Template talk:Infobox ice hockey biography/Archive 3

31: 2613:

features. But very few of them look the same because each subject has different needs. I don't see an issue with an infobox of a hockey player looking different from that of a baseketball player from that of a musician. I am not bothered by the fact we are the only one that doesn't have a name because infoboxes for different subjects all look so different that in the scheme of things its a minor difference. -

1006:

that they dislike on the grounds of nothing but personal aesthetics. You've now got the frankly ridiculous situation of a handful of ice hockey fans telling the rest of the encyclopedia that they've decided that it's the other thousand infoboxes which are in the wrong here. There's a bigger problem with control here than the matter of a disagreement over the styling of a template.

1089:

sighted users. Even if it were the case that the title were superfluous, better to agree that this template should follow the prevailing standard and fix the standard if it's wrong than insist that this template is right and isn't going to change anyway (not that you've done this, but it's the prevailing "consensus" of those blocking the change presently).

3966: 102: 2680:

would be a microscopic step but still a step in the right direction. Also: while uniformity across different wikis is very very low priority, I want to note that name on top of the infoboxes is the standard on most foo.wiki projects. But the hockey infobox usually remains an exception because the code was simply lifted from the en.wiki.

443:. I think that the ice hockey infobox could use some updating – even though this particular issue isn't a huge issue for me because the name of the individual should also be the title of the page – and standardizing the infobox to be more like those of other biography infoboxes, especially those of other sports, is a good thing. 3067:

There's little point in bickering about this. Krm500's assertion of a veto notwithstanding, there's an obvious consensus on the MOS talk which corroborates what's been said here. When the RfC is closed, I trust that the admin responsible will be able to see that. There's nothing more to do here other

2889:

I'm baffled. We moved this discussion to the infobox guideline for wider input. We confirmed the consensus there. What else do you need. I strongly suspect that when you say "I speak for all of us", you mean "a handful of editors from the WikiProject Hockey". You don't own the template and you have a

2715:

All I see in that previous MOS discussion is something about hCard microformat. If I saw that discussion without having all the background knowledge I have from reading what's here, I would have never guessed what the real issue was; namely, that it's redundant to have the name in the article title,

2665:

I value consistent usage and formatting throughout the project, but sadly our infoboxes project-wide are actually quite inconsistent. The French Knowledge does a much better job of standardizing infoboxes, IMO. Until the English Knowledge undertakes a similar style-conformance project, I see little

1990:

No, it hasn't. The only evaluation of the discussion which would suggest that the opposition was the consensus position would be counting heads. Even counting heads, there is far from an overwhelming majority in opposition. You're repeatedly argued that somehow certain voices "count" more than others

1759:

If those arguing against the inclusion of the subject's name in the infobox believe that their views have merit, then they should take those views to a centralise discussion, i.e. the MoS talk page, and obtain Knowledge-wide consensus in support of their view. If they cannot or will not do that, then

881:

Looks like everyone's got their cards down here. The arguments for the name are that the MoS prescribes it and every other infobox uses it. The arguments against are that the MoS and every other infobox are wrong. If that's how it stands, then I think we're done here. I'll add name support next week.

860:

It sounds like the core issue of contention is "how important are style guides"? My opinion is they're very important, particularly for big projects. Can you imagine dictionaries without a consistent style? How professional would your weekly news magazine be if each staff artist just did what they

2770:

Feel free to state that as an argument for. I just feel that last time you went to the MOS, you presented your own, somewhat technical and limited argument, you didn't present the debate as a whole for editors to understand what was going on. That may be why you had a hard time garnering replies.

2564:

The optional part is not "for people, include the name if you think it's best". It's "for people include either the full name or the common name, whichever you think is best." With regards to Rsl's suggestion, the fact is that I notified just about every relevant talk page in order to get previously

1959:

Interestingly, Djsasso, you're now acknowledging that you need to convince the broader community. This sort of shoots down your argument that the opposition of a handful of people here can blockade the change. You have to show that there is a consensus for not falling in line with the guideline. Not

1755:

The only arguments being made in favour of the status quo are are the aesthetic preferences of a group of editors. It is not healthy for Knowledge to make decisions - particularly decisions about presentation - on such a basis. We're making an encyclopedia; not a pair of enclycopedias, one about ice

1212:

The other advantage of the title is that it makes the infobox a visually self-contained unit. The same principle underlies the use of captions under images even when their object is clear by context (this convention is used in most publications). Arguing that the title is redundant completely misses

