1196:
any particular instance. It's an invitation to people who are certain the information is correct to quickly provide the/a correct source for it. The most common cause of its use is when facts are ascribed to the wrong sources (e.g. because of interpolation of unsourced facts between two sourced ones that share a source, or moving sourced facts, without their citation, to another passage sourced to a difference source), and the second is when a source has been misinterpreted and the source does not actually support the fact being claimed.
1680:
instance, what brought me here was a reference to a book that had no page or chapter information to help locate the spot that supports the article text the source is supposed to support. That reference should be flagged but I don't wish to make the claim that the information is not in the source when it may be that I just overlooked it. There are two ways to fix this, the text could be "failed verification" or perhaps "not in citation given?" (note the question mark). I am a FIRM believer in keeping with the programming mantra of the
776:
22:
129:
111:
2090:
1973:
225:
191:
2159:
2048:
1790:
1516:
1485:
1243:
930:
726:
402:
1880:
isn't mentioned in the next citation and that you've checked it. "Failed verification" to me means more "not in this source and I've also
Googled it but couldn't verify". The overlap is large, but I'd like to see those two split. (I'm here because I suddenly couldn't find what had happened to that "not in citation given" text hehe). --
1814:
statement. Since it's by far the most common case, a stronger statement is better. The stated motivation for the change was that the wording wasn't correct when a page or chapter is needed, but per the response there's another template for this, so I don't see any benefit to offset the drawbacks. Regards,
367:
Is it an appropriate use of the tag to indicate that a link that has been given is now broken? It seems that does not fall under the instructions for its use; surely there is a difference between giving a citation that doesn't include what it is purported to and the url ceasing to exist and therefore
1095:
Which leaves the statement unverified. Should we really keep unverified information on
Knowledge (XXG) indefinitely on the off chance that somebody will be able to verify it in the future? I thought the onus was on the person making the claim to support it with a citation, not to make a claim with a
1879:
Yes, splitting these two would be great! The use cases for these two is similar, but not identical. In addition to pointing out unverified info, "not in citation given" can point out that 1. the source cited is completely irrelevant to the preceding sentence and 2. that a particular snippet of text
878:
This template is particularly useful when the statement is missing from the source as well as when it contradicts it. Using the above example, the article says 26% of statistics are made up but the source doesn't give any percentage. This is also failed verification, but there's no contradiction in
1195:
They're not even slightly pointless; they alert readers to information that may not be reliable at all. In this template's particular case, they even more importantly flag material that isn't just unverified but for which verification attempts have failed. Yes, it should not be used long-term in
1180:
I have no problem with an uncontested statement being unsourced indefinitely. A challenge is frivolous, however, if the challenger fails to follow up when the challenge is not met. Most of these tags that clutter up
Knowledge (XXG) are a distraction for the general reader and are quite pointless.
805:
According to the documentation, this tag should only be used if "the source says something other than what is contained in the article." "For example, if the article says that 26% of statistics are made up, and the source says that 32% of statistics are made up, then that information has failed
1679:
A source "failing verification" does not imply the information is not in the source, which is a stronger claim. It simply means somebody was unable to verify the information. It may (or even likely) means it is not in the source but there's a chance the person was simply unable to find it. For
350:
Right, that was a typo. Anyway, I don't disagree with your take on what process should be. I'm simply countering the idea that the proper response is deleting instead of discussion. I.e., what's good for the gander is good for the goose in this case. The point of the template is to generate
1151:
All the same, there ought to be a policy that text tagged with or should not stay on
Knowledge (XXG) indefinitely. An editor applying such a tag has a responsibility to take further action if there is no response within a reasonable time. The Watcher count helps indicate how long a wait is
1281:
parameter, it simply doesn't display in the article, and is a note for editors, in the wikicode. I've updated this template's documentation to illustrate how to use this. To change this behavior in these templates, to display in the article on mouse-over or some other event would be a bigger
1061:
What is the utility of a tag like this? All content on
Knowledge (XXG) must be verifiable. If it is found to be unverifiable, or if content has failed verification, shouldn't it simply be removed? We may as well have a template marking patently false information or content which is obviously
1813:
I urge you to revert this change. "Not in citation given" was a clear
English statement. "Failed verification" conveys only a vague meaning. It's also off-putting to users. Does Knowledge (XXG) have an AI which is verifying claims? Also, as you say, "not in citation given" is a stronger
660:
A source is cited which is a top list that updates every week. Therefore there is no way to verify the source, since the data now is different. Wayback
Machine does not happen to have the exact week the source is referring to. Is this the right tag for this or should something else be used?
