597:
research grants. For example, today's big thing, the
Internet, arose as a result of DARPA funding and other public expenditure in places such as Switzerland. Although the media and private enterprise criticizes Chirac for his recent public funding announcement, one must not forget that mini-tel the early French internet was very successful in France, people were dating each other on Minitel some 20 years ago. Amongst the most significant inventions that affect our lives are liquid crystal displays that were invented as a result of significant UK defence government funding. Those who commercialize technology innovate but my sense is that even those in technology such as Microsoft and Apple commercialized an existing invention (windows and the mouse, etc.) that was bigger than any inventions they have come up with subsequently? The most successful commercializations and the richest corporations are not necessarily significant innovators. War was a very significant source of innovations but in peace time I wonder whether the innovations are not mostly generated by government funding? It is also in my view untrue to state that government funding is usually inefficient but my sense is that this perception is created because nobody is motivated to carry out the calculation. Take for example something that was calculated, the commercial spin offs of the heat dissipating tiles of the space shuttle. These were shown to pay off several times the investment and coined the saying that "only scientists can determine investment in science". The idea that the free market will leap us forward with remarkable inventions is suspect really because those who lead large corporations do not take risks with the current source or line of profit, and the system of patent protection is abused by large corporations. I think that the general public cannot appreciate the deep thinking and hard work that takes place to initiate and to prove an idea. Ideas get commercialized once they are proved and therefore the generation of ideas has to originate in public projects. It is very hard to expect that private funding will speculate large amounts of funding on risky projects. The problem resides in that the value of whatever is generated cannot be estimated. The new idea may seem worthless until a different application is found. A classic illustration happened a few years back with deCODE. Some US pharmaceutical firm had taken a drug all the way down the FDA tests but the drug was ineffective and deCODE bought it cheaply because they figured out that the drug was more effective for another common complex disorder (mycrocardial infarction). So taking risks on an idea with private funding is very risky and someone completely different may profit with impunity (it goes beyond patent laws). It would be interesting to see some numbers as to the major inventions and whether government funding is as ineffective as the libertarians claim. We have a mixed system that we should cherish.
85:
64:
31:
498:
187:
448:
423:
355:
623:
possible that things of more value to society would have been created with that wealth. That's a fundamental problem with such a comparison. You can't see the things whose creation was prevented. Central authority determined for society how society must use its wealth, rather than allowing society to decide for itself through voluntary investment seeking to satisfy consumer wants and needs.
334:
22:
1248:
1039:
Both of these require some thought. We could make some generalized departments which would apply to any nation ie. Military, Energy, Transportation, Education, Science/Research. Breaking down the "type of project" statistically might be more difficult. Since we are not going to conduct surveys on our
646:
If there is no obvious market and no clear business model or making a profit the for-profit approach is counterproductive, since the inherent risk of making money from the results of the research is extremely high and is best shared among the whole society. This roughly means that research is best
530:
I am a new editor interested in this topic. I just wanted to flag that this article mentions the
Research Quality Plus Approach, and there is an article for creation pending review on this topic. Those interested may wish to review that article, and if/when it is publicly available, this could be
986:
I also have no idea what ISR&D is and could not figure it out with a google search. I think the best way to find out would be to find the source of the statistics in the table. Unfortunately, the sources have not been provided. I suggest that the table be removed if the sources are not given
977:
Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see a definition posted for "ISR&D", the heading of the second coloumn of the chart, I have never heard that term before and I can't find it anywhere in a quick google search. Presumably it's independent spending on research & development? Or maybe it's
719:
This section, especially the last paragraph about the human genome project needs sources and a general re-write-- if for any reason the fact that their discussion of the public vs private fails to even give a tenth of informatino regarding the two gene sequencing attempts. A quick example: the
596:
Could you improve the section on merits of free market versus government funding? Could we have a list of significant inventions by public funding and others by private funding please? My suspicion is that most significant advances have arisen or originated from government funded projects and
1083:
Breaking down the table by category as well as by country would require finding a source that contains that information. It might take some research, but that sounds like the sort of thing that should exist somewhere, perhaps in a report from a government agency or NGO. Perhaps the
National
747:
Please, reconsider the examples mentioning quantum mechanics (or I'll do it myself), they are silly. There is no identifiable vector: "nature of quantum mechanics". There is
Quantum Mechanics, the underlying theory for the semiconductor technology (not just a "microchip"), 100% of the nuclear
622:
It's easy to point to valuable things that were created that were financed by taxation, but you can't see the things that would have been created if that wealth was left in private economy and invested in projects that were driven by the profit-motive and satisfying consumer wants. It's quite
636:
I think it is not wise to classify government-funded research as non-profit and private-funded research as for profit. This is typically, but not always so. The argument of private-funded research being more efficient than government-funded research in the current form can not be
879:
Good section, but there's no citations. Looks like Nature journal is private about their journal and doesn't have any direct links, but there's a washington post article regarding what seems to be the same survey. Can we just tag it on the last sentence? Here's the article
720:
private company actually used the publically available info from the government to actually put together their sequences, that's a large part of what made it so easy for them and was a huge point of contention when they then turned around and tried to patent all the info.