1023:

Remember if the community insisted on every infobox being the same they would make that part of the MOS policy and not a guideline. As such the community has clearly spoken that not everything has to be uniform. And what we have right now is a few editors crying "I don't like it" and "What about all

954:

You are right. However, headcount can show that there is no consensus on something. And someone who was involved in the discussion can clearly not make a call on consensus like you have. Especially when currently their are almost twice as many editors saying they like it as it is than there are that

633:

It's not an argument, the argument is above in the other section and in many of the responders to this discussion. Its extremely redundant, and makes the wiki look amateurish. How many times do we have to beat a reader over the head about what the persons name is? In the title of the article, bolded

520:

Really the discussion should be taken to the MOS for infoboxes to remove the name from all infoboxes. As it is completely redunant, and as mentioned above looks rediculous. I would also note that MOS (infoboxes) is a guideline and not a policy, thus local on article (in this case template) consensus

2644:

Because the subject matter is different, every subject lists different information in their infoboxes? I wasn't referring to the name. I meant in general. We list different stuff in infoboxes for different subjects. There is very little conformity in infoboxes across subjects. As long as individual

1975:

I never said only people who edited here could comment. I always supported anyone who came upon the discussion could make their opinions known. However, "insiders" opinions count as well. Its not like you throw out peoples opinions because they happen to edit these types of articles. So far in this

1891:

that such action is right." (my emboldening) I have no opinion on whether there should be a name at the top of the infobox or not, but the current policy is that if this project wants to ignore the existing guideline, it needs to get the broader community's input. Therefore, this probably isn't the

1102:

This template is precisely what you suggest: a step toward fixing the standard. That's one of two ways we can fix things around here: from the top down, where a broad decision is made and then propagated down to individual instances; and from the bottom up, where the way things are "on the ground"

1005:

It's not a matter of personal aesthetic preference. It's a matter of following the established guidelines for infobox use as applied to every other part of the encyclopedia. WikiProjects are not (or at least are not supposed to be) mini-fiefdoms which are able to simply secede from parts of the MoS

3141:

Which is nicely ambiguous. My answer (and the record will show it has always been) that I follow guidelines unless there are exceptional reasons not to. I think it's the only way to avoid repeating the same disputes in fifty places: you settle the basic issue at some central place (the guideline's

2904:

To be fair, you didn't actually go to that page and ask for wider input. You asked why should you have a name at the top. You didn't ask if it should be mandatory to have a name at the top. You can see based on atleast one persons response there that they didn't think it was a debate and were just

2629:

You're really clutching at straws. How are the infobox needs different from a basketball player, especially when it comes to such a trivial detail? Obviously, your point is that no infobox should have the name since your sole issue is redundancy. This is an opinion you should be ready to defend at

1522:

Ok, understood. I just think it's silly that the "rule" specifies the recommended width of the infobox, which nobody cares about, but also specifies the placement of the name at the top, which has become a big RfC issue, and reeks of IDONTLIKEIT or ILIKEIT depending which side you are on. Either

1228:

But yet, we do not caption images everywhere they appear. For instance, on the Main Page, Today's Featured Article has an uncaptioned image, because the identity of what the picture depicts is explained sufficiently by the surrounding article excerpt. Likewise, the subject of an infobox is quite

1180:

The Manual of Style is a guide applicable to all Knowledge articles. It presents Knowledge's house style, and is intended to help editors produce articles whose language, layout, and formatting are consistent, clear, and precise. This helps make the entire encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to

1751:

In all of the above, no claim is made that this particular infobox should omit the subject's name because of some particular characteristic of ice hockey players; that they are in some way different to other types of people. Were that the case, we could debate the merits of such a claim and reach

2879:

And your consensus is built upon three users basically. There are plenty of issues to discuss before even considering adding a name to this infobox, one of which you already tapped into with regards to how to caption the infoboxes. But that is not to decided upon here, that's should be discussed

2679:

to make the modifications. From what I gather, Andy can do that piece of the work. I agree that there's still a lot of work to standardize infoboxes but if you agree that they should be standardized (perhaps more energetically), I don't really understand why you're clinging to this exception. It

2494:

was resolved much quicker once we all agreed that the issue of contention was more generally applicable than just the "wife selling" article. We went to the MOS and got the settlement we were looking for. Moreover, we ended up clarifying the MOS, so others facing the same question will have an

1564:

The reasons for displaying the name have been made clear; and are far from IDONTLIKEIT. They include meeting industry-standard web accessibility guidelines and emitting reusable metadata, as parsed by organisations including Google and Yahoo. No reasons for not including it, other than aesthetic

1064:

That tables should have titles is a basic part of Web accessibility; that the MoS prescribes this is not accidental. There is absolutely nothing about this discussion which requires any knowledge of ice hockey whatsoever, and it should be pointed out (once again) that WikiProjects do not own the

3414:

I was trying to think of a way to do this with AWB, but I couldn't think of a way to take the name from the title and strip off the disambiguator. A custom bot could probably do this, but I haven't written any bots on my own and only use prewritten ones because I don't have the knowledge of the

2323:

arguments apply to all athletes? If you're worried it will be hard to convince the community as a whole that your design is better, maybe it's because it isn't better. On the other hand, if your design really is better, bringing up the topic on the MOS will make Knowledge as a whole better. --

1278:

If you can show me one place where it has actually been discussed I would be surprised. I have seen a small handful of editors going around the wiki changing infoboxes to conform to some random standard with no discussion on those templates. I have yet to see a single place where the topic was

1088:

It might be in "quick succession" (not always; infobox templates aren't always at the top of articles whose titles happen to match the subject's most common name), but it's not directly adjacent to it. There's some Knowledge identifying boilerplate and also a navigation div which is hidden for

2612:

It depends upon which point you want consistency. I think consistency inside a subject is necessary, but I don't think its necessary across the entire wiki depending on what we are talking about. For example very few infoboxes are the same across subjects. Yes they might have some of the same

1117:

on ice hockey biographies, where a few brave souls fought for common sense. I can state categorically that this template does not differ from the MoS because of a deliberate move to forge a new standard; it's an old and crufty codebase which has survived in its present form apparently through

2322:

Interesting that LtPowers should be concerned about consistency among all hockey players, while being unconcerned about the consistency of Knowledge as a whole...? Two rhetorical questions: 1) Why do you want the info boxes for all hockey players to look the same? 2) Why don't those same

2055:

that this template should go against the generally accepted guideline? The answer is no. You haven't even convinced a consensus of editors within the project. We've lost enough time over this already. Let's move on and change the template so that we can actually go back to writing content.

1048:

The guidelines describe best practice and give their reasons for doing so. If in every case people could simply choose to opt out of random parts of the MoS without giving any reason other than personal preference then the encyclopedia would be a disjointed mess. Indeed, that's a very good

213:

Actually the page you point to specifically says you don't have to have a name at the top. Unless someone changed it without discussion recently. edit: oh and sure enough Pigsonthewing changed it today without discussion when consensus was against him last time he tried to make the change.

1507:

The point being that if there is some reason for hockey to be an exception to the rule, I haven't read it here. If your point is that the MOS shouldn't have that rule at all, then I think you should make some effort to change it rather than just ignore it, regardless of the bureaucratic

182:

an article on a hockey player I noticed the absence of the name and figured that this was due to some screw-up in the parameters. Only after I tried to fix it did I realize that this was the way the template was set up. Why did the absence of a name strike me as weird? Because it's

3142:

talk page typically) and then you apply that consensus where it makes sense. If I feel the guideline is wrong, I try and usually fail to have it changed. Then I shut up. I think it's a good system and it was always my understanding that this was the wiki-way. You seem to disagree.

1261:, which I previously laughed at but now have to point out as a simply incorrect application of that argument. The argument is not "template X does it, so should we": it is "this has been discussed and standardised elsewhere for the reasons given, and in the absence of a reasonable 2954:? In that discussion, only DJsasso, LtPowers and yourself opposed the name-on-top. In other words, all of the new input coming from the wider community is in favour of the name. Moreover, the name-on-top standard has been part of the guideline since October 2007 and it is used in 3008:

Caption? I'm not following you. We're talking about having the name at the top of the infobox. You can call it a caption if you want but in any case, there is consensus on the guideline's recommendation to have the name at the top of the infobox. There's also a procedural policy

708:

to hitler which is what Godwin's law is about. I was comparing doing something just because everyone else is, isn't always right. I could have compared it to anything, America's institutionalized racism in the first part of the last century. It was just a well known example.

2149:

If people are of the opinion that all infoboxes (or even a large category of infoboxes, such as all atheletes) should have the names removed, the MOS talk page would probably be a better place to talk about it. Why use a needle to punch a hole when you could use a hammer?