1254:
Any chance a "Reason" category can be added to this template? It would be useful if a "Reason" category could be included, with the "reason" displayed when hovering the cursor over the tag. I guess this could be considered a request... FWIW.
72:, a collaborative effort to improve and manage Knowledge (XXG)'s inline footnote, cleanup and dispute templates. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
1429:
It is fairly standard to use "Articles" because we want to distinguish from content categories. "Articles with claims that have failed verification" might be better, in terms of precision, but it is overly long. AĀ Merry
Christmas!
1398:? Even better would be a title that doesn't include 'Article' because categories contain articles; no need to state to obvious. Categories can also contain Files which are not articles but might contain this template. Perhaps
606:
This template would be more useful if it could link to section of the talk page where the failed verification is discussed. This feature is in some other inline templates so it shouldn't be too hard to implement. Thanks,
1640:
I updated the documentation, which was wrong about this parameter anyway (some time between the original 2014 discussion about it and now, someone implemented it as a tooltip ā maybe even me ā without updating the docs).
512:
I would say outside. It is important enough to cast doubt on the statement the citation claims to support. For many readers (myself included) merely seeing the footnote link provides some support for the statement.
937:
I think we could also add an indication that if the problematic reference is the only one given to support a statement, {{fact}} should also be added. Unless someone has a better idea of what to do in these cases.
1102:
currently states "No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable" and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
904:
Thank you both. So, is there any opposition to changing point 3 from "the source says something other than what is contained in the article" to "the source does not support what is contained in the article"?
962:
I changed the documentation page to clarify when to use it. In short, this template should not be used if the source has no relevance to the topic. In such cases, the references should simply be deleted.
1716:
doesn't appear to be true for this template. A quick scan of the template's history would seem to indicate that the basic rendering has not much changed since the template's creation.
757:
269:. The intended use is when a plausible source has been provided, but an editor has thoroughly checked that source and found that it does not support the text of the article.
1842:, which is currently a redirect here, the main template if we want to use "Not in citation given" as the text. Another is that they are split into two different templates.
1077:
This tag is added to a specific statement, references by a specific source. It may well be that other sources are available. The template doesn't say that the statement is
985:
That helped a little, but the percentage example isn't helpful. This template is most often used for "judgement call" matters, in which an editor is seemingly engaging in
333:
235:
2004:
lowercase, and use instead a spaced en dash (Ā āĀ ) to separate it from the phrase "failed verification". (This should be done for both instances of "(See discussion.)")
145:
1677:
As in so many cases in the past with inline-tags, people keep "improving" the text until it means something semantically different than the name of the template.
1287:
677:
76:
989:
of a source, not misquoting statistics. If a percentage were misquoted, it would simply be fixed, not flagged with this template. We need a better example. ā
1346:
tagged statements. There are currently 4,686 pages transcluding of this template compared with something over 344,479 members of the category tree rooted at
2189:
1772:
Nearly a month has passed for discussion. I intend to make the change to "failed verification" I suggested above unless anybody wishes to discuss it more.
1347:
1458:
1351:
413:
436:
149:
68:
53:
700:
This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at
211:
1371:
Code in sandbox. I will make this live presently. Please feel free to raise issues, or request a revert if there are any problems. AllĀ theĀ best:
2194:
1096:
false citation and let other do the research. At the very least, shouldn't failed verification claims be outcommented until they are verified?
439:
369:
153:
136:
116:
813:
Should the text be changed to, say, "contradicted by citation", or should the documentation be changed to say the source simply needs to
1881:
1391:
1952:
This template shouldn't exist at all in an encyclopedia. If a claim is not verified in the source given, then it should be removed.
1653:
1626:
1302:
1208:
1007:
866:
203:
1614:
Yeah, this is a limitation of HTML itself; the double-quote character has to be escaped, and we can't use any markup like italics.
