6438: 6435: 6430: 6414: 6411: 6410: 6409: 6408: 6407: 6406: 6405: 6397: 6374: 6373: 6372: 6371: 6334: 6312: 6301: 6300: 6278: 6277: 6276: 6275: 6274: 6273: 6247: 6246: 6217: 6216: 6215: 6203: 6202: 6194: 6193: 6087: 6076: 6075: 6074: 6073: 6072: 6064: 6022: 5965: 5962: 5952: 5932: 5929: 5928: 5927: 5926: 5925: 5897:infrastructure 5880: 5879: 5857: 5856: 5848: 5823: 5822: 5791: 5782: 5781: 5780: 5779: 5738: 5737: 5736: 5675: 5674: 5673: 5672: 5671: 5670: 5669: 5668: 5667: 5666: 5665: 5664: 5632: 5631: 5630: 5592: 5563: 5562: 5561: 5560: 5541: 5521: 5520: 5519: 5516: 5513: 5510: 5507: 5494: 5493: 5477: 5476: 5475: 5474: 5451: 5450: 5443: 5428: 5427: 5408: 5407: 5406: 5405: 5379: 5378: 5363: 5347: 5346: 5345: 5344: 5343: 5342: 5274: 5273: 5272: 5271: 5246: 5243: 5242: 5241: 5240: 5239: 5238: 5237: 5168: 5137: 5118: 5111: 5110: 5109: 5108: 5107: 5106: 5105: 5104: 5103: 5102: 5037: 4971: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4945: 4871:WP:COMMONALITY 4853:a mixture of 4841: 4809: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4705: 4704: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4649: 4608: 4572: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4484: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4440:174.141.182.82 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4357: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4306:Wiki CRUK John 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4205: 4195:Wiki CRUK John 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4128: 4125: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4071: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 4003: 4002: 4001: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3901: 3900: 3897: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3727: 3724: 3717: 3708: 3680:. It invokes 3660: 3657: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3619: 3526: 3404: 3403: 3361: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3340: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3239: 3222: 3209: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3161:Robin Williams 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3095: 3060: 3047:WP:NOTCENSORED 2998: 2997: 2974: 2966: 2918: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2836: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2752: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2714:CombatWombat42 2640: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2616: 2615: 2582: 2581: 2578: 2575: 2568: 2567: 2564: 2561: 2555: 2537: 2534: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2503: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2423:174.141.182.82 2407: 2406: 2401: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2384:174.141.182.82 2338:174.141.182.82 2329: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2296: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2251:174.141.182.82 2199: 2137: 2136: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2015:item 6, page 5 1985:174.141.182.82 1967: 1945: 1941: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1824:174.141.182.82 1751:174.141.182.82 1709: 1708: 1693: 1676: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1590: 1564: 1559: 1554: 1529: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1459: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1438: 1424: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1281: 1257: 1230: 1217: 1214: 1213: 1210: 1194: 1193:British quotes 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1129: 1128: 1121: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1060: 1056: 1055: 1048: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1035: 1027: 1026: 1025: 950: 947: 946: 945: 936: 878: 844: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 768:CombatWombat42 740:CombatWombat42 734: 733: 726: 691: 690: 671: 670: 669: 668: 619: 618: 580:MOS:DISABILITY 575: 572: 571: 570: 545: 544: 543: 542: 510: 509: 481: 478: 455: 452: 451: 450: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413:and this pick. 403:Cody McCormick 384:Minnesota Wild 376: 375: 274: 273: 272: 271: 238: 195: 194: 193: 192: 191: 190: 189:and this pick. 179:Cody McCormick 166: 165: 154:Minnesota Wild 146: 145: 144:and this pick. 134:Cody McCormick 127: 116:Minnesota Wild 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 10458: 10449: 10448: 10444: 10440: 10436: 10416: 10413: 10410: 10406: 10405: 10404: 10401: 10392: 10387: 10386: 10385: 10381: 10377: 10372: 10371: 10370: 10367: 10364: 10359: 10358: 10357: 10353: 10349: 10345: 10342: 10338: 10334: 10333: 10330: 10326: 10322: 10318: 10317: 10316: 10315: 10311: 10307: 10301: 10297: 10293: 10289: 10286: 10277: 10274:Knowledge or 10263: 10260: 10255: 10253: 10246: 10245: 10244: 10240: 10236: 10231: 10228: 10227: 10226: 10223: 10218: 10216: 10210: 10209: 10208: 10204: 10200: 10195:Pigsonthewing 10191: 10185: 10181: 10177: 10176: 10175: 10174: 10171: 10166: 10164: 10158: 10155: 10151: 10144: 10143: 10142: 10138: 10135: 10130: 10126: 10100: 10096: 10092: 10088: 10087: 10086: 10083: 10074: 10073: 10072: 10068: 10064: 10060: 10056: 10055: 10054: 10051: 10042: 10034: 10030: 10026: 10025: 10024: 10020: 10016: 10011: 10010: 10009: 10006: 9996: 9993: 9987: 9983: 9982: 9981: 9977: 9973: 9968: 9967: 9966: 9965: 9962: 9953: 9947: 9942: 9941: 9940: 9936: 9932: 9896: 9894: 9890: 9886: 9869: 9865: 9860: 9859: 9858: 9857: 9854: 9843: 9841: 9837: 9831: 9829: 9825: 9815: 9814: 9810: 9806: 9802: 9798: 9794: 9790: 9782: 9777: 9776: 9775: 9773: 9769: 9757: 9754: 9745: 9742: 9741: 9740: 9738: 9734: 9730: 9724: 9720: 9716: 9712: 9708: 9700: 9696: 9692: 9688: 9685: 9684: 9683: 9677: 9673: 9669: 9665: 9662: 9661: 9660: 9658: 9646: 