Template talk:Hidden archive top/Archive 1

4163:

it does not help build a consensus. I am sure that all three of us have been around long enough to see long rambling posts from some editor/troll who fills up talk pages with repeated posts. But this type of template does not stop such behaviour, and archiving a section after a time is usually a better way to deal with such postings. There should be a blanket rule that if an editor alters the appearance of another editors posting to a talk page and that editor reverses it then that should be an end to it. It is stupid to edit war over talk page content. I inserted that rule into the refactoring page some years ago and AFAICT it stopped that sort of edit warring over refactoring completely. I think that the aggressive use of this template is detrimental to the project. --

1339:

this type of discussion formatting/editing/moving/control is supposed to be done with the permission of the editors involved. With consensus. Even right on this discussion board, people are calling in different parts of different policies to justify how they are using it, therefore, I think at least the part about editor consent should be made clear in the template to prevent abuse. And that can be done with the language in the template. something like "discussion closed with consent of participating editors" or something like that.

1418:

reader can find the comment on a short page with perhaps one hatted discussion (if they open the hatted discussion), but a lot of people won't bother. On pages like those on the notice board, forget it - anything hatted is lost to most people. Perhaps this is why some editors are so eager to hat comments from editors with opposing POVs - I don't know. But I think that editors whose comments are being hatted should give consent knowing that their comments are going to be less accessible than everyone else's comments.

218:. The reason why several years ago I included the wording in the lead of the refactoring guideline was to stop this type of behaviour as it is crazy to edit war over talk pages. This template is being used to refactor a page not to archive it and when an editor objects the refactoring should be reverted. It would help if it was made clear on this template that it is refactoring that is taking place so that there are no edit wars over its usage. -- 5630: 31: 4088:) in order to have greater latitude in hiding text they dislike on talk pages. I'f you'd care to debate the issue, we can, but it seems like a no-brainer to me: rendering text unreadable is refactoring, and setting it to 'display:none;' inside a table cell is rendering it unreadable. I don't object to refactoring text as a rule, obviously, but it is a fairly drama-prone interpersonal act that should be approached with circumspection. -- 3762:, so calling it a "fork" is disingenuous at best. Perhaps you would like to merge cot here, and add a warning=no option. But no, that's no good either: it would break existing usages of cot. The simple fact is that these template serve different and distinct purposes (hat to collapse content to end unproductive discussions, cot to collapse extended content for greater usability) and no good reason for a merger has been presented. – 2614:

myself to control senseless arguments, and allowed it to stand where people have rightfully hidden something stupid that I've said. What I'd like to see eventually is a template which does just that - hides and controls discussions that are stupid and off-topic, without impinging on the free expression of meaningful ideas. For instance, if we changed the default warning line to say something like

5233: 995:(i) "Consensus"≠'no disagreement whatsoever', so I reject your first statement. (ii) Consensuses tend to be self-enforcing. If there is a consensus, then there will tend to be more editors willing to revert to enforce, or comment to add moral support to, the template. I therefore don't need a need for including explicit wording, but would not object strongly to its introduction. 3634:- COT. The templates are identical, except for minor style issues (coloration, bordering) and the inclusion of a warning line in HAT requesting the collapsed section not be modified. The merged version would include a parameter allowing for the inclusion of a warning line. The dispute stems from the rather troubled political history of the HAT template. -- 1868: 4144: 1477:

make a habit of hatting other editors comments who don't share their POV). At the very least, once a thread is archived (moved to an archive page), then the hatting should be removed. If there was a good test for the archival status of a page, then this could be done in the hatting macro. But I don't think pages are archived in a standard way.

899:, as the usage of this template does not fall under the practices envisaged by either. In fact an argument could be made that WP:REFACTOR, as it is currently articulated, is no longer relevant as the practice of "editing … to improve readability while preserving meaning" has fallen out of use on article talk, and that it should simply redirect to 5324: 4943: 4658: 2178: 1746: 3502: 341:), but so does "refactoring", which essentially means modifying (or removing) comments, particularly when they are deemed offensive or incorrect or similar. Simply putting a discussion in a collapse box is hardly "refactoring". I don't know what other options there are. "This discussion has been collapsed to improve readability"? -- 3322:"This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it." does not strike me as "scuzzy" and the template is appropriately used very, very, often by administrators who work at the noticeboards. Can you suggest something less "scuzzy"? How about "This discussion has been closed. Further discussion should take place elsewhere." ? – 4037:), and a bit weaker than removing text entirely, and both those are considered to be refactoring. The problem I'd have with your wording is that it's too easy to scam: who is a 'disinterested' party, what constitutes 'clearly unconstructive'? The refactoring guideline spells things out nicely, why try to nickel and dime it? -- 5407:

Disagree with what? You haven't explained what change you are proposing. In any case, I don't think this is the appropriate place to have this discussion. Very few people will be watching this page, and template documentation is neither policy nor a guideline. You would probably do better to discuss

5276:

Another thing included in class=navbox is text-align:center, which was counter-acted by a text-align:left style on the 1st line, which made it necessary to add text-align:center to the 3rd and 5th lines. The left-align is not needed until the end, so the fix is to move it to the end and eliminate the

4417:

Unless we pass the parameters, that still breaks existing uses. And I think it would be somewhat confusing to have this template turn green in talk space but brown everywhere else. The RFCtag above seems to have all the attractive qualities of a common ground slug; perhaps TFD might be a better place

4201:

Yes/No. I am not convinced that this template helps in such circumstances and if it does then the reversal of its use would fall under administrative sanctions like disruption. But its use normally should not be be re-applied if editors reverse its usage. If you really think it useful for pages like

3133:

We are not proposing to move it to anything just redirect it to another template that does the same thing with a less controversial title (or acronym) and as I said if you want brown as the default colour I have no problems with that, although I personally prefer the green colour -- they are both eye

3085:

I disagree on the by-and-large semantical point that using one of these to wrap up a conversation is not "archiving". It most definitely is archiving. You're committing the thread into a form wherein it should not be modified. It is 'archived' in one sense and will ultimately be capital-A Archived by

2553:

Could you show me some examples of this "abuse". And will removing a line from the templates really accomplish anything? Behavioural issues don't get solved by changing a template name or removing a line about not editing the section. What's more - changing this now retroactively removes the warning

2368:

of authority). I have no opinion about that (mostly because I am not at all shy about simply removing the template when it's misapplied, and I encourage others to do it as well) - you'll see that I've kept the warning in as an option. To the extent that COT and HAT share the purpose of tucking away

1804:

Ok. I'm interested to hear what they say. as far as I can see, the two templates are almost identical (the only differences are coloring and an additional line in HAT that can be easily added as an option in COT). I don't see a reason why a simple redirect wouldn't work, but there may be something

1576:

13:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC) PS: Normally when I feel this way, I simply go file a TFD, but this thing's been around long enough I figure I might as well give people a chance to dissuade me, and it's (Western) New Year's Day, so I don't want to be unnecessarily irritating to anyone. (People got pissed

1417:

Another problem with hatting is that searching either with the wikipedia search or with google, will find text in the hatted section. But, when you display a page and look for the text using "find" (usually from the edit option from the navigation bar), the find will not find it on IE or Firefox. A

5068:

Thats a decision better left to future visitors of this talk page. The TfD happened and hasn't been overturned, so people should be given a convenience link to the discussion in order to judge for themselves how well or poorlythe debate progressed. Besides, there isn't a greater precedent value if

4524:

I do not think that the status quo is not working fine, for two reasons. Wording that includes archiving is not appropriate for a process that does not archive and the template is used to abuse. There is also a valid programmers argument that duplicated code is a undesirable as it leads to twice the

4162:

It is its use this template to end a discussion when there is not consent to end a discussion that I object to. If an editor does not wish to continue with a discussion they are free to stop and to suggest to everyone else that they stop. But using this template aggressively is counter productive as

3812:

on a different template (IMO) is that it's become a symbol in some silly dispute you've been having for the last however many years. I don't care about the dispute, and the minute you remove the dispute as a valid reason for maintaining a separate template, you have no reason left for maintaining a

3382:

And once again - you cannot solve a behaviour issue effectively through technical means. If they are asserting improper authority, take it up with them directly. Removing this template from the administrative toolset (forcing us to remember to use an extra parameter??? won't those abusive users just

2944:

is misleading, since it's not actually archiving any material, and I think the warning language is a bit strong as well (and yeah, the language I gave above probably wasn't the greatest either). I'm going to write a quick sandbox so we have something concrete to examine, and then we can haggle over

2844:

and distribution of administrative actions, it is clear you do not spend much time at the dramaboards (less than 100 edits at ANI over 3 years) or involve yourself that often with user disputes (not that there's anything wrong with that). So I don't think you understand how useful and effective this

1377:

of course, this will not prevent abuse. But it will help to clear up the consensus issue which is the way this template is abused the most. The template should clearly state what it does and for what purpose. I don't think a clearer explanation is a "technical" thing, anymore than putting time into

4236:

well, like any other tool, if it is used in a way that makes things better, it's a good thing, but if it's used in a way that inflames tempers it's a bad thing. My problem with HAT is that - granting the usefulness of the idea - this tempalte is constructed (and habitually used by some editors) in

4011:

I'm fine with something along those lines, but I don't think it's quite covered by the refactoring guideline. Something like "This template should only be used by disinterested parties to end a clearly unconstructive discussion; it should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the

3847:

is to collapse content - not necessarily a discussion - it could be a list of articles, users, a proposed edit, some code, etc. The reason to collapse the content is so as to not take up needless vertical space on a page for folks who might not necessarily need to peer inside the collapsed section.

2613:

just as an aside, and a 'fair disclosure' moment, let me say that I am not unaware of the dispute - I've had this template used on my own statements before, which is where I've learned to simply remove it where it's misapplied. however, I do recognize that there are times it's useful: I've used it

2325:

this is an easy change to make. if there's consensus for it, we can change the look of the template to be whatever. I happen to prefer green to brown, but maybe we could compromise on the default at a kind of greenish-kahki color? the border I'm ambivalent on -that can stay or go. The main issue

1338:

I agree with Unomi. "hatting" is meant to be done with group agreement, not at the whim of one editor who decides that another editor's comments (usually of an opposing POV) "do not improve the discussion". The wording and intent of archiving, refactoring, and WP:talk is clear in that it says that

323:

I am not interested in the conflict about one particular use of this template, and I don't even understand it. But I believe the change of wording was from a bad formulation to a bad formulation. The template is neither archiving (moving elsewhere) nor refactoring (changing appearance or structure)

108:

Firstly, please revert the change to "refactored" until there is a consensus to change it. Secondly, wrapping a discussion in this way is not refactoring. The archiving may be inappropriate or disputed, but so long as the text inside remains it has not been changed. If you dispute an archiving then

4627:

you might not find the argument compelling, but evidently others do find the term "archiving" for hiding a conversation misleading. Closed is better - but still not really describing what this template does. "This template has been closed" makes it sound like a group decision based on consensus,

4079:

of HAT is to refactor text; I'm not overly concerned with the literal reading of the refactoring page but rather with the goal it is trying to achieve. (I just noticed the page still isn't at guideline level - have to start an RfC on that: I'll update the page while I'm at it, just to be clear).