291:
299:
1020:
One could find any number of anecdotal examples like the genome research example to support either side of the public vs. private funding debate. I do not feel this is useful for the reader and further it can easily mislead them.
699:
I see no mention of crowd-sourcing like kickstarter or prize rewards such as the X Prize for space flight as part of this article. It would be good to update with new types of funding that became possible due to current technology.
863:
I'm going to start a section on the process involved with funding research with grants, i.e., grant proposals, grant writing, grant board reviews, etc. It is a often shadowy world that needs some good wikipedian description.
35:
295:
647:
conducted in a non-profit mode, whether governmental or private. If there is a clear market and a profit to be made on the market a for-profit approach is usually more efficient. Such is the case with development.
1463:
I'm unable to find any mention of declaration of funding laws or requirements. Declaration of funding should be a primary part of this topic, and it's not even listed as a subtopic. Any ideas as to the reason?
799:
to the merge. They are two very different sorts of articles, both important. How research is to be funded in general is one topic, and the organizations which fund it is another. (And for VV's reasons as
1526:
140:
1030:
I've never edited a
Knowledge article before, I'm not sure how exactly to proceed. I thought it would be best to just add something to the discussion section and see what response I receive.
1516:
748:
physics, superconductivity and superfluidity, lasers, etc. What was rather theoretical in the '20, became engineeering. I acknowledge the good intentions and <<l'esprit: -->
1259:
1531:
105:
and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
97:
69:
303:
1556:
405:
395:
1309:
1186:
1182:
1168:
566:"Some HGP researchers claimed Celera's method of genome sequencing "would not work," however that project eventually adopted Celera's method." - Source please.
1541:
130:
947:, since its present scope doesn't include non-science funding. Note that there was another article at "Funding of science" which was previously moved to
1483:
This article does not state its scope: Is the content intended to refer to funding for science globally? In the USA? In China? This needs clarification.
1546:
1511:
371:
1551:
253:
1521:
1074:
Thanks for your comments! Please feel free to plunge in and edit the article if you think you can make any improvements. The entire series of
1427:, something along those lines. In all, I agree that the term 'science' is inappropriate, since the topic is narrower, but the phrasing it as a
914:, where there is discussion on the relationship between that article and this one. Specifically, there is a proposal to move this article to
1536:
1024:
I think the readers would be much better served by an article which focused more on statistics and a historic account of scientific funding.
890:
362:
339:
213:
1294:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
287:
730:
654:
613:
1241:
1164:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
1027:
A dedicated section to the debate about public vs. private funding might be useful but it should not be the focus of this article.
280:
536:
512:
269:
1506:
1095:
962:
929:
106:
1397:
1330:
1062:
554:
research? To what extent would that include thinktanks and foundations (especially where not producing peer-reviewed work)?
1454:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1369:
1229:
199:
44:
1046:
I just wanted to start the discussion and see if other involved felt that this article could use a complete overhaul.
881:
1425:
The '''funding of research''' is largely obtained by ]s and ]s for the purposes of ]ing the areas of the ]s, ], and ].