9642: 9638: 9633: 9627: 9623: 9619: 9615: 9611: 9610: 9609: 9605: 9601: 9597: 9593: 9592:controversial 9589: 9585: 9584: 9583: 9579: 9575: 9568: 9567: 9566: 9565: 9561: 9557: 9553: 9552: 9546: 9538: 9532: 9531: 9522: 9519: 9516: 9514: 9507: 9496: 9479: 9475: 9471: 9467: 9463: 9462: 9461: 9460: 9456: 9452: 9448: 9440: 9436: 9432: 9428: 9424: 9422: 9418: 9417: 9416: 9409: 9405: 9404: 9403: 9402: 9398: 9394: 9390: 9386: 9382: 9377: 9374: 9372: 9368: 9363: 9360: 9358: 9354: 9350: 9345: 9342: 9339: 9335: 9332: 9328: 9325: 9309: 9305: 9301: 9297: 9293: 9291: 9285: 9284: 9283: 9279: 9275: 9271: 9267: 9262: 9257: 9253: 9252: 9251: 9250: 9249: 9248: 9241: 9237: 9233: 9230: 9224: 9223: 9222: 9213: 9210: 9207: 9205: 9197: 9193: 9192: 9191: 9187: 9183: 9179: 9175: 9171: 9167: 9163: 9162: 9161: 9160: 9151: 9148: 9145: 9143: 9136: 9132: 9128: 9124: 9120: 9116: 9112: 9108: 9104: 9093: 9081: 9076: 9075: 9071: 9067: 9063: 9052: 9043: 9040: 9037: 9035: 9022: 9015: 9010:|was|hide=y}} 9009: 9003: 9002: 9001: 8997: 8993: 8989: 8985: 8981: 8973: 8969: 8965: 8964:In ictu oculi 8961: 8960: 8959: 8955: 8951: 8944: 8943: 8942: 8938: 8934: 8933:In ictu oculi 8930: 8929: 8928: 8923: 8919: 8918: 8912: 8911:rhyming slang 8908: 8907: 8906: 8905: 8901: 8898: 8888: 8887: 8886: 8885: 8881: 8877: 8872: 8870: 8866: 8862: 8858: 8850: 8846: 8845: 8844: 8842: 8838: 8835:In this case 8826: 8822: 8818: 8814: 8808: 8807: 8804: 8801: 8791: 8790: 8789: 8788: 8784: 8780: 8768: 8764: 8760: 8756: 8748:"{{Reflist}}" 8747: 8746: 8745: 8744: 8743: 8742: 8740: 8730:"<ref: --> 8729: 8728: 8727: 8726: 8725: 8724: 8722: 8721: 8720: 8719: 8718: 8717: 8712: 8708: 8707: 8706: 8699: 8695: 8694: 8693: 8689: 8685: 8684:Theroadislong 8681: 8680: 8679: 8676: 8673: 8668:Footnote list 8658: 8654: 8650: 8646: 8643: 8640: 8638: 8635: 8626: 8622: 8621:Earth's orbit 8618: 8614: 8613: 8612: 8608: 8604: 8600: 8599: 8598: 8594: 8590: 8586: 8582: 8580: 8576: 8572: 8568: 8561: 8560:edit conflict 8556: 8554: 8551: 8542: 8538: 8537: 8536: 8535: 8532: 8529: 8525: 8521: 8517: 8513: 8509: 8505: 8501: 8497: 8492: 8490: 8486: 8481: 8465: 8461: 8455: 8452: 8451: 8442: 8438: 8437: 8436: 8435: 8434: 8433: 8432: 8431: 8424: 8420: 8416: 8412: 8409: 8405: 8401: 8397: 8396: 8395: 8394: 8393: 8392: 8387: 8383: 8377: 8374: 8373: 8365: 8361: 8357: 8353: 8352: 8351: 8350: 8347: 8343: 8339: 8335: 8332: 8328: 8324: 8320: 8316: 8315: 8312: 8308: 8302: 8299: 8298: 8290: 8289: 8288: 8287: 8283: 8277: 8274: 8273: 8264: 8262: 8258: 8244: 8240: 8236: 8232: 8230: 8226: 8222: 8218: 8217: 8216: 8207: 8204: 8201: 8199: 8189: 8187: 8183: 8179: 8178: 8175: 8171: 8167: 8163: 8159: 8158: 8157: 8156: 8153: 8149: 8132: 8123: 8120: 8117: 8115: 8108: 8104: 8100: 8096: 8091: 8087: 8083: 8079: 8078: 8077: 8076: 8073: 8070: 8068: 8066: 8061: 8054: 8050: 8049: 8042: 8033: 8030: 8027: 8025: 8018: 8014: 8010: 8009: 8008: 8004: 8000: 7996: 7993: 7989: 7987: 7983: 7982: 7981: 7980: 7977: 7976: 7967: 7964: 7961: 7959: 7950: 7948: 7944: 7940: 7936: 7930: 7927: 7925: 7919: 7917: 7910: 7906: 7904: 7901: 7897: 7894: 7893: 7888: 7884: 7880: 7876: 7873: 7869: 7868: 7867: 7863: 7859: 7858:Peter coxhead 7852: 7850: 7849: 7848: 7847: 7844: 7842: 7840: 7835: 7829: 7824: 7813: 7812: 7808: 7804: 7800: 7792: 7776: 7767: 7764: 7761: 7759: 7751: 7747: 7746:Client (band) 7740: 7736: 7734: 7730: 7726: 7720: 7718: 7714: 7710: 7709:WP:COMMONNAME 7706: 7701: 7700: 7697: 7696: 7695: 7694: 7689: 7685: 7681: 7680:Peter coxhead 7675: 7672: 7671: 7670: 7669: 7666: 7662: 7658: 7657:In ictu oculi 7654: 7651: 7647: 7643: 7640: 7639: 7638: 7634: 7632: 7631: 7625: 7621: 7619: 7618: 7612: 7602: 7598: 7594: 7593:Peter coxhead 7589: 7588: 7587: 7586: 7577: 7574: 7571: 7569: 7562: 7558: 7554: 7550: 7549: 7545: 7541: 7537: 7533: 7507: 7503: 7499: 7492: 7491: 7490: 7487: 7483: 7482: 7481: 7477: 7473: 7465: 7462: 7461: 7460: 7456: 7452: 7447: 7446: 7445: 7441: 7437: 7429: 7428: 7427: 7424: 7419: 7418: 7417: 7413: 7409: 7401: 7400: 7399: 7395: 7391: 7387: 7385:encyclopedia? 7383: 7379: 7375: 7374: 7367: 7362: 7357: 7353: 7350: 7347: 7346: 7340: 7339: 7338: 7337: 7336: 7335: 7330: 7327: 7323: 7322: 7321: 7320: 7317: 7313: 7309: 7302: 7298: 7297: 7296: 7295: 7291: 7287: 7283: 7279: 7275: 7273: 7269: 7265: 7247: 7244: 7241: 7240: 7238:AgnosticAphid 7232: 7231: 7230: 7221: 7218: 7215: 7213: 7206: 7205: 7204: 7201: 7197: 7193: 7189: 7179: 7175: 7171: 7164: 7160: 7159: 7158: 7154: 7150: 7149:Fyunck(click) 7145: 7144: 7143: 7140: 7137: 7133: 7132: 7131: 7127: 7123: 7116: 7112: 7108: 7102: 7097: 7096: 7095: 7091: 7087: 7086:Peter coxhead 7082: 7081: 7080: 7077: 7074: 7070: 7066: 7062: 7059: 7055: 7054: 7053: 7052: 7049: 7043: 7041: 7027: 7023: 7019: 7018:Peter coxhead 7010: 7009: 7008: 7004: 7000: 6995: 6991: 6990: 6989: 6988: 6985: 6983: 6981: 6976: 6970: 6966: 6962: 6958: 6947: 6946: 6943: 6939: 6935: 6928: 6919: 6916: 6913: 6911: 6903: 6899: 6896: 6891: 6889: 6883: 6879: 6878: 6877: 6873: 6869: 6864: 6863: 6854: 6850: 6846: 6839: 6836: 6835: 6834: 6830: 6826: 6821: 6820: 6819: 6816: 6812: 6808: 6803: 6802: 6801: 6797: 6793: 6789: 6788: 6787: 6786: 6783: 6779: 6775: 6770: 6767: 6763: 6756:Image borders 6753: 6752: 6743: 6740: 6737: 6735: 6727: 6722: 6716: 6715: 6711: 6707: 6702: 6701: 6698: 6671: 6667: 6663: 6659: 6655: 6652: 6651: 6650: 6647: 6642: 6640: 6637: 6628: 6624: 6620: 6616: 6612: 6611: 6610: 6606: 6602: 6595: 6594: 6593: 6589: 6585: 6581: 6580: 6579: 6575: 6571: 6564: 6563: 6562: 6559: 6550: 6545: 6544: 6543: 6539: 6535: 6531: 6530:this exchange 6527: 6526: 6525: 6522: 6513: 6508: 6507: 6495: 6492: 6491: 6487: 6485: 6484: 6477: 6476: 6475: 6471: 6467: 6463: 6462: 6461: 6458: 6457: 6453: 6451: 6450: 6443: 6442: 6441: 6440: 6434: 6433: 6429: 6428: 6424: 6420: 6404: 6395: 6392: 6389: 6387: 6380: 6379: 6378: 6377: 6376: 6375: 6370: 6367: 6366: 6362: 6360: 6359: 6352: 6347: 6343: 6342: 6341: 6332: 6329: 6326: 6324: 6317: 6313: 6311: 6308: 6297: 6294: 6293: 6292:- WPGA2345 - 6285: 6280: 6279: 6272: 6268: 6264: 6260: 6251: 6250: 6249: 6248: 6245: 6241: 6237: 6233: 6232: 6231: 6227: 6223: 6218: 6214: 6212: 6207: 6206: 6205: 6204: 6200: 6196: 6195: 6192: 6188: 6184: 6180: 6179: 6178: 6177: 6174: 6173: 6169: 6167: 6166: 6157: 6155: 6151: 6146: 6144: 6140: 6136: 6132: 6127: 6125: 6121: 6117: 6113: 6109: 6105: 6101: 6097: 6093: 6086:-based moves? 