3351:

authority. you know it's true, I know it's true, that's the bulk of all the complaints you find on this page, and that's what the template was designed for in the first place. collapse top is perfectly serviceable, and with the extra parameter will mimic the behavior of this one; we don't need a

3246:

Jesus christ... I don't like this template because I find the language officious and presumptive - it effectively implies that one editor can act as the voice of wikipedia to tell another editor to stuff a sock in it. I am willing to compromise on this a bit, and working on a compromise at that,

3161:

Are you saying that collapse top is deficient for not having that as a default? What purpose does "The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it." It introduces the word archive, which it does not do, it says "Please" and it has no authority (it is not a guideline) and as such it is

1476:

yes, this is something that I really don't like about hatting. Once a conversation is hatted, the search may find it, but when the editor tries to find where it is on the page, a "find" won't find it unless they show every hidden archive on the page (and sometimes I think this is why some editors

655:

either. Or the XfD/DRV archiving templates. I think we are allowing the cart to lead the horse here. If we are worried that the semantics about archiving don't match our templates, then alter the semantics of archiving. It doesn't make sense to go about and fuss w/ templates when we are really

433:

I agree with Unomi and PBS. I've seen hatting used too often by some editors to control conversation and harass/suppress other editors in a discussion. No matter what it is called, it should not be done without the consent of editors being hatted. It should not be done on the whim of one editor

232:

So what can we agree on? Can we consider Hidden Content to be a better description for how this template is actually used? I also agree that we may need to include the wording regarding refactoring, really it should not be necessary, impromptu archiving or refactoring or indeed cutting discussions

5049:

Look, I use this template all the time myself, but I understand (and sympathize) with those people who dislike it. I wouldn't mind seeing it go, but I don't really have an opinion on it either way. I just don't want to see this sub-optimal discussion used to claim that this template has already

5015:

I've deleted the AfD closure notice on this page, since the discussion period was far too brief (less than 24 hr). Please note that if anyone tries to reassert the notice, I will seek clarification at VP (policy) about the minimum time needed for a valid review and debate period. We do not (per

4450:

the RfC is only a few days old, but Im beginning to think (from some of your comments) that maybe what we need is a discussion over on Pump (policy) about the use of collapsing as a tool more generally. what do you say we cancel the RfC, and start up a free-for-all pump debate about when, where,

3692:

Proponents of merger are attempting to solve a purported behavioural issue by technical means (see lengthy discussion above). This template is used appropriately day-in-day-out by administrators to end unconstructive discussions. Merging it with another template will break existing uses and force

2010:

I say redirect and loose the warning, or people will continue using this template with all the problems it has as described higher up this page. In most cases the use of this template will be on long since archived pages so it does not matter and for those that are on the current pages then it is

1888:

Ah, a question, as long as we're doing revisions. do we want to continue using the TABLE structure or switch over to a DIV format. I'm easy either way. DIVs are clearer and more stylish, but cause occasional problems in some odd circumstances (when there's an indented div-based template, to be

1848:

I suggest that we wait for 7 from the placing of the merge templates at the top of hidden archive top and collapse top and if there is still a consensus make the change. However if that immediately puts the cat among the pigeons (as people often do not notice a change to templates until after the

1609:

template, and therefore probably wouldn't be deleted. It might be better addressed with RFC. It needs to be discussed, and the conditions under which it is used better defined. I also think it should be automatically removed, or made inoperative in archives. I think it is telling that there is

1549:

This template is self-defeating, since attempting to hide an old debate is simply going to make people curious about it and more likely to read it, wondering why someone would try to hide it. The crap discussion in question should simply be moved to an archive page and allowed to be forgotten. A

1442:

Honestly I hat discussions when people refuse to stop or when drive-by comments will inflame the discussion more. It serves a purpose. I understand the complaints about shutting down discussion and what-not, but I think they are overblown. EVEN THEN, the opinions you or PBS or anyone else have

3775:

sorry, I had no idea hat preceded cot. However, my reason for wanting a merger is clear - same purpose, same structure, same template. technical problems can be solved easily (you know that as well as I do); this dispute is an ego-dispute, nothing more. If this were any other template, no one

3416:

no, I cannot solve behavior using technical means, but I can remove unnecessary tools that encourage bad behavior - again, what is your problem with this? are you worried that you won't be able to remember the extra parameter? I think that you are so wrapped up in whatever pissy dispute you had

1107:, you have argued that this template is used for archiving not deleting: "(Oh and an archiving-reason is not a comment, so does not require (nor normally includes) a signature.)" so are you now saying that using this template is not archiving but deleting? If not, then why quote a sentence from 2260:

and that "coloration" is not some trivial element that it should just be combined to give people no variety of choice. And forcing people who preferred the brown to now use {hat|color=brown) or whatever doesn't seem particularly convenient. It seems like you're trying to solve a behaviour issue

1323:

I don't really think that is fair, all we need to do is make it more clear that the template is not to be used disruptively and that should there be dissent the 'hatting' should be undone. Hatting is not a valid method for resolving content disputes or a constructive tool in dispute resolution,

968:

It does not matter if my reasons were correct or not, the point is that messages which put across one editors or group of editors point of view without a signature to show who made the observation, is inherently against consensus, if others who are party to a discussion disagree with it. Do you

5034:

The discussion is over, so what sense does it make to remove the pointer? Whether we agree or disagree with the outcome (or the process) shouldn't impact a purely navigational template. You guys can send it to DRV if you really felt the discussion was flawed. My suspicion is that a DRV will

3892:

ted peculiarly turned green and lost the warning not to modify the debate. I simply believe that there is no good reason to merge these templates. We are not running out of template space. There is no pressing need to have only a single template and force people to use parameters to achieve a

2715:

In my opinion, your suggestion is no better (maybe even a bit worse - it accuses participants of being argumentative, uncalm, and irrational) than the fairly firm but neutral language that is used now. But I am willing to entertain other suggestions. What is not going to change is people using

2363:

I may do that, yes - I'll have to look at it. The problem with having multiple templates with the same function is that breeds confusion and makes revisions far more complicated - essentially the same problem we have with POV-forks in article space. Now I've read the rest of this page, and I

4577:

I agree with PBS. This template needs better wording - it does not "archive" in the way that most people understand archiving. I also think there should be a parameter which says who hatted the discussion, so that the name of the editor doing the hatting is displayed along with the notice.

608:

Decisions about when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are made according to the Knowledge policy of consensus for each case. If possible, archive talk pages during a lull in discussion, thus maintaining the context of a discussion by not cutting it off in

296:, but the template does not appear to be "a form of editing whose goal is to improve readability while preserving meaning", or any alteration/"editing" of the contents of the template whatsoever. Rather it is a less radical approach (in that it involves hiding rather than deleting) to 2852:, but I did not find any discussions about his alleged inappropriate use of the template. Again - you cannot solve a behaviour issue via technical means - at least not effectively. And because some users use tools inappropriate doesn't mean you should take them away from all users. – 2369:

extended material and making pages easier to read, it's a very useful template, and we only need one. to the extent that HAT is used to try to intimidate newbies into shutting up, it's faintly disgusting - if that were the only thing it were used for I'd start a TfD on it right now.

5280:

A third thing lacking from the template is background color for the archived text to provide a visual clue for readers scrolling up from below that they have entered an uncollapsed archive section. The fix is to add a lighter version of the archive top color to the main text area.

1185:

is clearly a neologism, whether that of itself is grounds for deletion is debatable, in this case probably not, but getting all worked up about mentioning that it is, at best, a recent addition to the English language is silly. Hatting an ongoing discussion about it, doubly so.

3652:

The templates are technically identical: a merger would sacrifice none of the functionality of either template, and would obviate the political nuttiness that seems to follow the HAT template. Further, the merge could be expanded to cover the other archival templates (such as

2817:

from January of this year. One is almost guaranteed that the use of "British Isles" will bring heated discussions to the talk page and this template a very useful club in such discussions (note the use of the title added to the template to add a parting shot to support a pov).

2618:

then I think I would support using it more generally. we could even set up a simple switch - one option for hiding argumentative debates, one for hiding extended content, one for hiding closed debates, etc., and we could wrap a number of current templates into one consistent

1308:

Sure. But we can't motivate changes to the template with arguments that the template is inherently deleterious to discussion. I read many of the arguments above as calls to mark the template depreciated or delete it. They don't translate easily to a renaming or re-wording.

1443:

about the propriety of the template are best offered at TFD, since it seems like you guys would rather the template be depreciated. If we have this discussion about POVs and censoring and what not all in the service of changing some text, it feels like jawing for no reason.

615:

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be

180:

provides 2 mechanisms for archiving, 1. a proper subpage, 2. a link to an older version of the same page. Hatting discussion threads is certainly is not mentioned and would fly in the face of at least 1 of the rationales for archiving in the first place that is alleviating

1277:, where you may debate altering, renaming or deleting the template. Changing the text to read something else (By the way I can just add an argument to the template to include my own text) has nothing to do with the potential for abuse. Please keep these issues distinct. 621:

However, archiving - which implies physically moving text from one place to another - is not what the {{hat}} template really does. So, saying that the hatted text "has been archived" is not really describing the action of this template on the conversation that is hatted.

3727:

Correction: I just came here to make a merger (I've been fixing up a number of templates lately), and walked into a pissing match. Granting that I happen to think this template is a bit pointed, please don't place that as my reason. I simply see no reason for a fork of

3282:

used in a similar manner. This long-standing practice cannot be terminated by a few people who agree with eachother on a poorly watched/trafficked template talk page. Start an RFC on the process generally, advertise it widely, and we'll see what the community thinks.

3417:

going at the top of this page that you can't think straight. It's just pure ego: you don't want this template merged because having the template merged (even though the merge I'm proposing wouldn't make one damned bit of difference in the long run) would make you

3992:

I'm in favour of a merge. For the reasons I have previously given. But as there is disagreement lets see if we can salami slice it. Xeno do you object to This wording which has been added to this template "This template should only be used in accordance with the

1461:

IMHO, since I'm one of those editors who likes to be aware of past discussions, I don't like the use of this template at all. If you want to archive a topic, move it to an archive page where a search will find it. Don't hide it where it can't be easily found.

1921:

row in the Hidden Archive template that I've incorporated as an option in the revised template. as it stands, if someone has specified a custom line for that the custom line will be shown, but the default line will currently never get shown. our options are:

2716:

collapse boxes to end debates that have outlived their usefulness. PBS seems to want to get rid of this practice altogether, and I don't think that simply stripping a line from this box is going to accomplish that, nor do I think it's a good idea generally. –

4736:

I'm not sure that changing the behaviour in non-intuitive ways is a good idea; but I think that some kind of custom css or js could be devised if you wanted to do this personally. I know there is a very simple .css hack that will always expand these things.

2979:"Just because your dispute partner is on a break doesn't mean you can close the dispute in your favour." You can not mean that! If you did if one person objects to some thing and then leaves the project then that objection binds other editors for ever more. 2599:

And though I stand firmly on neither side, this change under the auspice of a "merge due to similar source codes" really seems to be an inappropriate way to wedge through one view in the the ongoing dispute above. (Though I understand this was not Ludwig's

2221:

errr... it was done because the two templates are almost entirely identical (with the exception of details like coloration). if you like we can AWB through the HAT tags and change the coloration - or are you arguing that there's a particular need for

4237:

such a way that it is perceived as a snub. There is no surer way to make a talk page worse than to take something an already hot-under-the-collar editor wrote and hide it away with an officious-sounding warning about not editing further. HAT is an

2836:

Just because your dispute partner is on a break doesn't mean you can close the dispute in your favour. Admins use this template appropriately all the time. Removing it from our toolset is just going to make it harder to bring closure to intractable

2802:

was a frequent user and a proponent for the use of this template, but (s)he has not edited Knowledge for over three months. So AFAICT there is not dispute over its abuse. Clearly we can not delete it, it has been widely used. Merging it is the best

1849:

change is made because they do not put them on their watch lists), that we then revert out the change and discuss it further. If a week passes after the change before anyone objects, then we keep the change until we assess what the consensus is. --

3383:

do the same?) because a handful of users use it inappropriate simply isn't a good idea. As an aside, it's disappointing that you concealed your true feelings about this template and tried to have it merged under the auspices of technical reasons. –

2037:

alright, I've added a blurb about the parameters, and I've added in a 'warning' parameter which can be set to display the warning line. I'll go ahead and call for the protected edit now, it's really a minor transition, and it shouldn't cause any

113:

if you cannot agree. PBS, who made this change, is involved in a dispute related to the use of this template, which makes the change doubly inappropriate to my mind. I do not support this change to long-standing and generally supported wording.

3803:

lol - I read what you wrote, I just think it's silly. the templates have one (tangible) purpose - to collapse a block of text so that it is out of the way. there are different reasons to collapse blocks of text, yes. what's your point? the

3304:. The only reason we would need an RfC here is if you're going to make a big stink over a point that's not worth making a big stink over. no one is trying to take your toy away; I just want to make it a bit less scuzzy. Now are you going to 4286:

I'm still concerned about existing uses which will need some default text. What about making the default verbiage in ns:1 something like "This discussion has been collapsed."? (with no byline) (with parameters to allow the original usage)

5435:

Is the title missing or you can't read the title? It is funny that you asked. For changes, we will see or you can revert it, or we can discuss now, or I can propose one, or maybe you can propose one too! There is no need to be defective.