709:
1403:
1166:
Sometimes statements remain unsourced for years. And I fail to see the big problem. If a statement is not contested, let it be.
508:
be used inside or outside the ref? Inside puts the message next to the citation and outside puts in the body of the article. ~
1681:
1930:
1395:
836:"Does not support". When a reliable source blatantly contradicts the text in the article, the article text has to change, per
33:
1896:
1836:
549:
1399:
231:
1042:
1024:
336:
reveals only 68 links, many of which are not in mainspace articles. It would seem this might be a good candidate for TfD.
1530:
When using the "reason" parameter with double quote marks, then it doesn't properly reflect in the tooltip. For example:
1724:
1535:
502:
622:
I second that, there are many cases where such a link would be most useful. Could you please implement such a feature?
545:? Its current title and all other redirects to it would continue to work transparently as synonyms. We could go with
1906:
1737:
1420:
471:
1250:
Done to the extent possible without a site-wide consensus discussion about how this whole class of templates behaves.
332:
you mean? Such cases should go to talk. If the original editor continually reverts, take it to dispute resolution.
2096:
1979:
1926:
1922:
1862:
I'd be happy with either of these changes. I'm not in the template editors group so I can't make changes myself.
1099:
2070:
1497:
1435:
1376:
1359:
641:
518:
1152:
reasonable, but a month is surely the outer limit. (No, I did not use the templates in producing this comment.)
1341:
1186:
1157:
1131:
843:
612:
539:
443:
373:
39:
1274:, and have changed the topic heading to reflect this. Virtually all inline templates of this sort support a
1733:
1416:
974:
890:
739:
627:
575:
274:
1900:
1885:
591:
560:
461:
263:
253:
1847:
1802:
1777:
1755:
1689:
1650:
1623:
1299:
1205:
997:
856:
1271:
1041:- never mind. I see this has already been asked and answered above at #Inside or outside the ref? Ā --
2058:
1702:
1494:
1432:
1373:
1356:
638:
515:
2121:
1938:
1675:
Currently the text says "not in citation given". It is better if it is just "failed verification".
1466:
1182:
1171:
1153:
1142:
1086:
1023:
Is this template meant to be nested within the ref tag, or left in the text at the ref marker? Ā --
608:
214:
for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
1957:
1867:
1819:
1108:
1067:
964:
880:
685:
666:
623:
571:
270:
986:
775:
2024:
1605:
1046:
1028:
943:
910:
826:
806:
verification." In other words, this seems to say the tag should be used when the source given
587:
556:
1354:. I will try to cut the code in a few days if there is no objection the move. AllĀ theĀ best:
2169:
1843:
1798:
1773:
1751:
1685:
1644:
1617:
1525:
1321:
1293:
1260:
1199:
992:
851:
419:
354:
315:
1283:
555:, too, but I think the shorter form has the best combination of memorability and brevity.--
2174:
2150:
2073:
2029:
1942:
1910:
1889:
1871:
1851:
1823:
1806:
1781:
1759:
1741:
1693:
1662:
1635:
1609:
1586:
1583:
1470:
1424:
1325:
1311:
1264:
1217:
1190:
1175:
1161:
1146:
1112:
1090:
1071:
1050:
1032:
1012:
979:
947:
914:
895:
871:
830:
794:
768:
762:
713:
704:
701:
689:
670:
646:
631:
616:
595:
579:
564:
523:
487:
477:
447:
427:
377:
362:
345:
323:
303:
278:
141:
1934:
1462:
1167:
1138:
1082:
789:
340:
298:
2120:
the "being considered for merging" tags looks terrible in mainspace; see for instance
837:
2183:
1953:
1863:
1815:
1104:
1063:
681:
662:
288:
2040:
2018:
1601:
939:
906:
822:
484:
2166:
2117:
1714:
people keep "improving" the text until it means something semantically different
1317:
1256:
144:
of
Knowledge (XXG) articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the
464:}} The last edit renders the template invisible. Could an admin please revert.
1721:
This is not to say that I disagree with what I think is your main point: that
1579:
467:
2138:
810:
the statement. However, the tag's text simply says "not in citation given".
785:
128:
110:
2007:
This is to change to the more typographically consistent when either the
1062:
vandalism. The policy there is to remove or revert on sight, why not here?