6085: 6081: 6071: 6062: 6059: 6056: 6054: 6047: 6046: 6045: 6041: 6037: 6032: 6031: 6030: 6029: 6020: 6017: 6014: 6012: 6005: 6000: 5996: 5995:MOS:TRADEMARK 5992: 5988: 5987:WP:COMMONNAME 5984: 5973: 5961: 5957: 5951: 5950: 5946: 5942: 5938: 5924: 5920: 5916: 5915:Peter coxhead 5912: 5911: 5910: 5906: 5902: 5898: 5894: 5890: 5886: 5882: 5881: 5877: 5873: 5868: 5863: 5859: 5858: 5855: 5846: 5843: 5840: 5838: 5829: 5825: 5824: 5821: 5817: 5816: 5811: 5807: 5806: 5805: 5804: 5800: 5796: 5789: 5777: 5773: 5772: 5771: 5764: 5759: 5758: 5757: 5753: 5752: 5747: 5743: 5739: 5735: 5731: 5727: 5720: 5719: 5718: 5714: 5710: 5706: 5702: 5698: 5689: 5685: 5681: 5677: 5676: 5663: 5659: 5655: 5647: 5646: 5645: 5641: 5637: 5633: 5628: 5627: 5625: 5624: 5623: 5619: 5615: 5607: 5606: 5605: 5601: 5597: 5596:Peter coxhead 5593: 5591: 5587: 5583: 5579: 5575: 5574: 5569: 5568: 5567: 5566: 5565: 5564: 5559: 5555: 5551: 5547: 5542: 5540: 5537: 5534: 5530: 5526: 5522: 5517: 5514: 5511: 5508: 5505: 5504: 5503: 5502: 5500: 5496: 5495: 5492: 5488: 5484: 5479: 5478: 5473: 5469: 5465: 5461: 5460: 5455: 5454: 5453: 5452: 5449: 5446: 5441: 5439: 5438: 5430: 5429: 5426: 5422: 5418: 5410: 5409: 5404: 5400: 5399: 5398: 5391: 5387: 5383: 5382: 5381: 5380: 5377: 5373: 5369: 5364: 5362: 5358: 5354: 5353:Peter coxhead 5349: 5348: 5341: 5337: 5333: 5329: 5328: 5327: 5323: 5319: 5316: 5312: 5308: 5307: 5306: 5302: 5301: 5300: 5293: 5289: 5288: 5287: 5286: 5282: 5278: 5269: 5265: 5261: 5258: 5257: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5252: 5236: 5232: 5228: 5215: 5207: 5201: 5200: 5199: 5195: 5191: 5190:Peter coxhead 5184: 5174: 5166: 5164: 5163: 5162: 5158: 5154: 5147: 5146: 5145: 5144: 5135: 5132: 5129: 5127: 5116: 5101: 5097: 5093: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5082: 5078: 5077:Peter coxhead 5074: 5073: 5072: 5068: 5064: 5057: 5053: 5049: 5043: 5038: 5033: 5027: 5021: 5015: 5011: 5005: 5004:Peter coxhead 5000: 4999: 4998: 4994: 4990: 4985: 4984: 4983: 4979: 4975: 4974:Peter coxhead 4969: 4964: 4955: 4950: 4944: 4940: 4936: 4929: 4919: 4912: 4911: 4910: 4906: 4902: 4895: 4891: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4881: 4877: 4872: 4868: 4864: 4860: 4856: 4851: 4850: 4849: 4848: 4839: 4836: 4833: 4831: 4824: 4817: 4795: 4791: 4787: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4778: 4774: 4773: 4764: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4753: 4749: 4748: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4735: 4731: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4722: 4718: 4717: 4707: 4706: 4703: 4700: 4695: 4693: 4686: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4679: 4675: 4656: 4647: 4644: 4641: 4639: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4626: 4622: 4618: 4617: 4615: 4606: 4603: 4600: 4598: 4588: 4584: 4570: 4567: 4564: 4562: 4554: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4542: 4538: 4534: 4531: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4521: 4517: 4510: 4506: 4502: 4497: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4482: 4479: 4476: 4474: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4461: 4457: 4453: 4449: 4445: 4441: 4435: 4430: 4424: 4420: 4416: 4409: 4408: 4403: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4394: 4391: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4354: 4348: 4345: 4340: 4338: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4326: 4322: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4296: 4292: 4291:—— Shakescene 4276: 4272: 4268: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4257: 4253: 4249: 4248: 4247: 4243: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4217: 4213: 4209: 4206: 4204: 4200: 4196: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4186: 4182: 4178: 4174: 4173: 4168: 4164: 4160: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4146: 4142: 4136: 4132: 4103: 4100: 4097: 4093: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4083: 4082: 4077: 4072: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4042: 4039: 4036: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3972: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3962: 3961: 3956: 3952: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3944: 3941: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3920: 3918: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3896: 3895: 3881: 3878: 3874: 3870: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3860: 3859: 3854: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3830: 3829: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3784: 3783: 3778: 3774: 3773:WP:CANVASSing 3769: 3767: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3736: 3722: 3716: 3715: 3706: 3703: 3700: 3698: 3691: 3687: 3683: 3679: 3668: 3656: 3655:WP:COMMONNAME 3626: 3617: 3614: 3611: 3609: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3596: 3592: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3581: 3577: 3576:Peter coxhead 3573: 3569: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3525: 3521: 3517: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3479: 3476: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3454: 