5178:. If this isn't implemented there will remain a greater risk that discussions aren't perceived as flowing across the hidden portion, with the increased risk of people making non-standard formatting tweaks to ensure readers' attention. __ 3042:

as it is an example taken from the list of links of course the last exit will be a restore! But that is not the point. Edit warring on the talk page is dumb, and if someone objects to refactoring of a page it should not be done. --

2808:

It does not take long to find abuse (or to keep it neutral the use of this template to close off a discussion where others object it being used that way). Looking through the list of links to the template the third one from the top

2261:(trying to archive discussion by collapsing it) by removing a line from a template? That's not going to work. But if you think it will, then hat should call collapse top and supply the original colour, size, and lack of outline. – 3706:

Indeed. No technical function is gained by merging the two, as we would have to keep the redirects around anyway. Therefore, we must look at the behavioral effects of such a change. I agree with Xeno's reasoning in that regard.

5480:

the solution. RfCs and disputes are typically handled differently, with the "Template:Archive top" gadget or something similar. So, I don't see a problem for which a solution is proposed. Don't know if that makes me defective.

5197:

If I expand a hatted section, then the previously-hidden text is shown at less than 100% of the default font size. Why? I've explicitly chosen to see it, so I want it a size that's comfortable to read. Can we fix this, please?

1362:

I hold a pretty dim view of technical measures that prevent abuse, when no part of the measure actually prevents abuse. The discussion above is about rewording the text in the template when no arguments are added. That's it.

555:

I think you are using the "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" in a way it was never intended to be used, and as this template does not delete anything the bullet point quoted does not cover its usage. --

3193:

No, there is really no reason to get rid of this template. You don't like it because you feel it was misused by a few individuals, but the vast majority of administrators who use this template use it appropriate- to archive

4029:, refactoring "include removing superfluous content, summarizing long passages, and any other means that alter the presentation of information". Collapsing text alters the presentation of information, and moreover has the 2904:

and thereafter left in place. It was, in fact, the removal that was invalid. On topic, I see no reason for the change whatsoever, although if someone feels the need, I am fine with consolidating the code to a single place.

3081:

What I mean is that just because he left doesn't mean the arguments he was advancing are unsound and that we can now close it in your favour without further consensus gathering (iirc he wasn't the only one arguing against

843:

3) Consensus usage: Should its use be reversed, by one of the editors who's comment or comments is or are enclosed by this template, it should not be reinstated (as supported by the consensus clauses in the two guidelines

3162:

just instruction creep. AFAICT by implication you are suggesting that we should have a template for every possible combination of flags that can be set. Why is it a problem to set that flag if you think it is needed? --

5527:

It is probably the current state. To clarify, or again as the title said, the suggestion is (loosely) that given the talk which does FOC, RfCs and disputes should not be hatted i.e. no need to handle differently.

417:

Regardless, 'locking' a discussion prior to finding some resolution is a bad idea. "This discussion has been closed" is fine by me, preferably with usage directions that state it shouldn't be used disruptively.

2939:

well, we all seem to agree that a closure template is both used and useful. we are disagreeing on language issues and the potential for abuse, which I think are valid concerns. I agree that the template name

2660:

really, I agree with both of you - I see the usefulness and I see the potential for abuse - and I think we can create a template that satisfies both sides. should I whip up a sandbox for a multi-use template?

4139:

well, I boldly went and made some expansive revisions over at refactor, and started and RfC on guidelining it. take a look, and let's talk about how best to massage it - and please, no 'happy ending' jokes.

1779:

of this proposal as they may consider it desirable to keep this template. In which case we could instead add an instruction to the top of this template that it is not to be used on article talk pages but that

3896:

This RFC was filed to gather outside opinions. There is no point in us continuing to argue back and forth the same points. Can we agree to disagree at let others chime in before we scare them off? Thank you,

702:, generally that further discussion is therefore "not relevant to improving the article"). If 'settled' or some other similar description is preferred to 'archived', then I would have no objection to this. 5357:

I am dismayed by the usual (yet reasonable) practice that when administrator comes in and resolve a problem, the discussion is hatted in a way that it makes the talk looks less painful, but we forget that

5272:

in the template, which includes a font-size:88% assignment. (10-point becomes barely readable 8-point) The fix is to cancel that class parameter by adding font-size:100% to the style following the class.

4632:". And yes, I realize that the Knowledge template language does not have an "editor variable", but there is no reason this can't be something put in as a parameter by the hatting editor or another editor. 3881:

Despite your continued attempt to cast aspersions on my motives or emotional state, I am not a long-term participant in the above dispute - in fact, I came here only after I noticed sections that had been

2011:

probably better that archive is not mentioned (for the reasons mentioned above). If you think it better that it is then allow an editor to set it with a flag parameter but do not set it on by default.--

368:

I agree with collapsed, its a clear description of what has happened. or.. "This discussion has imploded" ;) Perhaps the real problem is that people use 'hat' for all kinds of things that they shouldn't ?

185:. Perhaps the proper thing to do is to change the wording to Hidden Content, this then allows the very handy 'hat' feature to be used without constraining or implying the type of information it contains. 355:

Good suggestions. I would really like: "This discussion has collapsed. Please do not modify it." But I think the following is more realistic: "This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it."

805:

It seems to me that while there are genuine reasons for using it, there is also a temptation for editors to use it to stifle legitimate debate, particularly if it is used against inexperienced editors.

2436:

to call collapse top as a meta-template to keep the code bases the same, that's fine by me as long as there is no visual change. (I don't care if the "do not modify" line gets lost in the process). –

4188:

I understand that this template is used inappropriately at times. Do you understand that it is used appropriately at times? Working together to delineate appropriate usage should be our goal here. –

337:

How about, perhaps, "This discussion has been closed"? This would fit well with the next sentence, "Please do not modify it". I understand that "archiving" has a technical meaning (moving to an

3089:

And when admins use the hat template they aren't just collapsing the thread. They are attempting to put an end to it and no further statements should be made in the collapsed section. Similar to

4072:

I've taken the liberty of splitting Philips' statement so that the 'opinion' part of it stays in the above section and is duplicated here. please undo that if you think it was inappropriate

3693:

administrators to have to remember to add a parameter for a warning line for no good reason - there is no dearth of template space such that it should be merged and made more complicated. –

4329:

and as a template does not hold state, unless we are willing to go through all of the previous usages, so yes I like what I think is your idea, but perhaps we can simplify it by calling

2507:

Redirect it. The whole point is that this template is flawed from the name down.It does not do what is on the box it does not archive anything it simply hides text, and it is abused. If

5035:

overturn the decision and relist the template and a second deletion discussion will play out in a similar manner as the first (abeit with a longer timeline). But the choice is yours.

4628:

when in most cases, it is an action taken by one editor, usually without discussion. It should indicate who closed the discussion - perhaps displaying "this discussion has been closed

3004:"Admins use this template appropriately all the time. Removing it from our toolset is just going to make it harder to bring closure to intractable disputes. In which case they can use 2340:

I don't think combining them into some brown-green poo colour is going to satisfy anyone. Are we running out of templatespace? Why can't we keep them both? Are you going to get rid of

5569: 5504:

If off-topic content (or whatever the appropriate term for the case might be--"ranting", often) is hatted, then typically there is no "resolution" that needs explaining. The hatting

5476:

If off-topic content (or whatever the appropriate term for the case might be--"ranting", often) is hatted, then typically there is no "resolution" that needs explaining. The hatting

4925:

I nominated this for deletion, based on discussion here and my own observations of abuse, Please link to the deletion discussion on the template page, I can't as it's protected

3937:

I'm good either way (it's a bit more heated than I'd like, but I can live with that). If you don't think it's a distraction, which would be my main worry, then that's fine. --

3429:

argument you shouldn't have been having in the first place. get over it. if you want to go tilting at windmills, at least pick attractive and interesting windmills to tilt at.

5553: 214:. Not only has it been used to attempt to stifle debate, but it has also been used as an attack mechanism, because a biased comment has been used in the header of the template 5368:

as long as it does focus on content, the discussion, even if closed or resolved, should not be hatted, because the resolution should be arguably more obvious than the others

4059:

refactoring and refactorial isn't the justifying guideline. The word "collapse" doesn't appear on the page. However, I suppose this could be solved by changing the page. –

3300:

low incidence of mortality) is not an argument that they should be allowed to continue doing so. the template is officious, tendentious, and clearly misses the point of

5020:) want to give the impression that AfD's can be won by quickly stuffing the ballot-box and declaring an early victory. That kind of example would prove disastrous. -- 300:: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". If an explicit link to a guideline should be given in the template, I would suggest that it be the latter. 2386:

If you like we can start an RfC on the merger and get some outside opinions, but I hope we can resolve this through discussion instead. I don't see any decent reason

1031:

The basic rule -- with some specific exceptions outline below -- is, that you should not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.

280:

has many templates of this type (both hidden-contents & non-hidden), many of them explicitly calling themselves an 'archive'. As none of these templates link to

587:

to suppress discussion when participants will want to continue. How you feel about that is your business, but it has nothing to do with the text in the template.

2790:

Ludwigs2,I have removed the section headings. There is no point in starting a new sections yet. But I have no problem discussing the abuse of this template first.

3176:

Please see my above rejection of this silly argument that it does not "archive" the discussion. It most certainly does archive it, though it doesn't necessarily

4771: 4451:

how, why, and etc. collapsing should be used as a tool to control discussions? we can throw in the merger idea as a side topic and see what comes of it. --

2775:

can we possibly agree on the second, first, and then have a more detailed discussion about the pros and cons of the authoritative bit? I'll make sections --

4718: 4539:

I have already above countered your argument that this template "does not archive". It does. For clarify, I have changed the word "archived" to "closed"

3997:

guideline; it should never be used to to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing."? --

3673:), which would create a consistent, standardized look across different uses, and allow for the addition of a one or two new features I have in mind. -- 1033:" Hiding another editor's comments from the discussion by hatting, and ignoring their protests is just another form of striking out their comments. 2298:

draw attention to the conversation. We are not so wanting for templatespace as to only ever have 1 choice for collapsing. Are you going to take away

4546: 2423:

to merge are as follows: 1) variety is the spice of life (you like green, I like brown, some like blue) 2) we are not running out of template space.

1694:

I think that is a good idea as it move away from having the word archive in the name of a template which collapses text and does not archive it. --

4272:

What do you think of the idea of modifying this template so it will not work on talk pages so that its use can be restricted to pages like ANI? --

2364:

understand that there's some political gambit getting played out here (this template was written to close/semi-refactor particular debates with an

1925:

to forget about the default warning and bite the bullet on old uses of the template (they will lose the warning line if anyone goes back and looks)

4542:. The template being "abused" is a user-conduct issue. I have updated the documentation to reflect that it should not be used by involved parties 5366:, then it is ok for admin or editor to hat the discussion. But, if the troll comes and talks "nonsense" or made suggestion that is "disruptive", 4212:

more useful because it does not hide content from searches -- then I suggest that we modify it so that it can not be used on talk pages and keep

3813:

separate template (except, of course, historical usage issues, which can be addressed in a number of different ways). as I said above, GOI... --

5054:

is contentious. If Triona or stmrllbs wants to open a new AfD, let's all chill back and take the time for a proper discussion. okie dokie? --

3924:

I thought about it (it would just be such delicious irony), but I think it does sum up the above lengthy debate we had rather well. Up to you. –

4177:

I agree with you that this template should not be used by any of the impassioned parties in the thread (excepting perhaps those who were there

602:

Actually, on both the archiving and refactoring policy pages, it says that both refactoring and archiving should only be done with consensus:

5293: 5529: 5457: 5390: 5375: 5069:

the debate is linked on the talk page. If you really think the debate was so foreshortened as to be inappropriate, you need to go to DRV.

4241:

tool for spawning edit wars on talk pages, if that's the goal your after, but aside from that it doesn't have any advantages over COT. --

1148:, and that whether it is considered to be deletion, 'archiving' or 'hiding-as-already-settled', it is sanctioned under that guideline. So 3148:

But it doesn't quite do the same thing - the merge target does not display the warning not to modify it (except by explicit parameter). –

461:

I would suggest that what is an attempt "to control conversation and harass/suppress other editors" or an attempt to control "disruptive

5409: 5214: 4604:

The discussion should not be modified or continued, but is left on the page in a solid-state form (in a sense - archived) for posterity.

3014:(that does not imply "archiving" which this action is not). Have you ever used this template and reverted a revert to keep it on a page? 4578:

Knowledge is the only place that I know of that allows one editor to just remove another editor's comments on whim from a discussion.