532:
1078:
articles is rather incomplete and could use some expansion. I can help if you have any questions about contributing.
1267:
454:
428:
205:
982:
I came here to say the same thing. WHAT THE FUCK IS IT!? The ref link is dead, and googling has done me no good.~~
1285:
948:
894:
849:
504:
1185:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
672:
209:
734:
658:
609:
1365:
1220:
1154:
1146:
221:
1469:
1354:
1295:
1204:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1192:
1006:
992:
757:
690:
605:
225:
217:
50:
1465:
1263:
1145:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1002:
988:
686:
84:
63:
1050:
1040:
own, we will have to be flexible and adjust our presentation to the type of data that we can access.
886:
726:
650:
601:
459:
433:
21:
1410:
1298:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1120:
1115:
seems to a be a bit misplaced on this page. I suggest to put it on a separate page and link to it.
911:
753:
370:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1392:
1340:
1325:
1138:
1058:
1043:
A similar analysis of private funding would be ideal but I am not sure how feasible it would be?
944:
915:
1484:
1189:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1205:
576:
233:
1440:
1350:
1255:
940:
869:
580:
508:
1212:
775:, as there are many types of funding bodies that are not about research. Two examples are
1488:
978:
I-something
Science Research & Development? It's certainly unclear. Does anyone know?
675:
578:
239:
1171:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1116:
1085:
1075:
1036:-Break down the spending by department -Break down the spending by the type of project
952:
919:
824:
678:
551:
367:
246:
186:
1211:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1500:
1387:
1320:
1054:
1033:
Expanding on the government funding table would be of interest to readers I believe.
845:
882:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060802385.html
1416:
772:
1436:
1178:
865:
784:
776:
102:
447:
422:
1177:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
682:
567:
555:
1016:
This page should focus less on opinions and anecdotes and more on statistics.
1492:
1473:
1444:
1401:
1334:
1271:
1234:
1124:
1100:
1066:
1010:
996:
967:
934:
898:
873:
853:
827:
806:
787:
761:
738:
714:
694:
662:
627:
624:
585:
582:
570:
540:
354:
333:
1155:
https://web.archive.org/web/20151216073658/http://www.isf.org.il/English/
841:
802:
710:
681:, an outspoken critic of public funding of science. For example, he gave
101:, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to
1247:
1415:. I believe the title and first sentence can better be written, since
1158:
526:
Connections to an article pending review on
Research Quality Plus
780:
492:
302:, or put the files into suitable Knowledge articles. See also
15:
1254:
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect
1246:
1149:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
671:
Potentially of interest are the writings and lectures of
531:
strengthened by adding the internal
Knowledge link to it.
750:
of the Author, but the phrasing should be more serious.
1345:
1142:
1107:
List of research councils -- should be moved or deleted
175:
170:
165:
160:
1001:
I removed the table because the source was not cited.
1527:
Knowledge level-5 vital articles in
Physical sciences
503:
On 28 May 2022, it was proposed that this article be
366:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1181:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
723:Really this example is just all kinds of useless.
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Open/Open access task force
704:recent edits on government & private funding
457:, a project which is currently considered to be
1167:This message was posted before February 2018.
1517:Knowledge vital articles in Physical sciences
8:
1532:C-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
1284:The following is a closed discussion of a
1137:I have just modified one external link on
417:
328:
194:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
148:
58:
859:More work on the research funding process
254:Category:Stub-Class Open access articles
1435:makes me say no to 'Research funding'.
419:
330:
60:
19:
1557:Top-importance Science Policy articles
1424:
1423:topic. I'd rather see it mutated as:
7:
1303:The result of the move request was:
1084:Academies has something like that?
592:Free market and libertarian position
453:This article is within the scope of
380:Knowledge:WikiProject Science Policy
360:This article is within the scope of
306:of open-access files more generally.
214:Creative Commons Attribution License
1542:Top-importance Open access articles
910:I'd like to call your attention to
383:Template:WikiProject Science Policy
152:WikiProject Open Access to-do list:
49:It is of interest to the following
771:I am very much against merging in
286:Check media files uploaded by the
14:
1141:. Please take a moment to review
939:This article has been moved from
1547:WikiProject Open Access articles
1512:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
1450:The discussion above is closed.