3449: 3447: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3389: 3385: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3355: 3352: 3349: 3348:JerryFriedman 3344: 3341: 3339: 3336: 3331: 3329: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3309: 3304: 3302: 3296: 3284: 3281: 3278: 3272: 3271: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3237: 3234: 3231: 3229: 3220: 3217: 3213: 3207: 3205: 3195: 3192: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3166: 3162: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3152: 3149: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3127: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3118: 3115: 3111: 3101: 3098: 3093: 3091: 3090: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3063: 3058: 3056: 3055: 3048: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3024: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2999: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2975: 2972: 2967: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2951:MartinPaulEve 2948: 2944: 2940: 2934: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2915: 2907: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2872: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2837: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2817:passive voice 2814: 2810: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2790: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2753: 2750: 2749: 2744: 2741: 2739: 2733: 2729: 2728:WP:NOTTHERAPY 2725: 2724: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2712: 2708: 2707:WP:NOTTHERAPY 2704: 2700: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2684:MartinPaulEve 2680: 2678: 2674: 2668: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2652: 2650: 2646: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2579: 2576: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2565: 2562: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2553: 2546: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2501: 2498: 2495: 2493: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2461: 2452: 2451: 2449: 2442: 2441: 2439: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2404: 2403: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2377: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2366: 2359:. Thank you. 2358: 2354: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2294: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2246: 2242: 2241: 2234: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2209: 2205: 2200: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2187:flame ..."). 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2169: 2164: 2163: 2158: 2154: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2135: 2132: 2127: 2125: 2118: 2117: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2089: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1981: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1965: 1962: 1959: 1957: 1948: 1943: 1939: 1936: 1926: 1917: 1910: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1858:Peter coxhead 1854: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1796: 1791: 1789: 1784: 1782: 1777: 1775: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1746: 1743:("dog"), and 1742: 1738: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1686: 1682: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1638: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1602: 1599: 1598: 1595: 1582: 1578: 1572: 1569: 1568: 1563: 1558: 1553: 1552:joyful giving 1548: 1544: 1542: 1536: 1533: 1523: 1520: 1515: 1513: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1436: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1422: 1419: 1416: 1414: 1406: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1394: 1393: 1387: 1381: 1380: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1343:intentionally 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1322: 1321: 1318: 1313: 1311: 1304: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1282: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1263: 1258: 1255: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1240:Peter coxhead 1237: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1211: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1204: 1200: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1168: 1147: 1136: 1132: 1126: 1120: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1103: 1082: 1071: 1067: 1064: 1059: 1053: 1047: 1036: 1033: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1015:Peter coxhead 1012: 1011: 1010: 1006: 1002: 997: 996: 995: 991: 987: 986:Peter coxhead 983: 982: 981: 980: 976: 972: 968: 964: 960: 956: 944: 943: 934: 931: 928: 926: 917: 916: 911: 910: 905: 901: 900: 895: 894: 889: 885: 876: 872: 871: 870: 869: 866: 865: 863:It Is Me Here 858: 854: 850: 836: 832: 828: 824: 823: 822: 818: 814: 810: 806: 803: 802: 801: 800: 796: 792: 788: 777: 773: 769: 765: 764: 763: 759: 755: 751: 750: 749: 745: 741: 736: 735: 730: 727: 725: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 700: 696: 693: 692: 689: 685: 681: 673: 672: 667: 663: 662: 656: 650: 649: 640: 639: 638: 634: 630: 626: 621: 620: 617: 614: 609: 607: 601: 596: 595: 594: 593: 589: 585: 581: 569: 566: 563: 562: 560:AgnosticAphid 555: 553: 547: 546: 541: 538: 533: 531: 524: 523: 522: 519: 516: 512: 511: 507: 506: 505: 504: 501: 498: 492: 491: 487: 480:serial commas 477: 476: 472: 469: 468: 461: 449: 445: 441: 439: 433: 432: 431: 430: 425: 412: 408: 404: 400: 396: 395: 393: 389: 385: 381: 380: 379: 374: 370: 366: 364: 358: 354: 342: 338: 334: 330: 326: 322: 318: 314: 313: 312: 311: 307: 303: 298:Pigsonthewing 294: 270: 266: 262: 260: 254: 253: 252: 248: 247: 246: 239: 237: 233: 231: 229: 224: 216: 215: 214: 213: 209: 205: 203: 188: 184: 180: 176: 172: 171: 170: 169: 168: 167: 163: 159: 155: 151: 150: 149: 143: 139: 135: 131: 125: 121: 117: 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: 10432: 10390: 10337:User:Jodosma 10300:style manual 10295: 10291: 10287: 10284: 10280: 10275: 10251: 10214: 10203:Andy's edits 10199:Talk to Andy 10190:Andy Mabbett 10183: 10179: 10162: 10159: 10156: 10152: 10148: 10139: 10133: 10131: 10127: 10124: 10040: 10032: 10028: 9990: 9985: 9951: 9948: 9945: 9929:, etcetera. 