465:" is a matter for local consensus. Where the editor protests a consensus, the clear alternative is to delete the material entirely per 4973:

Yep, open one day, closed the next. Not enough time for anyone but the regulars who check Knowledge several times a day to comment.

2204:

Why was this done? You've changed it from brown to green? And made it more obtrusive with the garish colour and outline? Reverted... –

342: 4372:

template with a parameter that determines appearance. you guys are talking about going to extreme programming lengths to maintain a

3086:

a bot sooner or later. In any case, this is really such a minor point of contention as to almost have no bearing on the conversation.

4790: 1593: 1570: 833:

2a) Neutral comments: Any comment passed in as a parameter to the template must be a fair description of the contents (not a biased

4509:

No one other than us seems to care - leading me to believe that the status quo is working fine. If you disagree, let's go to TFD. –

4441:

appears in article space, anything that gets broken is easy to fix with AWB, and editors will adapt to any temporary inconvenience.

1500:

It would be very nice to have a button that un-hats everything on a page. Perhaps this is feasible as an extension in monobook.js?

4612:

Including the user who hatted the template is only possible with subst'ing or user input - this template is usually transcluded. –

2900:

that you linked meant to be an example of abuse? If so, I'll point out that approx. 3 revisions later it was restored by a member

324:

the text. It's hiding it. Yet "This discussion has been hidden." doesn't sound right, either. Not sure how to solve this problem.

5646: 4767: 4085: 3458:

but I am sick of dealing with wikipedians who edit from their testes. This is a non-issue, don't turn it into world war III. --

47: 17: 1956:

I'm also unclear about whether we want the default line to show up in all cases unless it is explicitly excluded, or vice versa.

4481: 4257:

I agree that if someone unhats a thread, the same editor who originally hatted it should generally not edit war to re-hat it. –

2841: 132: 4185:

and the like, quite often, to end conversations that have degenerated into mere sniping back and forth among the participants.

153:

I reverted the change. I hope that consensus will be reached here or in some suitable venue before further changes are made.

5584: 4499: 3247:

and I would like you both to drop the old squabble and work with me, before I decide to 'archive' your posts myself. ok? --

2405: 2137: 1378:

making something more user friendly is "technical". It is a way to help people understand and use a tool in a better way.

5412:- though personally, I don't see what the problem is. Neither 'nonsense' nor 'disruption' can be on-topic, by definition. 3496:

Requiring an extra parameter just makes it more complicated to use (for no good reason) and also breaks the existing uses.

2083: 1991: 1911: 4888:

This is not the type of solution I'm looking for. I want collapsed sections to be ubiquitously expanded when archived. __

881:

gives no instruction on what discussion is "relevant to improving" an article, your example would appear to be more of a

738:

With parameter: "This material is not considered to be relevant to improving the article. Please see <guideline: -->

583:

of the template (broadly construed) are solved by renaming the template. Obviously hat is used to improve readability

5243: 5175: 4963: 4343: 3910:

agreed. I'd even suggest applying COT (or HAT) to the above discussion, since it does stray off topic. shall we? --

3618: 2115: 2059: 1236: 1159: 1144:

changed my argument that use of this template is a "a less radical approach" to the outright deletion envisaged under

1093: 1002: 947: 929: 914: 754: 709: 677: 528: 480: 307: 277: 142: 89: 5135:

I can't tell if this template is just broken or something else odd is going on at that page. The section after the

4055:

While one purpose of using hat is to improve readability, the main goal is to end a discussion - so it's not really

1181:

We are quickly moving into specifics of what brought this drama about, this is probably not the venue for it. But..

5637: 1128:, I have not (as far as I can remember) made the argument "that this template is used for archiving not deleting". 969:

object to including wording that states that its usage should only be used when there is consensus for its use? --

38: 5520:

RfCs and disputes are typically handled differently, with the "Template:Archive top" gadget or something similar.

1842: 1776: 1214: 827: 462: 269: 5533: 5461: 5394: 5379: 3715: 2616:"This text is argumentative, and has been hidden to promote calm and reasoned discussion. Please leave it be." 2147: 1467: 1205:

not "moving into specifics of what brought this drama about", as well as veering decidedly off-topic. And (ii)

769:

It is far to easy for this template to be abused. To make a point I considered enclosing the last comment by

5362:. The decision maybe correct at times, for example, a troll jumps in a random talk page and talk things that 2554:

from wherever it was originally - often intentionally - placed in the past if the template was not subst'd. –

2469:

I'm fine with that if others agree - not perfect, but nothing in life ever is. are there any objections? --

1917:. it should handle the parameters from both templates. the only thing the might be an issue is the default 5239: 5210: 3667: 3276: 649: 346: 5417: 4919: 2103: 2050: 1711: 1225:

on that thread being strongly against him. I would further point out that this misrepresentation violates

5440:

Very few people will be watching this page, and template documentation is neither policy nor a guideline.

3595:

when collapsing discussions, I don't care either way. Those two templates are succinct and easy to type.

3296:

Xeno, don't pull that crap on me. the fact that fraternities hazed people for hundreds of years (with a

206:

has expressed my position on this. This template was brought to my notice by the way it has been used by

4545:. This is a simple template with minimal maintenance load and there is little chance of a bug. See also 4333: 4216: 3994: 3628: 3607: 3202: 3008: 2757: 2254: 2125: 2093: 2069: 1673: 1641: 1587: 1564: 1294:

This is the correct forum to debating changes to this template, whatever the reason for the changes. --

840:

2b)OR Neutral comments: no free text parameters should be enabled, (because free text is open to abuse).

2511:

wants brown then I say set the merged template to brown as default and make green a default colour. --

5620: 5590: 5537: 5490: 5465: 5421: 5398: 5383: 5343: 5315: 5218: 5187: 5154: 5131:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:JoeSperrazza&oldid=405742860#Thanks_for_tiger_balm

5107: 5093: 5078: 5063: 5044: 5029: 5006: 4991: 4967: 4934: 4897: 4883: 4784: 4761: 4747: 4730: 4700: 4677: 4650: 4622: 4596: 4559: 4534: 4519: 4503: 4475: 4460: 4428: 4385: 4358: 4297: 4281: 4267: 4250: 4231: 4196: 4172: 4157: 4134: 4097: 4067: 4046: 4020: 4006: 3980: 3946: 3932: 3919: 3905: 3822: 3798: 3785: 3770: 3747: 3722: 3701: 3682: 3643: 3599: 3558: 3516: 3467: 3391: 3361: 3330: 3317: 3291: 3256: 3220: 3171: 3156: 3143: 3128: 3052: 2954: 2918: 2891: 2869: 2860: 2827: 2784: 2724: 2670: 2608: 2562: 2520: 2478: 2444: 2409: 2358: 2335: 2316: 2294:

I think the brown is preferable to the green anywhere - especially as the point of the template is to

2288: 2269: 2235: 2212: 2197: 2169: 2020: 1974: 1898: 1881: 1858: 1833: 1814: 1799: 1765: 1737: 1703: 1688: 1656: 1628: 1599: 1530: 1507: 1495: 1471: 1452: 1436: 1396: 1372: 1357: 1333: 1318: 1303: 1286: 1260: 1242: 1195: 1165: 1120: 1099: 1051: 1008: 978: 953: 920: 867: 760: 715: 665: 640: 596: 565: 534: 512: 486: 452: 427: 363: 350: 331: 313: 242: 227: 194: 162: 148: 95: 5600: 5335: 5269: 4997:

Bit skanky, that. even I missed it, and I check the RSS fairly frequently. should we try again? --

4487: 4206: 4120: 4080:

And yes, I know that part of the political problem with this template it that people like Hrafn have

3657: 3266: 3184: 3093: 2393: 1504: 1501: 360: 357: 328: 325: 5098:

works for me. if the issue comes up in the future, we can dismiss this AfD as meaningless then. --

4717:

I see no reason that the collapsing should remain after the page has been archived, such as seen at

5616: 5573: 5309: 4876: 3878:'ed section - to add information, remove information, annote information, without fear of reprisal. 3708: 3201:

This template has existed this way and been used in this manner for over 3 years. Just because you

2849: 1889:

specific - tidy generates a spurious closing div tag that mucks things up). what do you think? --

1463: 1222: 741: 732: 689: 273: 135:

was also altered. As it is not protected, I was able to revert it until a consensus can be formed.

79: 5050:

survived an AfD, because the whole procedure looks (as I said) tres skanky for a template that we

5201: 5099: 5055: 5021: 4998: 4495: 4452: 4377: 4242: 4181:

as disinterested mediators). However, this template is also used by uninvolved administrators at

4149: 4103: 4089: 4084:

argued that it is not covered by wp:refactor (see the first line of the top section of this page

4053:"Refactoring is a form of editing whose goal is to improve readability while preserving meaning." 4038: 4026: 3938: 3911: 3814: 3777: 3739: 3674: 3635: 3550: 3459: 3353: 3309: 3248: 2946: 2810: 2776: 2662: 2470: 2401: 2327: 2227: 2161: 1966: 1965:

at any rate, if we can decide these last details we can go ahead and do the merge. thoughts? --

1890: 1873: 1828: 1806: 1729: 1680: 1108: 1026: 900: 892: 849: 685: 612: 470: 293: 169: 103: 75: 4390:

If the main point of contention is the word "archive" in this template's name, let's move it to

1872:

in the meantime, I'll draft a sandbox version of the merge. I;ll post i here when I'm done. --

3790:

Did you completely ignore what I wrote? These templates have different and distinct purposes. –

5413: 5074: 5040: 4982: 4691: 4641: 4587: 4484:. I hope I put it in a nice neutral manner. if not, let me know or add clarifying comments. 4222:

with a strong comment not to use it if any editor object to its use, for use on talk pages. --

3209: 3177: 3100: 2916: 1619: 1521: 1486: 1448: 1427: 1387: 1368: 1348: 1314: 1282: 1042: 933: 888: 845: 814: 681: 661: 631: 605: 592: 503: 443: 338: 281: 177: 173: 158: 5164:

This template should have a parameter for indentation, taking a numerical value, akin to the

3808:

of templates is to have a single design for multiple purposes. look, the only reason you're

3134:

candy. (The colour chosen ought be one with a shade that colour blind people can notice). --

928:"archiving as understood by the use on Knowledge" (see many examples of similar templates in 5486: 5168: 5150: 4930: 2344: 2302: 1819: 1726:

template to this page, please? put the following at the top of the page: <noinclude: -->

1720: 1581: 1558: 122: 1247:

My apologies for stating what I apprehended to have happened, I am now on the talk page of

5607:"Do not include main section headers: including main headers will disrupt archiving bots." 5596:"Do not include main section headers: including main headers will disrupt archiving bots." 5017: 4959: 1329: 1256: 1191: 423: 238: 190: 5389:

I will give it a week from now, and proceed if there is no disagreement or whatsoever. --

4033:

of altering the presentation of information; it's a bit stronger than striking out text (

1948:

rather than a simple redirect, so that we can retain the use of the default warning line.

5456:

It subjects to the editors.. notice that you used the quotes just as I did as well :) --

3198:) and end a thread which has outlived its purpose or is generating more heat than light. 676:

As I stated above, there is no indication that this template, and other similar ones in

5612: 5370:

so we(random editors, readers..) can judge, the usual practice is very contrary to the

5306: 5183: 5091: 4893: 4867: 4782: 4757: 4745: 4726: 4675: 4620: 4557: 4517: 4473: 4426: 4295: 4265: 4194: 4132: 4065: 4018: 3930: 3903: 3796: 3768: 3699: 3514: 3389: 3328: 3289: 3218: 3154: 3126: 2889: 2858: 2722: 2606: 2560: 2442: 2356: 2314: 2267: 2210: 2192: 1760: 1226: 1218: 1145: 878: 781: 492: 466: 297: 288:

usage rather than a false invocation of that guideline. Conversely the proposed change

211: 4349:

is called from a talk page, but not if it is called from a Knowledge project page? --

3837:

is to cease a discussion and collapse it - to put an end to an unconstructive debate.

2099:. the Parameters section in the noinclude block should be excluded, but the standard 5351: 5145:'d section is being included in the collapsed area, which seems wrong. FYI FWIW :p ¦ 4530: 4491: 4354: 4277: 4227: 4182: 4168: 4002: 3976: 3596: 3301: 3167: 3139: 3048: 2880: 2823: 2516: 2397: 2284: 2016: 1854: 1823: 1795: 1699: 1652: 1551: 1299: 1274: 1116: 974: 863: 780:

This material is not considered to be relevant to improving the template. Please see

561: 223: 4602:

I still find this argument uncompelling - people understand the template just fine.