550:Should this say something about
496:
446:
421:
353:
332:
185:
118:Template:WikiProject Open Access
83:
62:
29:
20:
1552:C-Class Science Policy articles
400:This article has been rated as
279:pages of related articles, and
135:This article has been rated as
1522:C-Class level-5 vital articles
1159:http://www.isf.org.il/english/
899:00:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
1:
1493:12:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
1240:"Funding agencies" listed at
968:05:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
935:05:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
906:Science policy reorganization
874:23:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
854:19:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
807:06:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
788:05:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
685:at Christ Church in 2009. --
374:and see a list of open tasks.
109:and see a list of open tasks.
1537:C-Class Open access articles
715:19:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
663:14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
1383:Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung
1357:) 20:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
1316:Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung
1272:22:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
1235:22:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
1011:17:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
840:Removing merge templates --
779:(non research related) and
708:The arguments need sources
695:10:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
1573:
1419:is fat for discussing the
1372:) 16:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
1277:Requested move 28 May 2022
1198:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1134:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1125:17:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
762:13:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
739:05:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
541:14:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
469:Knowledge:WikiProject Open
406:project's importance scale
363:WikiProject Science Policy
288:Open Access Media Importer
206:Creative Commons licensing
141:project's importance scale
1402:17:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
1335:20:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
1262:if you wish to do so. –
1113:List of research councils
1101:04:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
1067:14:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
997:03:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
949:History of science policy
558:08:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
472:Template:WikiProject Open
441:
399:
348:
296:incomplete categorization
147:
134:
78:
57:
1474:13:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
1452:Please do not modify it.
1445:22:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
1291:Please do not modify it.
1258:. Please participate in
1242:Redirects for discussion
828:20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
673:University of Buckingham
220:(currently a redirect),
216:(currently a redirect),
210:Creative Commons license
1260:the redirect discussion
1130:External links modified
767:Merge in "funding body"
628:01:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
586:22:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
571:19:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
386:Science Policy articles
270:WikiProject Open Access
98:WikiProject Open Access
1507:C-Class vital articles
1459:Declaration of Funding
1251:
616:) 19:13, 30 April 2006
533:HPK at DevResearchEval
228:(currently a redirect)
222:supplementary material
1433:collection of sources
1250:
973:ISR&D definition?
226:Scholarly Open Access
218:reproducible research
36:level-5 vital article
1179:regular verification
300:lack of descriptions
252:de-stub articles in
121:Open access articles
1411:Funding of research
1169:After February 2018
912:Talk:Science policy
1366:Extraordinary Writ
1341:Funding of science
1252:
1223:InternetArchiveBot
1174:InternetArchiveBot
1139:Funding of science
945:Funding of science
916:Funding of science
92:Funding of science
45:content assessment
1431:rather than as a
1404:
1373:
1313:
1310:non-admin closure
1264:Arms & Hearts
1199:
1070:
1053:comment added by
889:comment added by
729:comment added by
665:
653:comment added by
618:
604:comment added by
523:
522:
491:
490:
487:
486:
483:
482:
416:
415:
412:
411:
327:
326:
323:
322:
319:
318:
315:
314:
1564:
1418:
1374:
1358:
1348:
1346:Research funding
1307:
1293:
1256:Funding agencies
1233:
1224:
1197:
1196:
1175:
1069:
1047:
941:Research funding
901:
741:
648:
617:
598:
511:. The result of
509:Research funding
500:
499:
493:
477:
476:
473:
470:
467:
455:WikiProject Open
450:
443:
442:
437:
425:
418:
388:
387:
384:
381:
378:
357:
350:
349:
344:
336:
329:
274:
268:
200:Article requests
189:
182:
181:
149:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