9919:not complete 9913:. Same with 9907:unsupportive 9868:uncontracted 9867: 9864:when and why 9863: 9844: 9839: 9835: 9834:people that 9832: 9827: 9823: 9821: 9818:Contractions 9786: 9779: 9765: 9743: 9707:comma splice 9704: 9681: 9654: 9613: 9595: 9591: 9548: 9542: 9535:See also to 9512: 9503: 9446: 9443: 9413: 9412: 9388: 9384: 9380: 9378: 9375: 9370: 9366: 9364: 9361: 9356: 9352: 9348: 9346: 9343: 9340: 9336: 9333: 9329: 9326: 9323: 9289: 9270:WP:Watchlist 9203: 9178:WP:Watchlist 9141: 9110: 9106: 9100: 9059: 9033: 9013: 8987: 8983: 8916: 8873: 8857:I removed it 8854: 8849:Kean College 8834: 8775: 8703: 8702: 8696:We now have 8677: 8674: 8671: 8531:(let's chat) 8493: 8482: 8479: 8450:CaroleHenson 8449: 8448: 8372:CaroleHenson 8371: 8370: 8297:CaroleHenson 8296: 8295: 8272:CaroleHenson 8271: 8270: 8265: 8254: 8197: 8147:RGloucester 8142: 8113: 8085: 8064: 8059: 8023: 8016: 8012: 7985: 7957: 7951: 7937:player from 7928: 7913: 7908: 7895: 7838: 7833: 7819: 7788: 7757: 7732: 7636: 7628: 7627: 7623: 7615: 7614: 7610: 7567: 7551: 7535: 7528: 7463: 7372: 7360: 7276: 7261: 7235: 7211: 7195: 7191: 7136:InedibleHulk 7107:hyphen-minus 7101:InedibleHulk 7073:InedibleHulk 7068: 7064: 7044: 7037: 6993: 6979: 6974: 6953: 6931: 6909: 6887: 6881: 6771: 6765: 6759: 6733: 6724: 6720: 6717: 6703: 6688: 6626: 6622: 6618: 6617:along with; 6614: 6511: 6489: 6482: 6481: 6455: 6448: 6447: 6416: 6385: 6364: 6357: 6356: 6350: 6345: 6322: 6291: 6290: 6258: 6210: 6208: 6171: 6164: 6163: 6159: 6148: 6128: 6089: 6052: 6010: 5980: 5934: 5888: 5884: 5866: 5836: 5814: 5810:Curly Turkey 5787: 5783: 5768: 5767: 5750: 5746:Curly Turkey 5704: 5700: 5696: 5692:<ref: --> 5687: 5683: 5679: 5577: 5571: 5533:Arthur Rubin 5528: 5524: 5498: 5457: 5433: 5395: 5394: 5314: 5310: 5297: 5296: 5275: 5259: 5248: 5125: 5112: 5025: 4866: 4862: 4858: 4854: 4829: 4811: 4769: 4746: 4713: 4691: 4671: 4637: 4596: 4560: 4532: 4529: 4495: 4472: 4405: 4402:last weekend 4336: 4287: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4139:US English. 4137: 4133: 4130: 4096:InedibleHulk 4091: 4080: 4076:Curly Turkey 4035:InedibleHulk 4030: 4026: 3970: 3959: 3955:Curly Turkey 3950: 3940:InedibleHulk 3916: 3868: 3857: 3853:Curly Turkey 3827: 3823:Curly Turkey 3781: 3777:Curly Turkey 3770: 3743: 3696: 3675: 3607: 3571: 3567: 3533: 3529: 3445: 3387: 3363: 3327: 3321: 3300: 3292: 3277:InedibleHulk 3255: 3252:unaccusative 3227: 3188:InedibleHulk 3183: 3148:InedibleHulk 3114:InedibleHulk 3085: 3050: 3022: 3007:WhatamIdoing 2982: 2978: 2970: 2947:MOS:IDENTITY 2935: 2913: 2908: 2891: 2873: 2855: 2813:active voice 2808: 2737: 2732:WP:NOTCENSOR 2711:WP:NOTCENSOR 2681: 2673:Talk:suicide 2669: 2653: 2642: 2583: 2569: 2551: 2549: 2491: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2408: 2379: 2331: 2292: 2244: 2239: 2238: 2236: 2227:just as that 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2207: 2203: 2184: 2176: 2167: 2161: 2123: 2084: 2080: 2006: 1998: 1979: 1955: 1949: 1932: 1819:on Knowledge 1818: 1814: 1794: 1787: 1780: 1773: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1730: 1710: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1684: 1678: 1603: 1600: 1593: 1576: 1574: 1573: 1570: 1566: 1561: 1556: 1551: 1549: 1546: 1540: 1538: 1534: 1531: 1511: 1478: 1461: 1412: 1404: 1382: 1375: 1371: 1346: 1342: 1309: 1302: 1300: 1261: 1253: 1226:06:04 & 1215: 1198: 1196: 1134: 1131: 1118: 1117: 1069: 1066: 1057: 1045: 1044: 1031: 966: 962: 952: 924: 913: 907: 903: 897: 891: 875: 860: 846: 786: 784: 728: 703: 694: 651: 644: 625:WP:Consensus 605: 599: 577: 557: 551: 549: 529: 515:InedibleHulk 493: 489: 483: 465: 457: 437: 418: 399:Matt Moulson 377: 362: 306:Andy's edits 302:Talk to Andy 293:Andy Mabbett 278:<br/: --> 275: 258: 243: 242: 227: 222: 201: 196: 175:Matt Moulson 147: 130:Matt Moulson 109: 78: 43: 37: 10341:inserted it 9992:preferable. 9927:not helpful 9715:noun phrase 9637:Nat Gertler 9618:Georgia guy 9513:SMcCandlish 9504:Please see 9427:MOS:REFPUNC 9408:MOS:REFPUNC 9349:distance' . 9204:SMcCandlish 9168:discussion 9142:SMcCandlish 9034:SMcCandlish 8837:Al Sharpton 8498:instead of 8198:SMcCandlish 8114:SMcCandlish 8107:WP:ADVOCACY 8090:WP:SELFREFs 8065:the speller 8024:SMcCandlish 7992:workarounds 7990:, if those 7986:SMcCandlish 7958:SMcCandlish 7839:the speller 7758:SMcCandlish 7568:SMcCandlish 7212:SMcCandlish 7113:. See also 6980:the speller 6910:SMcCandlish 6905:used here. 6734:SMcCandlish 6584:Skeezix1000 6386:SMcCandlish 6323:SMcCandlish 6154:WP:CRITERIA 6084:WP:CRITERIA 6053:SMcCandlish 6011:SMcCandlish 5981:Please see 5893:fetishistic 5837:SMcCandlish 5742:WP:BUNDLING 5529:consecutive 5251:MOS:REFPUNC 5126:SMcCandlish 5092:Vegaswikian 5048:editnotices 5042:Vegaswikian 5010:SMcCandlish 4989:Vegaswikian 4954:SMcCandlish 4830:SMcCandlish 4784:So what? -- 4638:SMcCandlish 4597:SMcCandlish 4561:SMcCandlish 4473:SMcCandlish 4321:Archon 2488 4212:Archon 2488 4141:Archon 2488 3697:SMcCandlish 3684:as well as 3676:Please see 3608:SMcCandlish 3228:SMcCandlish 3212:WP:ADVOCACY 3170:Nat Gertler 3165:Vaughn Bode 2914:benlisquare 2874:I'll alert 2794:Dirtlawyer1 2599:Please see 2492:SMcCandlish 2438:WP:MOSQUOTE 2419:"Foo 'Bar'" 1956:SMcCandlish 1739:("sheep"), 1725:What about 1703:'dog', and 1560:(3) Kanji: 1532:Greetings! 