5563: 5139: 5070: 5036: 4974: 4683: 4633: 4579: 4404: 4394: 4110: 3886: 3872: 3862: 3852: 3841: 3831: 3756: 3732: 3590: 3582: 3110: 3039: 2906: 2876: 2430: 2279:<--xeno Where has it been used that you think that the colour is too garish? -- 2244: 1942: 1932: 1784: 1611: 1577:

at me for filing a Christmas-Day RFC about disputed guideline wording. I learn.) —

1513: 1478: 1444: 1419: 1379: 1364: 1340: 1310: 1278: 1034: 883: 834: 696: 692:

has been formed on an issue, and that it is time to move on (and in the context of

657: 623: 588: 495: 435: 154: 110: 1550:

quixotic "do not look at the man behind the curtain!" template seems to be a good

3352:

separate template just so some frustrated editors can exercise bad judgement. --

5645:

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

5482: 5146: 4926: 233:

short by any means may be disruptive, and should be undone if objections arise.

116: 46:

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

5560:

An RfD is being held that may affect templates similar to this one (which uses

4721:. Could this be expanded again somehow, without losing the initial text box? __ 723:

Further to my comment above, it might be appropriate to change the language of

272:

re-raising of a point on which it had just been made abundantly clear that the

4951: 2799: 1325: 1252: 1232: 1187: 1155: 1104: 1089: 998: 943: 910: 813:

1) It is not archiving as understood by the use on Knowledge and described in

770: 750: 705: 524: 476: 419: 303: 234: 207: 203: 186: 138: 85: 4025:

Clearly this is a form of refactoring; are you suggesting that it isn't? per

1075:

who "ignores" that "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article"

78:& would request that it be returned to its previous state unless/until a 5179: 5084: 4889: 4775: 4753: 4738: 4722: 4668: 4613: 4550: 4510: 4466: 4419: 4288: 4258: 4189: 4127: 4060: 4013: 3925: 3898: 3791: 3763: 3694: 3509: 3384: 3323: 3284: 3213: 3149: 3121: 2884: 2853: 2795: 2717: 2601: 2555: 2508: 2437: 2351: 2309: 2262: 2205: 2188: 1756: 1248: 1202: 1182: 852:). -- to be specifically mentioned in the descriptive text of the template. 837:). -- to be specifically mentioned in the descriptive text of the template. 1512:

yes, that would be nice. Especially on the Administrative Noticeboards.

4526: 4350: 4273: 4223: 4164: 3998: 3972: 3163: 3135: 3044: 2819: 2512: 2280: 2012: 1850: 1791: 1695: 1648: 1295: 1112: 970: 859: 557: 219: 5429:

Disagree with what? You haven't explained what change you are proposing.

5083:

I've re-added the link but clarified the discussion ran for ~17 hours. –

3347:

yeah, it's scuzzy because it is used by any number of people to assert

3262:

And this practice has been in use for years, as have templates such as

2160:

Did I foret anything? I'll update the docs once the merge is done. --

1679:, I can't see much difference at all. perhaps a merge is in order? -- 1273:

If you feel this template is prone to abuse then the venue you want is

3971:

I'm in favour of a merge. For the reasons I have previously given. --

1822:

uses its own code, so you don't need to consider it at all. Cheers.

656:

just operating off a particular meaning which may not be appropriate.

5570:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 15#Template:Cop

3987:

Compromise discussion: delineating appropriate usage of the template

2326:

for me is that there's no need for two mostly identical templates.--

74:

I see no indication that the purpose of this template is covered by

5450:

Neither 'nonsense' nor 'disruption' can be on-topic, by definition.

3205:

doesn't mean we can just ends its life without consensus to do so.

109:

discuss this with the editor who applied the template, and follow

5554:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 10#Template:Cop

3499:

If it is a non-issue, then we can agree to close this section as

3120:

on the thread and didn't even know that it stood for something. –

2768:

misuse because of the name and the pseudo-authoritative language.

4752:

My concern is the searchability of archived discussion pages. __

3308:

me to waste the time of a whole lot of people debating this? --

887:

than 'abuse'. (ii) The "consensus clauses in the two guidelines

5499:

Sorry about the tone but your comment I think is constructive.

4525:

maintenance load and potentially doubles the number of bugs.--

168:

Thank you Protonk. Personally I think that it falls more under

5624: 5227: 5174:

template. When a minor part of a thread is hidden, such as at

4326: 3117: 183:

a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers

25: 4465:

Fine by me, if you think it'll get more people to chime in. –

3208:

If your only argument is that it doesn't "archive" it in the

1919:

The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

1610:

resistance to even putting additional instructions for use.

1025:

PBS, I agree with your assessment. Hrafn keeps referring to

5288:

and are ready to be copied into the template to replace the

4768:

Template talk:Hidden archive top#Search problem with hatting

1152:, I don't accept any premise or conclusion of your comment. 5350:

Hatting should be used if and only if the section does not

3212:

sense, the word "archived" can be replaced with "closed". –

3196:

preserve in its current state so it is not modified further

735:. Please do not reopen it so soon without new information." 5176:

Talk:Anders Behring Breivik#Influence of Knowledge section

4482:

Knowledge:Village_pump_(policy)#collapsing_discussion_text

740:

is the parameter and would be some guideline page such as

389:

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

379:

Sometimes they might really just want something like this

434:

over the protests of the hatted editors on a talk page.

4400:

and leave a redirect behind. Everyone calls it by using

1951:

get a bot to go through and do some direct modifications

1201:(i) And how is re-raising the spectre of the article on 469:. Regardless, the controlling guideline is WP:TALK, not 5285: 5130: 4665: 4607: 4543: 4540: 2897: 2872: 2814: 2156:

the 'merge from' template (obviously) should be removed

491:

and I would suggest that you read this part of WP:Talk

215: 3116:

for all I care. I always thought of it like putting a

2390:

to merge, frankly, but I'm open to the conversation.

1217:

of an issue that PBS had already raised the issue on

1111:

which is about deleting text and not archiving it? --

1727:{{mergeto|Template:Collapse top}}</noinclude: --> 5611:

Should this template also have that instruction? --

1219:

Talk:Denialism#Not in the Oxford English Dictionary

4418:to get opinions from other than the three of us. – 4376:. not a function, or a purpose, but a 'name'. -- 3106:I don't care what it's called. Move the code into 521:from that section above, so have clearly read it. 5284:All these changes have been made in the template 3827:No, they have distinct purposes. I will explain. 1987:Could you please add a brief description to your 1080:one of these "specific exceptions outline below" 1669:looking at the source for this template and for 5446:Maybe, that's very relevant to the discussion. 2764:ok, it seems we have two separate issues here: 1907:well, I finished the simple revision - it's at 5299: 5289: 4012:objections of other editors in the dispute." – 3858:requires verbiage to enforce its purpose. The 2153:with an appropriate Redirect by Merge template 2131:with an appropriate Redirect by Merge template 1082:and that the the other editors' permission is 810:So are we agreed that whatever this is, that: 688:. Their usage is generally to indicate that a 4793:. For a CSS hack, the following should do it: 3103:sense, but it still used on a regular basis). 2896:I'm possibly missing something, but PBS, was 2226:templates that do exactly the same thing? -- 1029:, yet ignores the first sentence which says " 8: 1637:How does this template differ in usage from 1251:and perhaps we can discuss in more detail. 4719:Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill/Archive 1 3099:. (Which also doesn't "archive" it in the 1775:I am going to inform the editors over at 1665:Potential merge with Template:Collapse top 932:for precedent), just not as "described in 826:(not on Knowledge namespace pages such as 789:The following discussion has been closed. 776: 517:I would suggest that you take note that I 394:The following discussion has been closed. 385: 375: 5360:it also makes the resolution less obvious 3868:does not. People can often edit within a 265:used to "stifle debate", but to 'stifle' 4766:I think the suggestion at the bottom of 4713:Should be expanded when page is archived 2848:As to your example of abuse - I went to 2109:template should be added, as is obvious. 4547:Knowledge:Don't worry about performance 3776:would think twice about the merger. -- 645:Well that description doesn't describe 5643:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4102:So the best way forward is to massage 1229:: "Do not misrepresent other people". 216:to put over one person's point of view 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2055:A few edits need to be done to merge 1997:with a description of the parameters? 1132:, the quoted passage does not in any 579:I'm not convinced that problems with 7: 4770:is probably the best bet. Requested 4437:that is a non-issue: this template 4141: 2845:template is when used appropriately. 2075:per the discussion in this section. 1865: 5410:Knowledge talk:Talk page guidelines 2902:on the opposite side of the dispute 680:, are being used in the context of 5268:problem mentioned above is due to 1545:Strikes me as a good TFD candidate 739:for why." Where <guideline: --> 411:are that much easier to remember? 284:, this usage can be considered an 24: 5277:2 text-align:center assignments. 4791:Knowledge:Expand Hidden Templates 4126:) practice as it is used today. – 3848:Separate, distinct purposes. The 2751:merge discussion: arbitrary break 1213:an "ongoing discussion" it was a 5628: 5322: 5231: 4941: 4656: 4606:I've changed it to say "closed" 4325:<--I've been looking through 4142: 3500: 2176: 1866: 1744: 29: 18:Template talk:Hidden archive top 5603:has the following instruction: 4106:until it clearly describes the 2350:too? It's a nice light blue. – 133:Template:Hidden archive top/doc 5265: 5160:Needs an indentation parameter 5007:20:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 4992:19:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 4968:18:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 4935:10:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 4364:well, I still say it would be 3614:Dispute over whether to merge 2415:And in turn, I see no reasons 731:Default: "This issue has been 1: 5591:02:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC) 1689:02:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC) 1508:08:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 1496:04:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 1472:19:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC) 936:", a page that this template 5538:19:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 5491:18:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 5466:16:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 5422:15:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 5399:09:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 5384:06:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 5108:16:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC) 5094:15:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC) 5079:15:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC) 5064:03:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC) 5045:03:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC) 5030:03:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC) 4202:ANI -- I would have thought 3650:Argument in favor of merger: 2798:There is no ongoing dispute 1453:06:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 1437:05:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 1397:06:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 1373:05:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 1358:05:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 1334:05:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 1319:21:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 1304:09:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 1287:18:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 1261:15:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 1243:07:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 1196:05:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 1166:09:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 1121:08:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 1100:05:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 1052:02:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 1009:11:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 979:09:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 954:08:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 921:08:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 868:07:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 761:05:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 727:template to something like: 716:05:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 666:04:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 641:04:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 597:03:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 566:08:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 535:05:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 513:04:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 487:03:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 453:02:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 428:02:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 364:01:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 351:23:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 332:21:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 314:03:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 243:20:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 228:19:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 195:19:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 163:18:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 149:18:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 96:18:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 82:has developed to change it. 5258:to reactivate your request. 5246:has been answered. Set the 5244:Template:Hidden archive top 5155:20:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC) 4327:mediawiki: Help:Magic words 4075:My suggestion was that the 3579:So long as I can still use 1790:should be used instead. -- 1657:20:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC) 1629:18:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC) 1600:13:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC) 1413:Search problem with hatting 930:Category:Archival templates 678:Category:Archival templates 278:Category:Archival templates 5679: 5374:that I expected. Thanks -- 5344:11:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC) 5219:21:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC) 5188:13:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 4898:13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 4701:01:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC) 4678:13:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 4651:00:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC) 4623:23:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 4597:23:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 4560:23:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC) 4535:20:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC) 4520:15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC) 4504:18:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 4476:17:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 4461:17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 4429:16:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 4386:16:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 4359:01:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 4298:22:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 4282:22:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 4268:15:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 4251:15:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 4232:14:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 4197:13:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 4173:13:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 4158:18:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC) 4135:16:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC) 4098:16:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC) 4068:15:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC) 4047:15:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC) 4021:13:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC) 4007:23:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3981:23:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3947:19:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3933:19:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3920:19:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3906:19:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3823:18:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3799:17:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3786:17:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3771:17:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3748:17:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3723:17:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3702:16:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3683:16:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3644:16:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3600:13:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC) 3559:16:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3517:16:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3468:16:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3392:15:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3362:15:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3331:15:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3318:15:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3292:15:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3257:14:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3221:12:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3172:06:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 3157:20:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 3144:20:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 3129:19:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 3053:19:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 2955:16:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 2919:16:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 2892:14:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 2861:14:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 2828:05:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 2785:04:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 2725:14:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 2671:05:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 2609:04:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 2563:04:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 2521:03:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 2479:21:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 2445:20:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 2410:20:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 2359:20:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 2336:19:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 2317:19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 2289:19:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 2270:18:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 2236:18:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 2213:17:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 2198:08:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC) 2170:06:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC) 2021:03:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC) 1975:22:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC) 1777:Knowledge:Deletion reviewd 1531:02:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC) 493:WP:TALK#Others.27_comments 5621:10:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC) 5364:does not focus on content 5316:08:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC) 5224:Edit request 25 July 2014 3690:Argument opposing merger: 3549:fine, we'll do an RfC. -- 1899:03:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC) 1882:20:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 1859:20:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 1843:Knowledge:Deletion review 1834:10:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1815:00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC) 1800:21:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 1766:17:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 1738:16:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 1704:12:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC) 828:Knowledge:Deletion review 4884:16:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 4807: 4785:12:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 4762:12:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 4748:12:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 4731:12:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 2143:should be redirected to 2121:should be redirected to 1109:WP:TALK#Others' comments 1027:WP:TALK#Others' comments 901:WP:TALK#Others' comments 792:Please do not modify it. 397:Please do not modify it. 3752:This template predates 2250:looks much better than 4912:nominated for deletion 4857: 4856: 4855: 4854: 4853: 2089:should be copied into 276:was against you. (ii) 5641:of past discussions. 