586:
So, no objections? If not, I'll move it next time I swing back this way.--
840:, unless two sources contradict each other, in which case it's time for
570:
Second that. "Not in citation" is more succinct than the current title.
1895:
I agree the text should be changed back or there should be a separate
2065:
1927:
Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability#Tagging_a_sentence,_section,_or_article
1699:
For the case you describe where pagination has been omitted, perhaps
1338:
These statements/references seem to me worthy of more attention than
1081:
to verify, just that a specific attempt at verification has failed.
1750:
Thanks for the comment. I struck the salty-sounding sentence.Ā :-)
1684:, so "failed verification" seems clearly the best option to me.
2084:
1967:
414:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject
Council/Proposals#Inline templates
219:
185:
15:
2000:
Remove the punctuation around "(See discussion.)", make the
1127:, that would be reason to remove it. That is why we have
719:
Add Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates
535:
Does anyone have a problem with renaming the template to
236:
templates used to provide or request sources for articles
207:
198:
284:
The citation should just be removed and replaced with
758:
Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates
656:
Is this the proper tag for a content changing source?
1282:
discussion than a change request here, e.g. maybe a
2012:
2008:
680:, which seems more suitable for this discussion. --
75:Some discussion of this template may take place at
334:Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Failed verification
312:will simply put back the original bogus source. ā
1288:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Inline Templates
2081:Template-protected edit request on 1 August 2020
1964:Template-protected edit request on 15 June 2020
1392:Category:Articles that have failed verification
416:. I've been meaning to do this for a while. ā
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1768:Intend to change text to "failed verification"
1316:OK, thanks. (And thanks for correcting me!) --
987:novel synthesis or questionable interpretation
848:, a talk page discussion and more sourcing. ā
249:This template is intended to be stronger than
1270:I think you mean a template parameter, not a
754:<!-- {{Failed verification}} begin --: -->
696:Editprotected request involving this template
8:
746:{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly: -->
437:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Inline Templates
86:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Inline Templates
1538:|reason=Source does not mention "foo bar"}}
1348:Category:Articles with unsourced statements
1121:is not yet reason to remove it. If it were
1459:Category:Articles with failed verification
1404:Category:Statements that fail verification
1352:Category:Articles with failed verification
456:Last edit rendering the template invisible
189:
105:
47:
351:discussion as to how to fix something. ā
1396:Category:Articles that fail verification
196:Text and/or other creative content from
140:, a collaborative effort to improve the
162:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Reliability
107:
49:
2129:
2125:
1921:This template is currently linking to
1832:One possibility is that we could make
1713:
1400:Category:Claims that fail verification
1275:
1933:, could the link be changed to that?
1671:Text should say "failed verification"
89:Template:WikiProject Inline Templates
66:This template is within the scope of
21:
19:
7:
1929:. It seems that there's a shortcut,
1509:Quote marks break "reason" parameter
1350:. I propose moving these 4,686 to
1117:Again: the fact that a statement is
756:? This will categorize the page in
38:It is of interest to the following
2190:WikiProject Inline Templates pages
14:
204:Template:Failed verification span
2157:
2088:
2046:
1971:
1788:
1514:
1483:
1241:
928:
774:
748:NAMESPACE}}|<includeonly: -->
724:
400:
223:
165:Template:WikiProject Reliability
127:
109:
20:
1682:Principle of least astonishment
1057:Conflict with WP:Verifiability?
435:The proposal became a project:
1897:template:not in citation given
1441:02:15,Ā 23Ā DecemberĀ 2014Ā (UTC).
1382:18:05,Ā 25Ā NovemberĀ 2014Ā (UTC).
1:
2195:WikiProject Reliability pages
1925:, but the correct section is
1923:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
1642:
1615:
1471:14:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
1425:18:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
1291:
1197:
1100:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
801:Change text or documentation?
752:in the template, right after
714:20:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
565:08:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
448:22:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
378:22:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
1503:23:33,Ā 6Ā JanuaryĀ 2015Ā (UTC).
1365:20:11,Ā 22Ā AugustĀ 2014Ā (UTC).
958:Clarification on when to use
795:12:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
769:02:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
531:Rename to "Not in citation"?