1465:has made a 1413:SMcCandlish 1161:harasssment 1096:harasssment 1046:Attribution 1001:Dirtlawyer1 963:Attribution 959:Attribution 925:SMcCandlish 600:style guide 578:Please see 392:Josh Gorges 162:Josh Gorges 124:Josh Gorges 98:Archive 165 90:Archive 162 85:Archive 161 79:Archive 160 73:Archive 159 68:Archive 158 60:Archive 155 36:This is an 10348:Wavelength 9915:incomplete 9801:weighed in 9729:Wavelength 9719:apposition 9549:See also: 9389:Pediatrics 9353:textbooks 9341:Examples: 9137:'s scope. 8649:Wavelength 8589:Wavelength 8415:Wavelength 8338:Wavelength 8327:WP:CENTURY 8221:Darkfrog24 8103:WP:SOAPBOX 7999:Wavelength 7879:Wavelength 7874:–player"). 7721:because of 7557:WP:CREDITS 7540:Reify-tech 7532:WP:NOTABLE 7457:04:52 and 7396:00:04 and 7301:WP:CREDITS 7069:everything 6999:Psychonaut 6934:Locke Cole 6825:Reify-tech 6807:Locke Cole 6774:Locke Cole 6766:two images 6662:Darkfrog24 6201:guideline: 6036:Darkfrog24 5901:Reify-tech 5862:sort order 5701:references 5680:references 5368:Reify-tech 5294:system. -- 4456:Darkfrog24 3690:WP:NCFLORA 3686:WP:NCFAUNA 3591:Darkfrog24 3221:farcically 3184:themselves 2979:encourages 2815:, not the 2757:Darkfrog24 2623:74.64.17.9 2605:Wavelength 2586:74.64.17.9 2570:or is it" 2545:WP:REFDESK 2515:Darkfrog24 2411:work title 2300:Darkfrog24 2095:Darkfrog24 2033:Darkfrog24 1887:Darkfrog24 1442:Darkfrog24 1286:Darkfrog24 1165:harassment 1133:replacing 1100:harassment 1068:replacing 1063:verifiably 813:Muffinator 754:Muffinator 716:Muffinator 10285:Knowledge 10276:Knowledge 10235:Jonesey95 9923:unhelpful 9772:WP:HYPHEN 9556:Thryduulf 9415:Gadget850 9357:Br J Urol 9290:Doc James 9256:your need 8705:Gadget850 8319:WP:HYPHEN 8266:Thanks!-- 7918:-player, 7390:shortened 7373:Rivadavia 7361:extremely 7299:Yes, per 6868:Modal Jig 6706:Modal Jig 6236:DrKiernan 6211:valid use 6199:WP:RETAIN 6183:DrKiernan 6150:WP:RETAIN 6143:WP:ENGVAR 6131:WP:RETAIN 6096:WP:RETAIN 6080:WP:RETAIN 5770:Gadget850 5763:Footnotes 5705:citations 5525:numbering 5397:Gadget850 5392:works. -- 5386:Footnotes 5299:Gadget850 5292:Footnotes 4823:WP:ENGVAR 4786:Trovatore 4730:Trovatore 4621:Trovatore 4587:Redrose64 4583:Trovatore 4537:Trovatore 4238:Trovatore 4159:Trovatore 4031:Wolverine 3969:It's not 3915:can't be 3873:MarnetteD 3384:MOS:QUOTE 3318:this page 3260:Trovatore 3023:Doc James 2987:Trovatore 2841:Trovatore 2825:Trovatore 2543:Moved to 2415:Foo "Bar" 1980:proposing 1940:routinely 1928:("house") 1919:, 'house' 1815:Knowledge 1699:'sheep', 1624:MOS:JAPAN 1483:APA style 1303:encourage 1157:basically 1092:basically 699:this edit 245:Gadget850 10157:Thanks 9600:Blueboar 9470:BalCoder 9464:Perhaps 9381:beliefs 9300:contribs 9023:|37ft.}} 8992:Blueboar 8813:WP:ORDER 8759:Blueboar 7926:style)". 7807:contribs 7737:as it is 7676:as it is 7650:MOS:CAPS 7561:WP:GLAMs 7553:The ed17 7355:message. 7268:WP:NOTAD 7134:Thanks! 6534:Richfife 6466:Richfife 6419:Richfife 5815:¡gobble! 5795:Blueboar 5751:¡gobble! 5636:Hawkeye7 5436:Floydian 5332:Hawkeye7 5277:Hawkeye7 5119:whatever 4674:Blueboar 4434:Blueboar 4376:erachima 4361:Blueboar 4267:Formerip 4252:erachima 4234:Provided 4181:erachima 4081:¡gobble! 4000:helpful. 3960:¡gobble! 3858:¡gobble! 3828:¡gobble! 3782:¡gobble! 3682:MOS:LIFE 3553:Formerip 3538:Blueboar 3499:Formerip 3462:Formerip 3316:I found 3088:Floydian 3072:erachima 3053:Floydian 3033:contribs 2965:suicide. 2943:Guardian 2862:erachima 2660:research 2463:Johnuniq 2165:and its 2017:), etc. 1685:Language 1604:Cheers! 1581:Japanese 1351:Blueboar 1267:Blueboar 915:Serenity 909:Serenity 904:Serenity 899:Serenity 888:Serenity 827:Mirokado 805:Blueboar 791:Blueboar 10439:DonIago 10409:Jodosma 10363:Jodosma 10321:Bazonka 10298:) is a 10258:(talk) 10221:(talk) 10184:display 10169:(talk) 9925:versus 9917:versus 9909:versus 9768:WP:WPAA 9687:Periods 9664:Periods 9569:Yep. -- 9367:Janet75 9274:Flyer22 9196:WT:LEAD 9182:Flyer22 9166:WP:Lead 9135:MOS:MED 9103:MOS:MED 9080:MOS:MED 8917:Stepho 8642:Bazonka 8603:Bazonka 8571:Bazonka 8325:. See 8261:Hyphens 8099:WP:NPOV 8086:Chicago 8017:Chicago 8013:Chicago 7896:Comment 7733:Numb3rs 6994:Chicago 6894:(talk) 6629:, etc. 6549:WP:BIKE 6351:variety 6034:there. 5885:against 5867:no need 5828:WP:DGAF 5512:Fact 2. 5506:Fact 1. 5260:Example 4874:Cfd. -- 4747:Stepho 4698:(talk) 4343:(talk) 3917:totally 3534:written 3452:(talk) 3216:WP:NPOV 2897:Flyer22 2893:Alerted 2880:Flyer22 2736:Adrian 2677:WP:NPOV 2662:by the 2647:and on 2361:-- ] {{ 2181:Collins 2130:(talk) 2005:), the 1841:, etc. 1799:, etc. 1781:kurbağa 1594:English 1518:(talk) 1316:(talk) 1153:basicly 1088:basicly 893:Firefly 882:In the 629:Flyer22 612:(talk) 536:(talk) 497:Jodosma 420:-- ] {{ 39:archive 10412:(talk) 10366:(talk) 10339:) who 9878:, but 9870:form. 9799:, has 9693:, and 9670:, and 9574:rose64 9385:care. 9131:WP:MED 9127:WP:VPP 9123:WP:RFC 9119:WP:MED 9066:holizz 8950:rose64 8876:holizz 8867:, and 8817:Jc3s5h 8625:WP:TSC 8585:WP:TSC 8528:Yaksar 7935:guitar 7741:always 7705:MOS:TM 7646:MOS:TM 7192:debate 7170:rose64 7139:(talk) 7122:rose64 7111:U+002D 7076:(talk) 7065:always 6965:WP:CFD 6882:almost 6845:rose64 6792:Pburka 6721:cannot 6601:rose64 6570:rose64 6483:bd2412 6449:bd2412 6358:bd2412 6284:Pburka 6263:Pburka 6222:Pburka 6165:bd2412 5993:, and 5956:WP:MOS 5889:useful 5582:Doremo 5536:(talk) 5499:reused 5483:Pburka 5464:Doremo 5318:Doremo 5227:rose64 5063:rose64 4901:rose64 4863:colour 4516:rose64 4415:rose64 4230:itself 4099:(talk) 4038:(talk) 3943:(talk) 3800:). -- 3411:Jc3s5h 3393:Pburka 3386:says: 3351:(Talk) 3280:(talk) 3191:(talk) 3151:(talk) 3133:rose64 3117:(talk) 3003:WP:WTW 2983:causal 2876:WP:Med 2740:Hunter 2709:, and 