4806: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4802: 3995:Knowledge:refactoring 3608:Template:Collapse top 3508:Not merged. Cheers, – 2945:neutral phrasing. -- 2771:presentation details. 2138:Hidden archive bottom 1864:sounds like a plan. 1605:It is a heavily used 42:of past discussions. 5601:Template:Archive top 2084:Collapse_top/sandbox 1992:Collapse_top/sandbox 1912:Collapse_top/sandbox 1716:could someone add a 1607:(and heavily abused) 1324:generally speaking. 1136:make that argument. 903:, which articulates 824:used on a talk pages 5298:for comparison and 4051:My concern is that 2850:User_talk:Phoenix79 2419:merge. The reasons 1845:is not a problem. 1554:candidate to me. — 1269:Potential for abuse 1209:the hatted section 1086:required for this. 292:explicitly link to 5372:open collaboration 4368:simpler to have a 4344:Hidden archive top 3619:Hidden archive top 2842:your contributions 2811:Talk:British Isles 2185:I think. — Martin 2116:Hidden archive top 2060:Hidden archive top 1215:WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT 1134:way, shape or form 463:WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT 270:WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT 5666: 5665: 5653: 5652: 5647:current talk page 5587: 5579: 5340: 5262: 5261: 4682:Thanks, xeno. :) 4490:comment added by 3190:which is similar. 2914: 2396:comment added by 2240:I'm arguing that 2196: 1805:I don't know. -- 1764: 1597: 1574: 802: 801: 415: 414: 410: 409: 127: 107: 67: 66: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5670: 5662: 5655: 5654: 5632: 5631: 5625: 5583: 5577: 5567: 5515:That's correct. 5338: 5334: 5330: 5326: 5325: 5312: 5300:Old vs. New diff 5253: 5249: 5235: 5234: 5228: 5217: 5208: 5204: 5173: 5167: 5144: 5138: 5105: 5102: 5089: 5061: 5058: 5027: 5024: 5004: 5001: 4989: 4979: 4955: 4949: 4945: 4944: 4924: 4918: 4882: 4879: 4873: 4850: 4847: 4844: 4841: 4838: 4835: 4832: 4829: 4826: 4823: 4820: 4817: 4814: 4811: 4780: 4743: 4698: 4688: 4673: 4664: 4660: 4659: 4648: 4638: 4618: 4594: 4584: 4555: 4515: 4506: 4471: 4458: 4455: 4424: 4409: 4403: 4399: 4393: 4383: 4380: 4348: 4342: 4338: 4332: 4293: 4263: 4248: 4245: 4221: 4215: 4211: 4205: 4155: 4152: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4125: 4119: 4115: 4109: 4095: 4092: 4044: 4041: 3944: 3941: 3917: 3914: 3891: 3885: 3877: 3871: 3867: 3861: 3857: 3851: 3846: 3840: 3836: 3830: 3820: 3817: 3783: 3780: 3761: 3755: 3745: 3742: 3737: 3731: 3718: 3680: 3677: 3672: 3666: 3662: 3656: 3641: 3638: 3633: 3627: 3623: 3617: 3606:RfC: merge with 3594: 3586: 3556: 3553: 3507: 3504: 3503: 3465: 3462: 3359: 3356: 3315: 3312: 3281: 3275: 3271: 3265: 3254: 3251: 3189: 3183: 3115: 3109: 3098: 3092: 3013: 3007: 2952: 2949: 2913: 2910: 2909: 2782: 2779: 2761: 2668: 2665: 2476: 2473: 2435: 2429: 2412: 2349: 2343: 2333: 2330: 2307: 2301: 2259: 2253: 2249: 2243: 2233: 2230: 2186: 2184: 2180: 2179: 2167: 2164: 2152: 2146: 2142: 2136: 2130: 2124: 2120: 2114: 2108: 2102: 2098: 2092: 2088: 2082: 2079:the contents of 2074: 2068: 2064: 2058: 2054: 1996: 1990: 1972: 1969: 1947: 1941: 1937: 1931: 1916: 1910: 1896: 1893: 1879: 1876: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1820:Template:DRV top 1812: 1809: 1789: 1783: 1754: 1752: 1748: 1747: 1735: 1732: 1725: 1719: 1715: 1686: 1683: 1678: 1672: 1646: 1640: 1626: 1616: 1598: 1592: 1591: 1575: 1569: 1568: 1528: 1518: 1493: 1483: 1434: 1424: 1394: 1384: 1355: 1345: 1241: 1164: 1098: 1049: 1039: 1007: 952: 938:never referenced 919: 897:are not relevant 794: 777: 759: 714: 701: 695: 654: 648: 638: 628: 533: 510: 500: 485: 450: 440: 399: 386: 376: 312: 147: 128: 125: 121: 101: 94: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5678: 5677: 5673: 5672: 5671: 5669: 5668: 5667: 5658: 5629: 5598: 5588: 5561: 5548: 5355: 5337:Paine Ellsworth 5336: 5323: 5321: 5310: 5290:present version 5286:sandbox version 5251: 5247: 5232: 5226: 5206: 5200: 5199: 5195: 5171: 5165: 5162: 5142: 5136: 5128: 5103: 5100: 5085: 5059: 5056: 5025: 5022: 5002: 4999: 4983: 4975: 4953: 4942: 4940: 4922: 4916: 4914: 4877: 4868: 4866: 4852: 4851: 4848: 4845: 4842: 4839: 4836: 4833: 4830: 4827: 4824: 4821: 4818: 4815: 4812: 4809: 4776: 4739: 4715: 4692: 4684: 4669: 4657: 4655: 4642: 4634: 4614: 4588: 4580: 4551: 4511: 4485: 4467: 4456: 4453: 4420: 4407: 4401: 4397: 4391: 4381: 4378: 4346: 4340: 4336: 4330: 4289: 4259: 4246: 4243: 4219: 4213: 4209: 4203: 4153: 4150: 4143: 4123: 4117: 4113: 4107: 4093: 4090: 4042: 4039: 3989: 3942: 3939: 3915: 3912: 3893:desired effect. 3889: 3883: 3875: 3869: 3865: 3859: 3855: 3849: 3844: 3838: 3834: 3828: 3818: 3815: 3781: 3778: 3759: 3753: 3743: 3740: 3735: 3729: 3716: 3678: 3675: 3670: 3664: 3660: 3654: 3639: 3636: 3631: 3625: 3621: 3615: 3612: 3588: 3580: 3554: 3551: 3505: 3501: 3463: 3460: 3357: 3354: 3313: 3310: 3279: 3273: 3269: 3263: 3252: 3249: 3187: 3181: 3113: 3107: 3096: 3090: 3011: 3005: 2950: 2947: 2911: 2907: 2780: 2777: 2762: 2755: 2753: 2666: 2663: 2474: 2471: 2433: 2427: 2391: 2347: 2341: 2331: 2328: 2305: 2299: 2257: 2251: 2247: 2241: 2231: 2228: 2177: 2175: 2165: 2162: 2150: 2148:Collapse bottom 2144: 2140: 2134: 2128: 2122: 2118: 2112: 2106: 2100: 2096: 2090: 2086: 2080: 2072: 2066: 2062: 2056: 2048: 1994: 1988: 1970: 1967: 1945: 1939: 1935: 1929: 1914: 1908: 1894: 1891: 1877: 1874: 1867: 1810: 1807: 1787: 1781: 1745: 1743: 1733: 1730: 1723: 1717: 1709: 1684: 1681: 1676: 1670: 1667: 1644: 1638: 1620: 1612: 1586: 1584: 1578: 1563: 1561: 1555: 1547: 1522: 1514: 1487: 1479: 1428: 1420: 1415: 1388: 1380: 1349: 1341: 1271: 1239: 1230: 1162: 1153: 1096: 1087: 1071:Stmrlbs, it is 1043: 1035: 1005: 996: 950: 941: 924:Addendum: this 917: 908: 907:good practice. 877:(i) Given that 822:AND when it is 790: 757: 748: 712: 703: 699: 693: 652: 646: 632: 624: 531: 522: 504: 496: 483: 474: 444: 436: 406: 395: 310: 301: 145: 136: 123: 115: 92: 83: 72: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5676: 5674: 5664: 5663: 5651: 5650: 5633: 5597: 5594: 5582: 5558: 5557: 5547: 5544: 5543: 5542: 5541: 5540: 5530:14.198.220.253 5525: 5524: 5523: 5513: 5512: 5511: 5494: 5493: 5473: 5472: 5471: 5470: 5469: 5468: 5458:14.198.220.253 5454: 5453: 5452: 5444: 5443: 5442: 5433: 5432: 5431: 5402: 5401: 5391:14.198.220.253 5376:14.198.220.253 5354: 5348: 5347: 5346: 5303: 5260: 5259: 5236: 5225: 5222: 5194: 5191: 5161: 5158: 5127: 5126:Broken, or...? 5124: 5123: 5122: 5121: 5120: 5119: 5118: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5111: 5110: 5010: 5009: 4971: 4970: 4913: 4910: 4909: 4908: 4907: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4903: 4902: 4901: 4900: 4808: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4794: 4714: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4610: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4432: 4431: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4186: 4073: 3988: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3894: 3879: 3806:raison de etre 3725: 3686: 3685: 3668:Discussion top 3611: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3497: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3277:discussion top 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3206: 3199: 3191: 3104: 3087: 3083: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2942:Hidden archive 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2875:from users at 2846: 2838: 2831: 2830: 2805: 2804: 2792: 2791: 2773: 2772: 2769: 2754: 2752: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2424: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2320: 2319: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2216: 2215: 2201: 2200: 2158: 2157: 2154: 2132: 2110: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1949: 1926: 1902: 1901: 1885: 1884: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1817: 1769: 1768: 1707: 1706: 1666: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1632: 1631: 1580: 1557: 1546: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1464:SteveMcCluskey 1456: 1455: 1414: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1336: 1270: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1235: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1158: 1092: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1001: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 946: 923: 913: 856: 855: 854: 853: 841: 838: 820: 819: 818: 807: 806: 800: 799: 796: 795: 786: 785: 775: 774: 765: 753: 746: 745: 736: 721: 720: 719: 718: 708: 671: 670: 669: 668: 650:discussion top 619: 618: 617: 610: 577: 576: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 568: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 527: 479: 456: 455: 413: 412: 408: 407: 404: 401: 400: 391: 390: 381: 380: 374: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 306: 250: 249: 248: 247: 246: 245: 212:talk:denialism 198: 197: 141: 130: 129: 88: 71: 68: 65: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5675: 5661: 5657: 5656: 5648: 5644: 5640: 5639: 5634: 5627: 5626: 5623: 5622: 5618: 5614: 5609: 5608: 5604: 5602: 5595: 5593: 5592: 5586: 5580: 5576: 5571: 5565: 5556: 5555: 5550: 5549: 5545: 5539: 5535: 5531: 5526: 5521: 5517: 5516: 5514: 5509: 5508:the solution. 5505: 5501: 5500: 5498: 5497: 5496: 5495: 5492: 5488: 5484: 5479: 5475: 5474: 5467: 5463: 5459: 5455: 5451: 5448: 5447: 5445: 5441: 5438: 5437: 5434: 5430: 5427: 5426: 5425: 5424: 5423: 5419: 5415: 5411: 5406: 5405: 5404: 5403: 5400: 5396: 5392: 5388: 5387: 5386: 5385: 5381: 5377: 5373: 5369: 5365: 5361: 5353: 5349: 5345: 5342: 5341: 5339: 5329: 5320: 5319: 5318: 5317: 5314: 5313: 5308: 5301: 5297: 5296: 5291: 5287: 5282: 5278: 5274: 5271: 5267: 5257: 5254:parameter to 5245: 5241: 5237: 5230: 5229: 5223: 5221: 5220: 5216: 5212: 5207:Pigsonthewing 5203: 5192: 5190: 5189: 5185: 5181: 5177: 5170: 5159: 5157: 5156: 5152: 5148: 5141: 5133: 5132: 5125: 5109: 5106: 5097: 5096: 5095: 5092: 5090: 5088: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5076: 5072: 5067: 5066: 5065: 5062: 5053: 5048: 5047: 5046: 5042: 5038: 5033: 5032: 5031: 5028: 5019: 5014: 5013: 5012: 5011: 5008: 5005: 4996: 4995: 4994: 4993: 4990: 4988: 4987: 4980: 4978: 4969: 4965: 4961: 4957: 4948: 4939: 4938: 4937: 4936: 4932: 4928: 4921: 4920:editprotected 4911: 4899: 4895: 4891: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4880: 4874: 4872: 4865: 4864: 4863: 4862: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4858: 4792: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4783: 4781: 4779: 4773: 4769: 4765: 4764: 4763: 4759: 4755: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4746: 4744: 4742: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4728: 4724: 4720: 4712: 4702: 4699: 4697: 4696: 4689: 4687: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4676: 4674: 4672: 4666: 4663: 4654: 4653: 4652: 4649: 4647: 4646: 4639: 4637: 4631: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4621: 4619: 4617: 4611: 4608: 4605: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4595: 4593: 4592: 4585: 4583: 4561: 4558: 4556: 4554: 4548: 4544: 4541: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4532: 4528: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4518: 4516: 4514: 4508: 4507: 4505: 4501: 4497: 4493: 4489: 4483: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4474: 4472: 4470: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4459: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4440: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4430: 4427: 4425: 4423: 4416: 4415: 4406: 4396: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4384: 4375: 4374:template name 4371: 4367: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4356: 4352: 4345: 4335: 4328: 4299: 4296: 4294: 4292: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4279: 4275: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4266: 4264: 4262: 4256: 4252: 4249: 4240: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4218: 4208: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4195: 4193: 4192: 4187: 4184: 4180: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4156: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4133: 4131: 4130: 4122: 4112: 4105: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4096: 4087: 4083: 4078: 4074: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4066: 4064: 4063: 4058: 4054: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4045: 4036: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4019: 4017: 4016: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3996: 3991: 3990: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3970: 3969: 3948: 3945: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3931: 3929: 3928: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3918: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3904: 3902: 3901: 3895: 3888: 3880: 3874: 3864: 3854: 3843: 3833: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3821: 3811: 3807: 3802: 3801: 3800: 3797: 3795: 3794: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3784: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3769: 3767: 3766: 3758: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3746: 3734: 3726: 3724: 3721: 3719: 3712: 3711: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3700: 3698: 3697: 3691: 3688: 3687: 3684: 3681: 3669: 3659: 3651: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3642: 3630: 3620: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3598: 3592: 3584: 3578: 3577: 3560: 3557: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3518: 3515: 3513: 3512: 3498: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3469: 3466: 3457: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3393: 3390: 3388: 3387: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3363: 3360: 3350: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3332: 3329: 3327: 3326: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3316: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3290: 3288: 3287: 3278: 3268: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3255: 3222: 3219: 3217: 3216: 3211: 3207: 3204: 3203:don't like it 3200: 3197: 3192: 3186: 3180:it. See also 3179: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3155: 3153: 3152: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3127: 3125: 3124: 3119: 3112: 3105: 3102: 3095: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3041: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3010: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2956: 2953: 2943: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2920: 2917: 2915: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2890: 2888: 2887: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2871: 