16:
1572:
1571:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1497:
1496:
1481:
1461:
1456:
1455:
1417:x is a term for
1344:
1289:
1279:
1245:
1227:
1222:
1190:
1183:have permission
1173:
1147:this simple FaQ
1132:
1109:
1098:
1048:
1018:
975:
965:
932:
908:
891:174.126.200.228
884:
861:
785:John Vandenberg
769:
724:
706:
676:Vice-Chancellor
599:
594:
564:
548:
528:
497:
474:
471:
468:
465:
464:
431:
385:
382:
379:
376:
375:
342:
311:
272:
266:
240:Access2Research
180:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
72:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
30:
12:
11:
5:
1570:
1568:
1560:
1559:
1554:
1549:
1544:
1539:
1534:
1529:
1524:
1519:
1514:
1509:
1499:
1498:
1480:
1477:
1460:
1457:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1338:
1301:
1300:
1286:requested move
1280:
1278:
1275:
1244:
1238:
1217:
1216:
1209:
1162:
1161:
1153:Added archive
1131:
1128:
1108:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1094:
1080:
1079:
1076:science policy
1017:
1014:
984:
983:
974:
971:
961:
928:
907:
904:
903:
902:
860:
857:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
812:
811:
810:
809:
768:
765:
705:
702:
679:Terence Kealey
669:
668:
667:
666:
641:
640:
639:
638:
631:
630:
593:
590:
589:
588:
563:
560:
552:social science
547:
546:Social Science
544:
527:
524:
521:
520:
513:the discussion
501:
489:
488:
485:
484:
481:
480:
478:
451:
439:
438:
426:
414:
413:
410:
409:
402:Top-importance
398:
392:
391:
389:
377:Science Policy
372:the discussion
368:Science policy
358:
346:
345:
343:Top‑importance
340:Science Policy
337:
325:
324:
321:
320:
317:
316:
313:
312:
310:
309:
308:
307:
304:recent uploads
257:
242:
229:
193:
191:
190:
179:
178:
173:
168:
163:
157:
154:
153:
145:
144:
137:Top-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
88:
76:
75:
73:Top‑importance
67:
55:
54:
48:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1569:
1558:
1555:
1553:
1550:
1548:
1545:
1543:
1540:
1538:
1535:
1533:
1530:
1528:
1525:
1523:
1520:
1518:
1515:
1513:
1510:
1508:
1505:
1504:
1502:
1495:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1479:unclear scope
1478:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1458:
1453:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1414:
1412:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1389:
1384:
1380:
1379:
1371:
1367:
1364:
1363:
1356:
1352:
1349:– as in lead
1347:
1342:
1337:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1327:
1323:
1322:
1317:
1311:
1306:
1305:no consensus.
1299:
1297:
1292:
1287:
1282:
1281:
1276:
1274:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1249:
1243:
1239:
1237:
1236:
1231:
1226:
1225:
1214:
1210:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1194:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1170:
1165:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1135:
1129:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1106:
1102:
1097:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1082:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1044:
1041:
1037:
1034:
1031:
1028:
1025:
1022:
1015:
1013:
1012:
1008:
1004:
999:
998:
994:
990:
981:
980:
979:
972:
970:
969:
964:
959:
958:
957:
950:
946:
942:
937:
936:
931:
926:
925:
924:
917:
913:
905:
900:
896:
892:
888:
883:
878:
877:
876:
875:
871:
867:
858:
856:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
829:
826:
822:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
808:
805:
804:
798:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
786:
782:
778:
774:
766:
764:
763:
759:
755:
751:
745:
742:
740:
736:
732:
731:173.26.59.163
728:
721:
717:
716:
713:
712:
703:
701:
697:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
677:
674:
664:
660:
656:
655:193.6.169.176
652:
645:
644:
643:
642:
635:
634:
633:
632:
629:
626:
621:
620:
619:
615:
611:
607:
606:88.105.205.57
603:
591:
587:
584:
581:
579:
577:
575:
574:
573:
572:
569:
562:Source please
561:
559:
557:
553:
545:
543:
542:
538:
534:
525:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
495:
494:
479:
475:Open articles
462:
461:
456:
452:
449:
445:
444:
440:
435:
430:
427:
424:
420:
407:
403:
397:
394:
393:
390:
373:
369:
365:
364:
359:
356:
352:
351:
347:
341:
338:
335:
331:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
284:
282:
278:
271:
264:
262:
258:
255:
251:
249:
248:
243:
241:
238:
236:
235:
230:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
204:
202:
201:
196:
195:
192:
188:
184:
183:
177:
174:
172:
169:
167:
164:
162:
159:
158:
156:
155:
151:
150:
146:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
94:
93:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
37:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1482:
1466:LairdCamelot
1462:
1451:
1432:
1428:
1420:
1408:
1391:
1386:
1382:
1377:
1376:
1361:
1360:
1339:
1324:
1319:
1315:
1304:
1302:
1290:
1283:
1253:
1221:
1218:
1193:source check
1172:
1166:
1163:
1136:
1133:
1112:
1110:
1088:
1087:
1049:— Preceding
1045:
1042:
1038:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1000:
985:
976:
955:
954:
938:
922:
921:
909:
862:
837:
836:
823:, a merger.