2485:MOS:TM 2212:, or: 2189:Doremo 2185:glossi 2177:glosen 2047:Doremo 2019:Doremo 1872:Doremo 1843:Doremo 1801:Doremo 1790:'head' 1783:'frog' 1776:'ring' 1774:rengas 1735:Latin 1712:Doremo 1695:Latin 1495:Jc3s5h 1467:change 1262:should 1236:MOS:LQ 554:mother 518:(talk) 500:(talk) 10180:store 9431:Nthep 9304:email 9236:email 8518:, or 8166:-sche 8060:Chris 7939:Spain 7834:Chris 7750:fixed 7707:(and 7376:went 7282:TCMOS 6975:Chris 6512:can't 5999:WP:AT 5960:WP:AT 5684:notes 5548:. -- 5330:Yes. 5249:Does 4935:Boson 4876:Boson 4867:color 3971:quite 3919:happy 3206:This 3037:email 2225:, or 2208:house 1797:'dog' 1745:equus 1741:canis 1731:Edit: 1705:equus 1701:canis 1577:kangu 1557:kangu 1391:edits 1220:Jerzy 1177:Boson 971:Boson 704:don't 695:Agree 660:edits 315:It's 16:< 10443:talk 10435:here 10380:talk 10352:talk 10325:talk 10310:talk 10283:The 10252:Tony 10239:talk 10215:Tony 10163:Tony 10095:talk 10067:talk 10019:talk 9976:talk 9935:talk 9889:talk 9809:talk 9789:here 9733:talk 9697:are 9674:are 9641:talk 9622:talk 9614:some 9604:talk 9596:slim 9578:talk 9560:talk 9474:talk 9455:talk 9435:talk 9410:. -- 9406:See 9397:talk 9296:talk 9278:talk 9228:CFCF 9186:talk 9133:and 9125:and 9070:talk 8996:talk 8968:talk 8954:talk 8937:talk 8922:talk 8880:talk 8869:here 8865:here 8841:AAVE 8821:talk 8783:talk 8763:talk 8688:talk 8653:talk 8607:talk 8593:talk 8583:See 8575:talk 8514:vs. 8459:talk 8419:talk 8381:talk 8342:talk 8317:See 8306:talk 8281:talk 8239:talk 8225:talk 8170:talk 8162:Arab 8101:and 8095:Dash 8082:Dash 8053:Dash 8003:talk 7931:also 7883:talk 7862:talk 7853:less 7828:Dash 7803:talk 7684:talk 7661:talk 7597:talk 7544:talk 7497:ASEM 7471:ASEM 7435:ASEM 7407:ASEM 7371:ARA 7326:Jimp 7307:ASEM 7290:talk 7243:talk 7174:talk 7153:talk 7126:talk 7117:. -- 7090:talk 7063:I'm 7022:talk 7003:talk 6969:Dash 6957:Dash 6888:Tony 6872:talk 6849:talk 6829:talk 6796:talk 6710:talk 6666:talk 6658:here 6646:Jimp 6605:talk 6588:talk 6574:talk 6538:talk 6532:. - 6470:talk 6423:talk 6267:talk 6259:Done 6240:talk 6226:talk 6187:talk 6040:talk 5958:and 5945:talk 5919:talk 5905:talk 5799:talk 5725:ASEM 5713:talk 5697:note 5682:and 5653:ASEM 5640:talk 5613:ASEM 5600:talk 5586:talk 5554:talk 5487:talk 5468:talk 5456:The 5416:ASEM 5390:Cite 5372:talk 5357:talk 5336:talk 5322:talk 5313:vs. 5281:talk 5268:keel 5231:talk 5194:talk 5178:and 5167:both 5152:ASEM 5096:talk 5081:talk 5067:talk 5054:and 5026:does 4993:talk 4978:talk 4970:more 4939:talk 4905:talk 4892:and 4880:talk 4865:and 4859:-ize 4857:and 4855:-ise 4790:talk 4771:Ohc 4752:talk 4734:talk 4715:Ohc 4692:Tony 4678:talk 4625:talk 4585:and 4579:PS: 4541:talk 4520:talk 4460:talk 4444:talk 4419:talk 4393:lute 4390:Reso 4380:talk 4365:talk 4337:Tony 4325:talk 4310:talk 4295:talk 4271:talk 4256:talk 4242:talk 4216:talk 4199:talk 4185:talk 4163:talk 4145:talk 3877:Talk 3843:talk 3806:talk 3760:and 3688:and 3595:talk 3580:talk 3570:but 3557:talk 3542:talk 3530:said 3515:ASEM 3503:talk 3484:ASEM 3480:. -- 3466:talk 3446:Tony 3428:ASEM 3415:talk 3397:talk 3369:ASEM 3295:link 3264:talk 3256:mean 3174:talk 3163:and 3137:talk 3128:. -- 3076:talk 3029:talk 3011:talk 2991:talk 2971:feel 2955:talk 2901:talk 2884:talk 2866:talk 2845:talk 2829:talk 2823:. -- 2798:talk 2775:ASEM 2761:talk 2718:talk 2688:talk 2627:talk 2609:talk 2590:talk 2519:talk 2467:talk 2427:talk 2388:talk 2364:talk 2342:talk 2304:talk 2255:talk 2219:thus 2204:casa 2193:talk 2124:Tony 2099:talk 2051:talk 2037:talk 2023:talk 1989:talk 1925:casa 1916:casa 1891:talk 1876:talk 1862:talk 1847:talk 1828:talk 1805:talk 1795:Hund 1788:ku:- 1765:here 1755:talk 1737:ovis 1716:talk 1697:ovis 1661:talk 1610:talk 1512:Tony 1499:talk 1446:talk 1385:talk 1378:N-HH 1355:talk 1347:else 1310:Tony 1290:talk 1271:talk 1254:Most 1244:talk 1181:talk 1159:and 1094:and 1019:talk 1005:talk 990:talk 975:talk 831:talk 817:talk 795:talk 787:STOP 772:talk 758:talk 744:talk 720:talk 679:ASEM 654:talk 647:N-HH 633:talk 606:Tony 588:talk 565:talk 530:Tony 467:sroc 444:talk 423:talk 411:2014 401:and 382:The 369:talk 355:and 339:and 265:talk 228:4444 208:talk 187:2014 177:and 152:The 142:2014 132:and 114:The 10396:__ 10296:MOS 10294:or 10292:MoS 10197:); 10134:any 10078:__ 10046:__ 10001:__ 9957:__ 9901:or 9849:__ 9749:__ 9725:". 9572:Red 9527:ⱷ≼ 9523:≽ⱷ҅ 9495:FYI 9218:ⱷ≼ 9214:≽ⱷ҅ 9156:ⱷ≼ 9152:≽ⱷ҅ 9111:con 9109:or 9107:pro 9092:FYI 9048:ⱷ≼ 9044:≽ⱷ҅ 9021:sic 9014:sic 9008:sic 8988:sic 8984:sic 8948:Red 8893:__ 8871:). 8796:__ 8630:__ 8546:__ 8522:vs 8506:vs 8212:ⱷ≼ 8208:≽ⱷ҅ 8182:POV 8128:ⱷ≼ 8124:≽ⱷ҅ 8038:ⱷ≼ 8034:≽ⱷ҅ 7972:ⱷ≼ 7968:≽ⱷ҅ 7920:and 7772:ⱷ≼ 7768:≽ⱷ҅ 7582:ⱷ≼ 7578:≽ⱷ҅ 7538:. 7464:And 7382:IAR 7226:ⱷ≼ 7222:≽ⱷ҅ 7168:Red 7120:Red 6924:ⱷ≼ 6920:≽ⱷ҅ 6843:Red 6748:ⱷ≼ 6744:≽ⱷ҅ 6726:not 6693:__ 6632:__ 6599:Red 6568:Red 6554:__ 6517:__ 6400:ⱷ≼ 6396:≽ⱷ҅ 6346:not 6337:ⱷ≼ 6333:≽ⱷ҅ 6137:to 6067:ⱷ≼ 6063:≽ⱷ҅ 6025:ⱷ≼ 6021:≽ⱷ҅ 5972:FYI 5851:ⱷ≼ 5847:≽ⱷ҅ 5831:--> 5578:not 5515:... 5509:... 5225:Red 5140:ⱷ≼ 5136:≽ⱷ҅ 5061:Red 4899:Red 4844:ⱷ≼ 4840:≽ⱷ҅ 4652:ⱷ≼ 4648:≽ⱷ҅ 4611:ⱷ≼ 4607:≽ⱷ҅ 4575:ⱷ≼ 4571:≽ⱷ҅ 4514:Red 4496:any 4487:ⱷ≼ 4483:≽ⱷ҅ 4413:Red 4092:too 3839:PBS 3815:PBS 3802:PBS 3752:or 3711:ⱷ≼ 3707:≽ⱷ҅ 3667:FYI 3622:ⱷ≼ 3618:≽ⱷ҅ 3328:Axl 3301:Axl 3242:ⱷ≼ 3238:≽ⱷ҅ 3131:Red 2939:BBC 2730:or 2506:ⱷ≼ 2502:≽ⱷ҅ 2380:all 2249:. — 2240:sic 2233:Sic 2215:Sic 1970:ⱷ≼ 1966:≽ⱷ҅ 1944:not 1649:__ 1633:__ 1481:or 1469:to 1427:ⱷ≼ 1423:≽ⱷ҅ 1199:all 1163:to 1155:to 1146:sic 1135:him 1098:to 1090:to 1081:sic 1070:him 1032:not 939:ⱷ≼ 935:≽ⱷ҅ 886:, " 556:. 552:own 351:). 347:vs 300:); 287:::: 223:KDS 10445:) 10382:) 10354:) 10327:) 10312:) 10241:) 10201:; 10097:) 10069:) 10021:) 9978:) 9954:. 