488:22:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
478:13:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
393:Wikiproject Inline templates
294:. This tag seems redundant.
199:Template:Failed verification
69:WikiProject Inline Templates
2111:to reactivate your request.
2099:has been answered. Set the
1994:to reactivate your request.
1982:has been answered. Set the
1943:18:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
1461:sounds clear enough to me.
747:subst:</includeonly: -->
2211:
2175:21:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
2151:21:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
1911:17:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
1512:
1326:04:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
1312:03:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
1239:
1218:03:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
1137:and all those other tags.
1013:22:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
980:12:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
948:03:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
915:05:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
896:12:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
872:02:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
831:16:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
760:if it is substed. Thanks!
722:
494:Inside or outside the ref?
428:16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
398:
363:00:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
346:20:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
324:16:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
304:06:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
2074:22:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
2030:19:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
1890:00:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
1872:18:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
1852:12:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
1824:17:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
1760:09:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
1742:22:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
1694:21:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
1663:01:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
1636:01:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
1610:03:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
1587:11:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
1265:20:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
1236:Add a "reason" parameter?
1191:16:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
1176:16:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
1162:15:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
1147:15:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
1113:14:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
1091:13:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
1072:13:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
647:07:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
632:23:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
617:21:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
596:02:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
580:23:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
524:07:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
279:21:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
202:was copied or moved into
148:, where you can join the
134:This template is part of
122:
92:Inline Templates articles
59:
46:
1807:19:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
1782:20:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
1545:
1051:12:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
1033:12:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
744:Will someone please put
690:12:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
671:07:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
308:Then the mis-citing edit
2015:parameter is provided.
1406:, or something similar.
137:WikiProject Reliability
77:the project's talk page
817:the statement, rather
749:]</includeonly: -->
1947:
1931:WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION
1837:Not in citation given
1565:not in citation given
676:I moved the question
550:Not in citation given
1948:This shouldn't exist
1712:Your assertion that
1334:Change category tree
206:. The former page's
168:Reliability articles
2122:Columbia University
1725:failed verification
1536:Failed verification
764:c y m r u . l a s s
503:Failed verification
368:being unverifiable?
328:The mis-citing edit
212:provide attribution
79:, rather than here.
1729:should render as:
1560:""Source"
710:(background check)
602:Links to talk page
234:is one of several
154:list of open tasks
34:content assessment
2148:
2136:
2115:
2114:
2076:
2038:
2028:
1998:
1997:
1734:Trappist the monk
1585:
1504:
1442:
1417:Trappist the monk
1383:
1366:
1010:
972:
888:
869:
793:
242:
241:
218:
217:
184:
183:
180:
179:
176:
175:
104:
103:
100:
99:
2202:
2165:
2161:
2160:
2149:
2146:
2145:
2143:
2134:
2131:
2127:
2124:. Can we change
2106:
2102:
2092:
2091:
2085:
2072:
2068:
2061:
2054:
2050:
2049:
2044:
2036:
2022:
2021:
2014:
2010:
1989:
1985:
1975:
1974:
1968:
1903:
1841:
1835:
1796:
1792:
1791:
1728:
1706:
1661:
1634:
1599:
1595:
1582:
1574:
1571:
1568:
1564:
1561:
1558:
1555:
1552:
1549:
1539:
1529:
1518:
1517:
1502:
1491:
1487:
1486:
1440:
1381:
1364:
1345:
1310:
1280:
1251:
1245:
1244:
1216:
1136:
1130:
1011:
1006:
1005:
1003:
977:
970:
969:
936:
932:
931:
893:
886:
885:
870:
865:
864:
862:
847:
783:
778:
767:
765:
755:
751:
743:
734:
728:
727:
554:
548:
544:
538:
507:
501:
476:
426:
423:
422:
410:
404:
403:
361:
358:
357:
343:
339:
322:
319:
318:
301:
297:
293:
287:
268:
262:
258:
252:
227:
226:
220:
201:
193:
192:
186:
170:
169:
166:
163:
160:
131:
124:
123:
113:
106:
94:
93:
90:
87:
84:
83:Inline Templates
61:
60:
54:Inline Templates
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
2210:
2209:
2205:
2204:
2203:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2180:
2179:
2172:
2171:it has begun...