820:
801:
796:
777:scholarships
773:Funding body
770:
752:
746:
743:
722:
718:
709:
707:
698:
670:
600:— Preceding
595:
565:
549:
529:
517:no consensus
516:
458:
401:
361:
276:
260:
259:
245:
244:
232:
231:
208:(to replace
198:
197:
136:
96:
91:
90:
51:WikiProjects
34:
1351:fgnievinski
1296:move review
1003:Rectipaedia
989:Rectipaedia
885:—Preceding
795:I am also
725:—Preceding
687:SpareSimian
649:—Preceding
112:Open Access
103:Open Access
95:is part of
70:Open Access
1501:Categories
1378:Relisting.
1362:Relisting.
1230:Report bug
637:justified.
107:discussion
1213:this tool
1206:this tool
1117:Peteruetz
825:Evolauxia
683:this talk
39:is rated
1409:Propose
1219:Cheers.—
1096:contribs
1063:contribs
1055:Wuilwong
1051:unsigned
963:contribs
930:contribs
887:unsigned
819:I, too,
783:grants.
754:Rapakivi
727:unsigned
651:unsigned
614:contribs
602:unsigned
460:inactive
434:inactive
1413:instead
1143:my edit
1086:Antony–
953:Antony–
920:Antony–
838:Comment
797:opposed
404:on the
292:missing
234:Cleanup
166:history
139:on the
41:C-class
1437:SWinxy
987:soon.
866:Rhetth
821:oppose
281:assess
47:scale.
1485:RPeel
1429:thing
1388:mello
1321:mello
800:well)
749:: -->
568:Rd232
556:Rd232
505:moved
261:Other
247:Stubs
176:purge
171:watch
28:This
1489:talk
1470:talk
1441:talk
1421:real
1370:talk
1355:talk
1268:talk
1121:talk
1111:The
1059:talk
1007:talk
993:talk
895:talk
870:talk
758:talk
735:talk
691:talk
659:talk
625:RJII
610:talk
583:RJII
537:talk
515:was
466:Open
429:Open
290:for
277:talk
265:add
161:edit
1393:hi!
1326:hi!
1187:RfC
1157:to
951:.
943:to
918:.
842:Lox
803:DGG
781:art
744:==
711:DGG
507:to
396:Top
298:or
294:or
275:to
212:);
131:Top
1503::
1491:)
1472:)
1443:)
1400:)
1398:投稿
1385:,
1381:—
1375:—
1359:—
1343:→
1333:)
1331:投稿
1318:,
1314:—
1288:.
1270:)
1200:.
1195:}}
1191:{{
1123:)
1099:)
1093:(⁄
1089:22
1065:)
1061:•
1009:)
995:)
966:)
960:(/
956:22
933:)
927:(/
923:22
897:)
872:)
852:)
760:)
737:)
693:)
661:)
612:•
539:)
283:;
273:}}
267:{{
224:.
1487:(
1468:(
1439:(
1396:(
1368:(
1353:(
1329:(
1312:)
1308:(
1266:(
1232:)
1228:(
1215:.
1208:.
1119:(
1057:(
1005:(
991:(
893:(
868:(
850:c
848:,
846:t
844:(
756:(
733:(
689:(
657:(
608:(
535:(
519:.
463:.
436:)
432:(
408:.
263::
256:.
250::
237::
203::
143:.
53::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