9937:) 9921:, 9891:) 9811:) 9735:) 9643:) 9624:) 9606:) 9580:) 9562:) 9510:— 9498:– 9476:) 9457:) 9437:) 9399:) 9302:· 9298:· 9280:) 9238:) 9232:🍌 9201:— 9188:) 9139:— 9095:– 9072:) 9031:— 9019:{{ 9006:{{ 8998:) 8970:) 8956:) 8939:) 8882:) 8859:. 8843:: 8823:) 8815:. 8785:) 8765:) 8690:) 8655:) 8609:) 8595:) 8587:.— 8577:) 8510:, 8502:, 8462:) 8421:) 8384:) 8344:) 8309:) 8284:) 8241:) 8227:) 8195:— 8172:) 8150:— 8111:— 8021:— 8005:) 7955:— 7885:) 7864:) 7809:) 7805:• 7799:DJ 7795:Th 7755:— 7686:) 7663:) 7648:/ 7599:) 7565:— 7546:) 7504:) 7486:Ed 7478:) 7467:-- 7455:Ed 7442:) 7431:-- 7423:Ed 7414:) 7394:Ed 7314:) 7292:) 7209:— 7176:) 7155:) 7128:) 7109:, 7092:) 7024:) 7005:) 6940:• 6936:• 6907:— 6874:) 6851:) 6831:) 6813:• 6809:• 6798:) 6780:• 6776:• 6731:— 6712:) 6668:) 6625:, 6621:, 6607:) 6590:) 6576:) 6540:) 6472:) 6425:) 6383:— 6320:— 6269:) 6242:) 6228:) 6189:) 6122:, 6118:, 6114:, 6110:, 6106:, 6050:— 6042:) 6008:— 5989:, 5975:– 5947:) 5921:) 5907:) 5834:— 5818:⚟ 5801:) 5754:⚟ 5732:) 5715:) 5660:) 5642:) 5620:) 5602:) 5588:) 5556:) 5489:) 5470:) 5423:) 5374:) 5359:) 5338:) 5324:) 5283:) 5262:: 5233:) 5216:}} 5212:{{ 5208:}} 5204:{{ 5196:) 5186:}} 5180:{{ 5176:}} 5170:{{ 5159:) 5123:— 5098:) 5083:) 5069:) 5034:}} 5030:{{ 5022:}} 5018:{{ 4995:) 4980:) 4966:}} 4960:{{ 4941:) 4931:}} 4925:{{ 4923:, 4921:}} 4915:{{ 4907:) 4882:) 4861:, 4827:— 4818:}} 4814:{{ 4792:) 4736:) 4709:-- 4680:) 4635:— 4627:) 4594:— 4558:— 4543:) 4522:) 4470:— 4462:) 4446:) 4421:) 4367:) 4327:) 4312:) 4297:) 4273:) 4244:) 4218:) 4201:) 4179:-- 4165:) 4147:) 4084:⚟ 3963:⚟ 3861:⚟ 3845:) 3831:⚟ 3821:. 3808:) 3785:⚟ 3768:. 3738:– 3694:— 3692:. 3670:– 3605:— 3597:) 3582:) 3574:. 3559:) 3544:) 3522:) 3505:) 3491:) 3468:) 3435:) 3424:-- 3417:) 3399:) 3376:) 3266:) 3225:— 3208:is 3176:) 3168:-- 3139:) 3035:· 3031:· 3013:) 2993:) 2957:) 2941:, 2910:-- 2903:) 2895:. 2886:) 2847:) 2831:) 2800:) 2782:) 2763:) 2738:J. 2720:) 2705:, 2690:) 2629:) 2611:) 2603:.— 2592:) 2521:) 2489:— 2483:, 2469:) 2457:". 2429:) 2390:) 2367:}} 2344:) 2306:) 2293:is 2257:) 2223:so 2221:, 2195:) 2101:) 2083:/ 2053:) 2039:) 2025:) 1991:) 1953:— 1893:) 1878:) 1864:) 1849:) 1830:) 1807:) 1792:, 1785:, 1778:, 1757:) 1718:) 1663:) 1612:) 1586:歓喜 1583:: 1579:({ 1562:歓喜 1501:) 1493:. 1448:) 1410:— 1357:) 1292:) 1273:) 1246:) 1218:-- 1183:) 1149:}} 1143:{{ 1084:}} 1078:{{ 1021:) 1007:) 992:) 977:) 922:— 855:, 833:) 819:) 797:) 774:) 760:) 746:) 722:) 686:) 675:-- 635:) 602:? 590:) 471:💬 446:) 426:}} 371:) 335:, 327:, 323:, 319:, 304:; 267:) 210:) 94:→ 64:← 10441:( 10378:( 10350:( 10346:— 10323:( 10308:( 10237:( 10193:( 10093:( 10065:( 10017:( 9974:( 9933:( 9887:( 9807:( 9731:( 9727:— 9639:( 9620:( 9602:( 9576:( 9558:( 9539:? 9525:ᴥ 9521:¢ 9518:☏ 9515:☺ 9472:( 9453:( 9433:( 9395:( 9365:" 9294:( 9276:( 9234:( 9216:ᴥ 9212:¢ 9209:☏ 9206:☺ 9184:( 9154:ᴥ 9150:¢ 9147:☏ 9144:☺ 9068:( 9046:ᴥ 9042:¢ 9039:☏ 9036:☺ 8994:( 8966:( 8952:( 8935:( 8902:, 8878:( 8819:( 8781:( 8761:( 8732:" 8686:( 8651:( 8647:— 8605:( 8591:( 8573:( 8562:) 8558:( 8456:( 8417:( 8413:— 8378:( 8340:( 8336:— 8333:. 8303:( 8278:( 8237:( 8223:( 8210:ᴥ 8206:¢ 8203:☏ 8200:☺ 8168:( 8152:☎ 8126:ᴥ 8122:¢ 8119:☏ 8116:☺ 8105:/ 8036:ᴥ 8032:¢ 8029:☏ 8026:☺ 8001:( 7997:— 7988:☺ 7970:ᴥ 7966:¢ 7963:☏ 7960:☺ 7949:. 7881:( 7877:— 7860:( 7801:( 7797:e 7770:ᴥ 7766:¢ 7763:☏ 7760:☺ 7716:. 7682:( 7659:( 7595:( 7580:ᴥ 7576:¢ 7573:☏ 7570:☺ 7542:( 7502:t 7500:( 7495:M 7476:t 7474:( 7469:M 7449:" 7440:t 7438:( 7433:M 7412:t 7410:( 7405:M 7312:t 7310:( 7305:M 7288:( 7224:ᴥ 7220:¢ 7217:☏ 7214:☺ 7172:( 7151:( 7124:( 7103:: 7099:@ 7088:( 7020:( 7001:( 6997:— 6942:c 6938:t 6922:ᴥ 6918:¢ 6915:☏ 6912:☺ 6870:( 6847:( 6827:( 6815:c 6811:t 6805:— 6794:( 6782:c 6778:t 6746:ᴥ 6742:¢ 6739:☏ 6736:☺ 6708:( 6664:( 6603:( 6586:( 6572:( 6536:( 6514:. 6490:T 6468:( 6456:T 6421:( 6398:ᴥ 6394:¢ 6391:☏ 6388:☺ 6365:T 6335:ᴥ 6331:¢ 6328:☏ 6325:☺ 6303:☛ 6265:( 6238:( 6224:( 6185:( 6172:T 6065:ᴥ 6061:¢ 6058:☏ 6055:☺ 6038:( 6023:ᴥ 6019:¢ 6016:☏ 6013:☺ 5943:( 5917:( 5903:( 5849:ᴥ 5845:¢ 5842:☏ 5839:☺ 5812:⚞ 5797:( 5748:⚞ 5730:t 5728:( 5723:M 5711:( 5658:t 5656:( 5651:M 5638:( 5618:t 5616:( 5611:M 5598:( 5584:( 5552:( 5485:( 5466:( 5444:¢ 5421:t 5419:( 5414:M 5370:( 5355:( 5334:( 5320:( 5279:( 5229:( 5192:( 5157:t 5155:( 5150:M 5138:ᴥ 5134:¢ 5131:☏ 5128:☺ 5094:( 5079:( 5065:( 5044:: 5040:@ 5006:: 5002:@ 4991:( 4976:( 4956:: 4952:@ 4937:( 4903:( 4878:( 4842:ᴥ 4838:¢ 4835:☏ 4832:☺ 4788:( 4732:( 4676:( 4650:ᴥ 4646:¢ 4643:☏ 4640:☺ 4623:( 4609:ᴥ 4605:¢ 4602:☏ 4599:☺ 4589:: 4581:@ 4573:ᴥ 4569:¢ 4566:☏ 4563:☺ 4539:( 4518:( 4485:ᴥ 4481:¢ 4478:☏ 4475:☺ 4458:( 4442:( 4436:: 4432:@ 4417:( 4363:( 4323:( 4308:( 4293:( 4269:( 4240:( 4214:( 4197:( 4161:( 4143:( 4078:⚞ 3957:⚞ 3921:. 3875:| 3855:⚞ 3841:( 3825:⚞ 3804:( 3779:⚞ 3709:ᴥ 3705:¢ 3702:☏ 3699:☺ 3620:ᴥ 3616:¢ 3613:☏ 3610:☺ 3593:( 3578:( 3555:( 3540:( 3520:t 3518:( 3513:M 3501:( 3489:t 3487:( 3482:M 3464:( 3433:t 3431:( 3426:M 3413:( 3395:( 3374:t 3372:( 3367:M 3346:— 3333:¤ 3306:¤ 3262:( 3240:ᴥ 3236:¢ 3233:☏ 3230:☺ 3172:( 3135:( 3096:¢ 3061:¢ 3027:( 3009:( 2989:( 2973:. 2953:( 2928:E 2926:• 2924:C 2922:• 2920:T 2899:( 2882:( 2843:( 2827:( 2796:( 2780:t 2778:( 2773:M 2759:( 2716:( 2686:( 2625:( 2607:( 2588:( 2517:( 2504:ᴥ 2500:¢ 2497:☏ 2494:☺ 2465:( 2455:' 2425:( 2386:( 2340:( 2302:( 2253:( 2229:. 2210:) 2206:( 2191:( 2097:( 2049:( 2035:( 2021:( 2009:( 2001:( 1987:( 1983:— 1968:ᴥ 1964:¢ 1961:☏ 1958:☺ 1889:( 1874:( 1860:( 1845:( 1826:( 1822:— 1803:( 1753:( 1749:— 1714:( 1659:( 1608:( 1596:. 1497:( 1444:( 1425:ᴥ 1421:¢ 1418:☏ 1415:☺ 1388:/ 1353:( 1288:( 1269:( 1242:( 1224:t 1222:• 1179:( 1127:. 1054:. 1017:( 1003:( 988:( 973:( 937:ᴥ 933:¢ 930:☏ 927:☺ 829:( 815:( 793:( 770:( 756:( 742:( 718:( 684:t 682:( 677:M 657:/ 631:( 586:( 464:— 442:( 367:( 349:* 345:: 296:( 283:# 263:( 206:( 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Manual of Style/Archive 160 - Knowledge

Index