2158:
2156:
2139:
2137:
2133:
2104:
2100:
2089:
2083:
2066:
2059:
2047:
2045:
2035:
2016:
1987:
1983:
1972:
1966:
1950:
1919:
1901:
1839:
1833:
1789:
1787:
1770:
1722:
1700:
1673:
1659:
1632:
1597:
1593:
1576:
1575:
1572:
1569:
1566:
1562:
1559:
1556:
1553:
1550:
1547:
1533:
1523:
1521:
1520:
1515:
1511:
1484:
1482:
1342:Citation needed
1339:
1336:
1308:
1279:
1252:
1249:
1247:
1242:
1238:
1214:
1134:
1132:Citation needed
1128:
1059:
1021:
1001:
996:
990:
975:
965:
960:
929:
927:
891:
881:
860:
855:
849:
844:disputed-inline
841:
803:
763:
761:
753:
745:
737:
735:
732:
730:
725:
721:
712:
702:Template talk:!
698:
658:
604:
552:
546:
542:
540:Not in citation
536:
533:
505:
499:
496:
474:
465:
458:
424:
418:
417:
411:
408:
406:
401:
397:
359:
353:
352:
341:
337:
320:
314:
313:
299:
295:
291:
285:
266:
260:
256:
250:
247:
224:
197:
190:
167:
164:
161:
158:
157:
91:
88:
85:
82:
81:
12:
11:
5:
2208:
2206:
2198:
2197:
2192:
2182:
2181:
2178:
2177:
2170:
2113:
2112:
2093:
2082:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2060:P.I.Ā Ellsworth
1996:
1995:
1976:
1965:
1962:
1949:
1946:
1918:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1827:
1826:
1810:
1809:
1769:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1745:
1744:
1730:
1719:
1717:
1710:
1708:
1672:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1657:
1638:
1630:
1546:
1513:
1510:
1507:
1505:
1492:AllĀ theĀ best:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1367:
1335:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1306:
1278:Your text here
1277:
1240:
1237:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1212:
1183:Peter M. Brown
1154:Peter M. Brown
1097:
1058:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1020:
1017:
1016:
1015:
959:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
920:
919:
918:
917:
899:
898:
875:
874:
802:
799:
798:
797:
740:edit protected
723:
720:
717:
708:
697:
694:
693:
692:
657:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
609:SteveMcCluskey
603:
600:
599:
598:
583:
582:
532:
529:
528:
527:
495:
492:
491:
490:
470:
457:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
440:70.131.255.105
399:
396:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
370:70.131.255.105
246:
243:
240:
239:
228:
216:
215:
210:now serves to
194:
182:
181:
178:
177:
174:
173:
171:
132:
120:
119:
114:
102:
101:
98:
97:
95:
73:
64:
57:
56:
51:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2207:
2196:
2193:
2191:
2188:
2187:
2185:
2176:
2173:
2168:
2164:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2144:
2142:
2123:
2119:
2110:
2107:parameter to
2098:
2094:
2087:
2086:
2080:
2075:
2071:
2069:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2053:
2042:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2026:
2020:
2005:
2003:
1993:
1990:parameter to
1981:
1977:
1970:
1969:
1963:
1961:
1959:
1955:
1945:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1898:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1838:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1812:
1811:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1795:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1767:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1726:
1720:
1718:
1715:
1711:
1709:
1704:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1678:
1670:
1664:
1655:
1652:
1649:
1647:
1639:
1637:
1628:
1625:
1622:
1620:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1584:
1581:
1544:
1541:
1537:
1531:
1527:
1508:
1506:
1500:
1499:
1496:
1490:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1438:
1437:
1434:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1379:
1378:
1375:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1362:
1361:
1358:
1353:
1349:
1343:
1333:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1304:
1301:
1298:
1296:
1289:
1285:
1273:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1235:
1219:
1210:
1207:
1204:
1202:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1133:
1126:
1125:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1101:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1018:
1014:
1009:
999:
995:
994:
988:
984:
983:
982:
981:
978:
973:
968:
957:
949:
945:
941:
935:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
916:
912:
908:
903:
902:
901:
900:
897:
894:
889:
884:
877:
876:
873:
868:
858:
854:
853:
845:
839:
835:
834:
833:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
811:
809:
800:
796:
791:
787:
781:
777:
773:
772:
771:
770:
766:
759:
741:
718:
716:
715:
711:
706:
703:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
674:
673:
672:
668:
664:
655:
648:
644:
643:
640:
635:
634:
633:
629:
625:
624:Gun Powder Ma
621:
620:
619:
618:
614:
610:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
584:
581:
577:
573:
572:Gun Powder Ma
569:
568:
567:
566:
562:
558:
551:
541:
530:
525:
521:
520:
517:
511:
510:
509:
504:
493:
489:
486:
482:
481:
480:
479:
475:
473:
469:
463:
462:editprotected
455:
449:
445:
441:
438:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
421:
415:
394:
391:
379:
375:
371:
366:
365:
364:
356:
349:
348:
347:
344:
335:
331:
327:
326:
325:
317:
311:
307:
306:
305:
302:
290:
283:
282:
281:
280:
276:
272:
271:Robert A.West
265:
264:verify source
255:
254:request quote
244:
237:
233:
229:
222:
221:
213:
209:
205:
200:
195:
188:
187:
172:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
138:
133:
130:
126:
125:
121:
118:
115:
112:
108:
96:
80:
78:
71:
70:
65:
63:
62:
58:
55:
52:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
2162:
2140:
2126:|type=inline
2116:
2108:
2097:edit request
2057:
2056:
2051:
2006:
2001:
1999:
1991:
1980:edit request
1951:
1920:
1882:89.153.64.16
1878:
1793:
1771:
1676:
1674:
1645:
1618:
1577:
1542:
1532:
1522:
1493:
1488:
1481:
1431:
1372:
1355:
1337:
1294:
1253:
1200:
1124:unverifiable
1123:
1122:
1118:
1078:
1060:
1038:
1022:
991:
966:
961:
933:
882:
850:
818:
814:
812:
807:
804:
779:
736:
699:
659:
637:
605:
588:Father Goose
557:Father Goose
534:
514:
497:
466:
459:
412:
392:
329:
309:
248:
146:project page
135:
74:
67:
40:WikiProjects
29:
1844:Jason Quinn
1799:Jason Quinn
1774:Jason Quinn
1752:Jason Quinn
1703:page needed
1686:Jason Quinn
1646:SMcCandlish
1619:SMcCandlish
1596:instead of
1540:produces:
1526:SMcCandlish
1295:SMcCandlish
1272:WP:Category
1201:SMcCandlish
993:SMcCandlish
879:this case.
852:SMcCandlish
815:not support
808:contradicts
483:Fixed. ---
420:SMcCandlish
355:SMcCandlish
316:SMcCandlish
245:When to use
159:Reliability
142:reliability
117:Reliability
2184:Categories
2167:* Pppery *
2130:|type=tiny
2101:|answered=
1984:|answered=
1498:Farmbrough
1436:Farmbrough
1377:Farmbrough
1360:Farmbrough
1286:opened at
1119:unverified
1105:MMartyniuk
1079:impossible
1064:MMartyniuk
976:TalkĀ toĀ me
892:TalkĀ toĀ me
819:contradict
705:cymru.lass
642:Farmbrough
519:Farmbrough
152:and see a
150:discussion
1935:Jbzdarkid
1864:Dan Bloch
1816:Dan Bloch
1594:"
1463:Debresser
1168:Debresser
1139:Debresser
1083:Debresser
967:DĀ OĀ NĀ DĀ E
883:DĀ OĀ NĀ DĀ E
782:āĀ Martin
409:Old news.
2013:talkpage
1954:Azerty82
1917:Bad link
1592:Can use
1519:Resolved
1276:|reason=
1246:Resolved
1008:Contrib.
971:groovily
887:groovily
867:Contrib.
729:Resolved
682:Muhandes
663:Muhandes
405:Resolved
395:proposed
232:template
30:template
2041:Ardub23
2039:editor
2019:Ardub23
1602:Obsuser
1043:WikHead
1025:WikHead
1019:Nesting
940:Chealer
907:Chealer
823:Chealer
498:Should
485:RockMFR
208:history
2118:Pppery
1902:Lizard
1543:HTML:
1318:IJBall
1284:WP:RFC
1257:IJBall
821:it? --
733:Fixed.