2867: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2859: 2857: 2856: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2829: 2825: 2821: 2816: 2815:this reversal 2812: 2807: 2806: 2801: 2797: 2794: 2793: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2783: 2770: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2759: 2750: 2726: 2723: 2721: 2720: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2672: 2669: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2617: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2607: 2605: 2604: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2564: 2561: 2559: 2558: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2480: 2477: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2446: 2443: 2441: 2440: 2432: 2425: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2413: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2389: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2367: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2357: 2355: 2354: 2346: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2334: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2318: 2315: 2313: 2312: 2304: 2297: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2271: 2268: 2266: 2265: 2256: 2246: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2234: 2225: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2214: 2211: 2209: 2208: 2203: 2202: 2199: 2194: 2190: 2183: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2168: 2155: 2149: 2139: 2133: 2127: 2117: 2111: 2105: 2104:documentation 2095: 2085: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2071: 2061: 2052: 2051:editprotected 2036: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 1993: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1976: 1973: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1955: 1950: 1944: 1938:be a call to 1934: 1927: 1924: 1923: 1920: 1913: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1900: 1897: 1887: 1886: 1883: 1880: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1846: 1844: 1835: 1832: 1831: 1827: 1826: 1821: 1818: 1816: 1813: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1786: 1778: 1774: 1771: 1770: 1767: 1762: 1758: 1751: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1736: 1722: 1713: 1712:editprotected 1705: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1687: 1675: 1664: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1643: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1630: 1627: 1625: 1624: 1617: 1615: 1608: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1595: 1589: 1585: 1583: 1572: 1566: 1562: 1560: 1553: 1544: 1532: 1529: 1527: 1526: 1519: 1517: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1506: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1494: 1492: 1491: 1484: 1482: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1435: 1433: 1432: 1425: 1423: 1412: 1398: 1395: 1393: 1392: 1385: 1383: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1356: 1354: 1353: 1346: 1344: 1337: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1268: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1240: 1238: 1234: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1184: 1167: 1163: 1161: 1157: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1097: 1095: 1091: 1085: 1081: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1053: 1050: 1048: 1047: 1040: 1038: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1010: 1006: 1004: 1000: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 980: 976: 972: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 955: 951: 949: 945: 939: 935: 931: 927: 922: 918: 916: 912: 906: 902: 898: 894: 890: 886: 885: 880: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 865: 861: 851: 847: 842: 839: 836: 832: 831: 829: 825: 821: 816: 812: 811: 809: 808: 804: 803: 798: 797: 793: 788: 787: 783: 779: 778: 772: 768: 767: 766: 763: 762: 758: 756: 752: 743: 737: 734: 730: 729: 728: 726: 717: 713: 711: 707: 698: 691: 687: 683: 679: 675: 674: 673: 672: 667: 663: 659: 651: 644: 643: 642: 639: 637: 636: 629: 627: 620: 614: 611: 607: 604: 603: 601: 600: 599: 598: 594: 590: 586: 582: 567: 563: 559: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 536: 532: 530: 526: 520: 516: 515: 514: 511: 509: 508: 501: 499: 494: 490: 489: 488: 484: 482: 478: 472: 468: 464: 460: 459: 458: 457: 454: 451: 449: 448: 441: 439: 432: 431: 430: 429: 425: 421: 405:hat and hab 403: 402: 398: 393: 392: 388: 387: 383: 382: 378: 377: 367: 366: 365: 362: 359: 354: 353: 352: 348: 344: 340: 336: 335: 334: 333: 330: 327: 315: 311: 309: 305: 299: 295: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 268: 264: 260: 256: 255: 254: 253: 252: 251: 244: 240: 236: 231: 230: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 202: 201: 200: 199: 196: 192: 188: 184: 179: 175: 171: 167: 166: 165: 164: 160: 156: 151: 150: 146: 144: 140: 134: 126: 120: 119: 112: 105: 104:edit conflict 100: 99: 98: 97: 93: 91: 87: 81: 77: 69: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5659: 5642: 5636: 5610: 5606: 5605: 5599: 5574: 5559: 5551: 5546:Relevant RfD 5519: 5507: 5503: 5477: 5449: 5439: 5428: 5414:AndyTheGrump 5371: 5367: 5363: 5359: 5356: 5333: 5332: 5327: 5305: 5294: 5283: 5279: 5275: 5270:class=Navbox 5263: 5255: 5240:edit request 5215:Andy's edits 5211:Talk to Andy 5202:Andy Mabbett 5196: 5163: 5134: 5129: 5086: 5051: 4985: 4984: 4976: 4972: 4946: 4915: 4870: 4789:Solution at 4777: 4740: 4716: 4694: 4693: 4685: 4670: 4661: 4644: 4643: 4635: 4629: 4615: 4603: 4590: 4589: 4581: 4576: 4552: 4512: 4468: 4438: 4421: 4373: 4369: 4365: 4334:collapse top 4324: 4290: 4260: 4238: 4217:collapse top 4190: 4178: 4128: 4081: 4076: 4061: 4056: 4052: 4034: 4030: 4014: 3926: 3899: 3809: 3805: 3792: 3764: 3713: 3709: 3695: 3689: 3649: 3629:Collapse top 3624:- HAT - and 3613: 3510: 3455: 3426: 3422: 3421:like you've 3418: 3385: 3348: 3324: 3305: 3297: 3285: 3245: 3214: 3195: 3150: 3122: 3040:User:Ale_jrb 3009:collapse top 2941: 2901: 2885: 2865: 2854: 2803:alternative. 2774: 2763: 2718: 2615: 2602: 2556: 2438: 2426:If you want 2420: 2416: 2387: 2365: 2352: 2310: 2295: 2278: 2263: 2255:collapse top 2223: 2206: 2181: 2159: 2126:Collapse top 2094:Collapse_top 2070:Collapse top 2047: 1918: 1847: 1840: 1829: 1824: 1772: 1749: 1708: 1674:collapse top 1668: 1642:collapse top 1622: 1621: 1613: 1606: 1579: 1556: 1548: 1524: 1523: 1515: 1489: 1488: 1480: 1430: 1429: 1421: 1416: 1390: 1389: 1381: 1351: 1350: 1342: 1272: 1231: 1223:WP:CONSENSUS 1210: 1206: 1180: 1154: 1149: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1088: 1083: 1079: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1045: 1044: 1036: 1030: 997: 942: 937: 925: 909: 904: 896: 884:non sequitor 882: 857: 835:parting shot 823: 791: 764: 749: 747: 742:WP:NOTAFORUM 724: 722: 704: 690:WP:CONSENSUS 634: 633: 625: 584: 580: 578: 523: 518: 506: 505: 497: 475: 446: 445: 437: 416: 396: 343:89.52.189.11 322: 302: 289: 285: 274:WP:CONSENSUS 266: 262: 261:PBS, it was 258: 182: 152: 137: 131: 117: 84: 80:WP:CONSENSUS 73: 70:Refactoring? 60: 43: 37: 5635:This is an 5292:. See also 4486:—Preceding 4207:archive top 4121:archive top 4104:WP:REFACTOR 4027:wp:refactor 3658:Archive top 3267:archive top 3185:archive top 3094:archive top 2866:Disclosure: 2600:intention)– 2392:—Preceding 1582:SMcCandlish 1559:SMcCandlish 893:WP:REFACTOR 850:WP:REFACTOR 686:WP:REFACTOR 613:wp:refactor 471:WP:REFACTOR 294:WP:REFACTOR 286:alternative 170:WP:REFACTOR 76:WP:REFACTOR 36:This is an 5307:—Telpardec 5266:#Font_size 5248:|answered= 4480:opened at 4082:explicitly 4035:strike out 3298:relatively 3210:WP:ARCHIVE 3178:WP:ARCHIVE 3101:WP:ARCHIVE 2800:User:Hrafn 2366:appearance 2308:now too? – 2038:headaches. 934:WP:ARCHIVE 889:WP:ARCHIVE 846:WP:ARCHIVE 815:WP:ARCHIVE 771:User:Hrafn 682:WP:ARCHIVE 606:WP:Archive 282:WP:ARCHIVE 267:disruptive 178:WP:ARCHIVE 174:WP:ARCHIVE 5660:Archive 1 5613:Guy Macon 5552:Relisted 5295:testcases 5193:Font size 4822:nth-child 4813:collapsed 4239:excellent 4077:intention 4031:intention 3810:insisting 2898:this diff 2840:Based on 2837:disputes. 2796:user:xeno 2509:user:xeno 2398:Ludwigs2 1753:— Martin 1249:Denialism 1203:Denialism 1183:Denialism 784:for why. 616:reverted. 609:progress. 61:Archive 1 5408:this on 5304:Cheers. 5052:all know 5018:wp:BEANS 4964:contribs 4500:contribs 4492:Ludwigs2 4488:unsigned 3349:improper 2873:opinions 2406:contribs 2394:unsigned 2182:all done 1825:lifebaka 1594:Contribs 1571:Contribs 1142:have not 5638:archive 5578:endaliv 5568:): See 5169:Outdent 5101:Ludwigs 5071:Protonk 5057:Ludwigs 5037:Protonk 5023:Ludwigs 5000:Ludwigs 4977:stmrlbs 4837:display 4686:stmrlbs 4636:stmrlbs 4630:by xxxx 4582:stmrlbs 4454:Ludwigs 4410:anyway. 4379:Ludwigs 4244:Ludwigs 4151:Ludwigs 4091:Ludwigs 4040:Ludwigs 3940:Ludwigs 3913:Ludwigs 3816:Ludwigs 3779:Ludwigs 3741:Ludwigs 3676:Ludwigs 3637:Ludwigs 3552:Ludwigs 3461:Ludwigs 3355:Ludwigs 3311:Ludwigs 3250:Ludwigs 2948:Ludwigs 2870:invited 2778:Ludwigs 2758:outdent 2664:Ludwigs 2472:Ludwigs 2345:divhide 2329:Ludwigs 2303:divhide 2229:Ludwigs 2163:Ludwigs 1968:Ludwigs 1892:Ludwigs 1875:Ludwigs 1808:Ludwigs 1773:Comment 1731:Ludwigs 1721:mergeto 1682:Ludwigs 1614:stmrlbs 1516:stmrlbs 1481:stmrlbs 1445:Protonk 1422:stmrlbs 1382:stmrlbs 1365:Protonk 1343:stmrlbs 1311:Protonk 1279:Protonk 1227:WP:TALK 1211:WAS NOT 1150:no, PBS 1146:WP:TALK 1138:No, PBS 1130:No, PBS 1126:No, PBS 1037:stmrlbs 905:current 879:WP:NPOV 782:WP:NPOV 733:settled 658:Protonk 626:stmrlbs 589:Protonk 498:stmrlbs 467:WP:TALK 438:stmrlbs 339:archive 298:WP:TALK 155:Protonk 39:archive 5483:Drmies 5352:WP:FOC 5147:Reisio 4927:Triona 4370:single 4183:WP:ANI 3427:stupid 2912:le_Jrb 2881:WP:VPP 2813:, has 1841:Ok so 1552:WP:TFD 1275:WP:TfD 1221:, the 519:quoted 118:Verbal 5311:TALK 5252:|ans= 5238:This 4869:Gary 4843:block 4439:never 3738:. -- 3425:some 3306:force 3082:you). 2877:WP:AN 2868:I've 2065:into 1928:have 1647:? -- 1590:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1588:Talk⇒ 1567:ʕ(ل)ˀ 1565:Talk⇒ 1505:Adler 1326:Unomi 1253:Unomi 1237:Stalk 1233:Hrafn 1188:Unomi 1160:Stalk 1156:Hrafn 1105:Hrafn 1094:Stalk 1090:Hrafn 1003:Stalk 999:Hrafn 948:Stalk 944:Hrafn 915:Stalk 911:Hrafn 773:with: 755:Stalk 751:Hrafn 710:Stalk 706:Hrafn 581:abuse 529:Stalk 525:Hrafn 481:Stalk 477:Hrafn 420:Unomi 361:Adler 329:Adler 308:Stalk 304:Hrafn 235:Unomi 208:Hrafn 204:Unomi 187:Unomi 172:than 143:Stalk 139:Hrafn 111:WP:DR 90:Stalk 86:Hrafn 16:< 5617:talk 5572:. —/ 5534:talk 5487:talk 5462:talk 5418:talk 5395:talk 5380:talk 5328:Done 5264:The 5184:talk 5180:meco 5151:talk 5087:xeno 5075:talk 5041:talk 4986:talk 4960:talk 4947:Done 4931:talk 4894:talk 4890:meco 4878:talk 4871:King 4778:xeno 4772:here 4758:talk 4754:meco 4741:xeno 4727:talk 4723:meco 4695:talk 4671:xeno 4662:Done 4645:talk 4616:xeno 4591:talk 4553:xeno 4549:. – 4531:talk 4513:xeno 4496:talk 4469:xeno 4422:xeno 4366:much 4355:talk 4291:xeno 4278:talk 4261:xeno 4228:talk 4191:xeno 4179:only 4169:talk 4129:xeno 4086:here 4062:xeno 4057:just 4015:xeno 4003:talk 3977:talk 3927:xeno 3900:xeno 3793:xeno 3765:xeno 3717:Talk 3696:xeno 3663:and 3587:and 3511:xeno 3456:damn 3454:God 3423:lost 3419:feel 3386:xeno 3325:xeno 3286:xeno 3272:and 3215:xeno 3168:talk 3151:xeno 3140:talk 3123:xeno 3049:talk 2886:xeno 2879:and 2855:xeno 2824:talk 2719:xeno 2619:one. 2603:xeno 2557:xeno 2517:talk 2439:xeno 2402:talk 2353:xeno 2311:xeno 2285:talk 2264:xeno 2207:xeno 2193:talk 2189:MSGJ 2017:talk 1855:talk 1796:talk 1761:talk 1757:MSGJ 1750:Done 1700:talk 1653:talk 1623:talk 1525:talk 1502:Hans 1490:talk 1468:talk 1449:talk 1431:talk 1391:talk 1369:talk 1352:talk 1330:talk 1315:talk 1300:talk 1283:talk 1257:talk 1192:talk 1140:, I 1117:talk 1046:talk 975:talk 891:and 864:talk 848:and 744:etc. 725:this 662:talk 635:talk 593:talk 562:talk 507:talk 447:talk 424:talk 384:But 358:Hans 347:talk 326:Hans 290:does 257:(i) 239:talk 224:talk 191:talk 159:talk 124:chat 5585:Δ's 5564:hat 5250:or 5242:to 5209:); 5140:hat 4774:. – 4527:PBS 4405:hat 4395:hat 4351:PBS 4339:if 4274:PBS 4224:PBS 4165:PBS 4111:hat 3999:PBS 3973:PBS 3887:hat 3873:cot 3863:cot 3853:hat 3842:cot 3832:hat 3757:cot 3733:cot 3597:AGK 3591:hab 3583:hat 3302:AGF 3164:PBS 3136:PBS 3118:hat 3111:hat 3045:PBS 2883:. – 2820:PBS 2513:PBS 2431:hat 2421:not 2408:) 2388:not 2296:not 2281:PBS 2245:hat 2224:two 2013:PBS 1943:cot 1933:hat 1851:PBS 1792:PBS 1785:cot 1696:PBS 1649:PBS 1296:PBS 1113:PBS 1084:not 1073:you 971:PBS 860:PBS 697:hat 684:or 585:and 558:PBS 263:not 220:PBS 210:on 5619:) 5589:/ 5581:// 5566:}} 5562:{{ 5536:) 5528:-- 5506:is 5489:) 5478:is 5464:) 5420:) 5397:) 5382:) 5331:– 5256:no 5213:; 5186:) 5172:}} 5166:{{ 5153:) 5143:}} 5137:{{ 5077:) 5043:) 4966:) 4962:• 4956:DJ 4952:Th 4933:) 4923:}} 4917:{{ 4896:) 4816:tr 4760:) 4729:) 4533:) 4502:) 4498:• 4408:}} 4402:{{ 4398:}} 4392:{{ 4357:) 4347:}} 4341:{{ 4337:}} 4331:{{ 4280:) 4230:) 4220:}} 4214:{{ 4210:}} 4204:{{ 4171:) 4148:-- 4124:}} 4118:{{ 4116:/ 4114:}} 4108:{{ 4005:) 3979:) 3890:}} 3884:{{ 3876:}} 3870:{{ 3866:}} 3860:{{ 3856:}} 3850:{{ 3845:}} 3839:{{ 3835:}} 3829:{{ 3760:}} 3754:{{ 3736:}} 3730:{{ 3710:NW 3671:}} 3665:{{ 3661:}} 3655:{{ 3632:}} 3626:{{ 3622:}} 3616:{{ 3593:}} 3589:{{ 3585:}} 3581:{{ 3280:}} 3274:{{ 3270:}} 3264:{{ 3188:}} 3182:{{ 3170:) 3142:) 3114:}} 3108:{{ 3097:}} 3091:{{ 3051:) 3012:}} 3006:{{ 2826:) 2818:-- 2760:) 2661:-- 2519:) 2434:}} 2428:{{ 2417:to 2404:• 2348:}} 2342:{{ 2306:}} 2300:{{ 2287:) 2258:}} 2252:{{ 2248:}} 2242:{{ 2191:· 2151:}} 2145:{{ 2141:}} 2135:{{ 2129:}} 2123:{{ 2119:}} 2113:{{ 2107:}} 2101:{{ 2097:}} 2091:{{ 2087:}} 2081:{{ 2073:}} 2067:{{ 2063:}} 2057:{{ 2053:}} 2049:{{ 2019:) 1995:}} 1989:{{ 1946:}} 1940:{{ 1936:}} 1930:{{ 1915:}} 1909:{{ 1857:) 1830:++ 1798:) 1788:}} 1782:{{ 1759:· 1728:-- 1724:}} 1718:{{ 1714:}} 1710:{{ 1702:) 1677:}} 1671:{{ 1655:) 1645:}} 1639:{{ 1596:. 1573:. 1470:) 1451:) 1371:) 1332:) 1317:) 1302:) 1285:) 1259:) 1207:NO 1194:) 1119:) 1077:is 1069:No 977:) 940:. 926:is 895:" 866:) 858:-- 830:) 700:}} 694:{{ 664:) 653:}} 647:{{ 595:) 564:) 473:. 426:) 349:) 259:No 241:) 226:) 193:) 176:. 161:) 5649:. 5615:( 5575:M 5532:( 5522:" 5518:" 5510:" 5502:" 5485:( 5460:( 5416:( 5393:( 5378:( 5302:. 5205:( 5182:( 5149:( 5104:2 5073:( 5060:2 5039:( 5026:2 5003:2 4981:| 4958:( 4954:e 4950:— 4929:( 4892:( 4881:) 4875:( 4849:} 4846:; 4840:: 4834:{ 4831:) 4828:3 4825:( 4819:: 4810:. 4756:( 4737:– 4725:( 4690:| 4667:– 4640:| 4609:. 4586:| 4529:( 4494:( 4457:2 4382:2 4353:( 4287:– 4276:( 4247:2 4226:( 4167:( 4154:2 4094:2 4043:2 4001:( 3975:( 3943:2 3916:2 3897:– 3819:2 3782:2 3744:2 3720:) 3714:( 3679:2 3640:2 3610:? 3555:2 3506:N 3464:2 3358:2 3314:2 3283:– 3253:2 3194:( 3166:( 3138:( 3047:( 2951:2 2908:A 2822:( 2781:2 2756:( 2667:2 2515:( 2475:2 2400:( 2332:2 2283:( 2232:2 2195:) 2187:( 2166:2 2015:( 1971:2 1895:2 1878:2 1853:( 1811:2 1794:( 1763:) 1755:( 1734:2 1698:( 1685:2 1651:( 1618:| 1520:| 1485:| 1466:( 1447:( 1426:| 1386:| 1367:( 1347:| 1328:( 1313:( 1298:( 1281:( 1255:( 1190:( 1115:( 1041:| 973:( 862:( 817:. 660:( 630:| 591:( 560:( 502:| 442:| 422:( 345:( 237:( 222:( 189:( 157:( 106:) 102:( 50:.

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

Index