636:Done.
36:scale.
2105:|ans=
2095:This
1988:|ans=
1978:This
1580:intgr
1573:: -->
1567:</
1563:: -->
1554:title
998:Talkā
857:Talkā
780:Added
472:Stalk
468:Hrafn
230:This
28:This
2163:Done
2141:Sdkb
2135:{{u|
2052:done
2025:talk
2009:talk
1958:talk
1939:talk
1907:talk
1886:talk
1868:talk
1848:talk
1820:talk
1803:talk
1794:Done
1778:talk
1756:talk
1738:talk
1690:talk
1606:talk
1600:. --
1570:span
1551:span
1548:<
1495:Rich
1489:Done
1467:talk
1433:Rich
1421:talk
1374:Rich
1357:Rich
1322:talk
1261:talk
1187:talk
1172:talk
1158:talk
1143:talk
1109:talk
1087:talk
1068:talk
1047:talk
1039:Oops
1029:talk
944:talk
934:Done
911:talk
838:WP:V
827:talk
790:talk
786:MSGJ
686:talk
678:here
667:talk
639:Rich
628:talk
613:talk
592:talk
576:talk
561:talk
516:Rich
444:talk
374:talk
289:fact
275:Talk
2128:to
2103:or
2067:ed.
2011:or
1986:or
1660:ā±·ā¼
1656:ā½ā±·Ņ
1633:ā±·ā¼
1629:ā½ā±·Ņ
1578:--
1402:or
1309:ā±·ā¼
1305:ā½ā±·Ņ
1215:ā±·ā¼
1211:ā½ā±·Ņ
1000:ÉāĀæ
859:ÉāĀæ
750:|}}
259:or
2186::
2147:}}
2132:?
2109:no
2055:.
2037:To
2017:ā
1992:no
1960:)
1941:)
1909:)
1899:.
1888:)
1870:)
1850:)
1840:}}
1834:{{
1822:)
1805:)
1797:.
1780:)
1758:)
1740:)
1727:}}
1723:{{
1705:}}
1701:{{
1692:)
1643:ā
1616:ā
1608:)
1534:{{
1501:,
1469:)
1439:,
1423:)
1394:?
1380:,
1363:,
1344:}}
1340:{{
1324:)
1292:ā
1290:.
1263:)
1255:--
1248:ā
1198:ā
1189:)
1174:)
1160:)
1145:)
1135:}}
1129:{{
1111:)
1089:)
1070:)
1049:)
1031:)
1004:Ć¾
946:)
938:--
913:)
905:--
863:Ć¾
846:}}
842:{{
829:)
788:Ā·
742:}}
738:{{
731:ā
688:)
669:)
661:--
645:,
630:)
615:)
594:)
578:)
563:)
553:}}
547:{{
543:}}
537:{{
522:,
506:}}
500:{{
460:{{
446:)
407:ā
376:)
342:Ć
330:or
310:or
300:Ć
292:}}
286:{{
277:)
267:}}
261:{{
257:}}
251:{{
2043::
2027:)
2023:(
2002:S
1956:(
1937:(
1905:(
1884:(
1866:(
1846:(
1818:(
1801:(
1776:(
1754:(
1736:(
1732:ā
1707:?
1688:(
1658:į“„
1654:Ā¢
1651:ā
1648:āŗ
1631:į“„
1627:Ā¢
1624:ā
1621:āŗ
1604:(
1598:"
1557:=
1528::
1524:@
1465:(
1419:(
1415:ā
1320:(
1307:į“„
1303:Ā¢
1300:ā
1297:āŗ
1259:(
1213:į“„
1209:Ā¢
1206:ā
1203:āŗ
1185:(
1170:(
1156:(
1141:(
1107:(
1085:(
1066:(
1045:(
1027:(
1002:Ā¤
942:(
909:(
861:Ā¤
825:(
792:)
784:(
707:ā
684:(
665:(
649:.
626:(
611:(
590:(
574:(
559:(
526:.
442:(
425:ć
372:(
360:ć
338:ā
321:ć
296:ā
273:(
238:.
156:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