2553:

Andy's changes were rejected because of the full vs. common name issue but the fact is that in its present state (which is also what it was before the mini edit war involving Andy), the MoS does ask for the name. At the risk of repeating myself, the current language is

814:

Omit the name looks better. It is done elsewhere, sure but it is dumb. I think it would be cool if you could turn off the Knowledge title and just show the infobox one, but in the absence of that, leave out the name. There is enough 'chrome' on a wiki page already...

3323:

I do hope that those of you that insisted on adding this will go through the couple thousand articles with bracketed disambiguators that this change will have broken since it was a change requested by you all. All you have to do to fix it is put in "name=Joe Smith".

1242:

that there is no sensible justification for it. A number of people here quite obviously believe its sensible to cut down the amount of redundancy and clutter. The common sense situation would be to not have the title, not just blindly follow what others have done.

1078:

An infobox is rather unique, though, in that its subject is obvious from the box's placement. If we're talking about web accessibility, wouldn't a screen reader reading a typical article with infobox end up repeating the subject's name twice in quick succession?

2291:) to be concerned about articles on the subject fitting in with the rest of Knowledge properly. Anyway, WikiProjects are not clubs, and any decisions made as regards how articles are laid out or presented have to take the wider encyclopedia into consideration. 1630:

If redundancy is the reason, then any infobox is similarly redundant, and the guideline should be changed so that everyone can benefit from our wisdom. The standard shouldn't use words like "require", because someone might get all bureaucratic over a case like

580:. Let's put the name in bold for now. By all means, do try to garner a consensus for change on the MOS if you think that your proposal is a plus for the project. Although I don't think that view will prevail, I say this without the slightest hint of sarcasm. 2202:

Apologies. I mean perhaps because the people you mention feel that the editors interested in a particular template should be able to decide what that template looks like, and they don't want to interfere with templates in which they are not interested.

3164:, but I would think a person's name is the clearest possible identification. Anyway, the more specific guideline at infoboxes takes precedence over a vague guideline at Knowledge:Captions because it's a clearer indication of the consensus on this issue. 3032:

Well the guideline states that infoboxes should have a clear caption, which a name is not. And common sense would be not to use anything, except for something to help screen readers identify the infobox, since it is redundant and clutters the articles.

1065:

articles or templates that they happen to be associated with. The only reason this template deviates from the norm is that until now the debate has been inappropriately based on weight of numbers; in the long run it'll end up going to a wider RfC.

117:

which doesn't follow that rule. Interestingly enough, the ice hockey template isn't included in that category! In any case, let's end the silliness, add the name at the top in bold, add the template to the relevant category and be done with it.

1024:

the others" without having any real argument as to why we should change it. I find it amusing that its editors for the most part that don't even edit these sorts of articles that seem to be the ones trying to force their opinions on others. -

2958:

biographical infobox but this one. You keep saying that there needs to be a wider community input yet every time it comes, you counter that it's insufficient and I haven't seen any indication that you're interested in generating this input.

1112:

That's an assertion which would need to be backed up by evidence. I don't find it compelling that somehow the MoS grew a guideline for this without anyone ever having questioned it, nor that it was subsequently rolled out everywhere

925:

You still don't have consensus for the change... I see half the editors saying oppose (not including the two who say they don't care but think its stupid). The MOS is a guideline not a policy. You need consensus to make the change.

3364:

prior to me fixing this particular page. The parameter name= overides the use of the page name as the name at the top of the infobox. So in my example I added in "name=Doug Harvey" so that the name at the top of the box now shows

940:

Consensus is a conclusion, not an argument. Head counts have absolutely nothing to do with the process. I'm truly surprised that I'm explaining this to someone who apparently passed an RfA. Anyway, I'll get a sandbox cooked up.

3430:

Oh I see. We should probably submit a bot request: I'm sure someone will be interested in working out an efficient way of doing this. But the result should probably be double-checked manually and again, I'm willing to chip in.

310:

Really? I don't see a single person agreeing with your change. I see one person offering another option, and I see three people objecting to your change and two asking for more information. Show me what part is a lie please.

1615:

And as has been pointed out to you in the past. The standards don't require the name to be visible. You keep categorizing our points as aesthetic. But that is not the only reason. Things like redundancy have been mentioned.

673:

People in Germany went along with what Hitler told them to do because that was what everyone was doing. Does that mean what he was doing was right? Just because other infoboxes are doing something doesn't mean its right.

2257:

I don't think the two are in conflict. I'm just saying that people have their own opinions about what this template should look like, but they may not wish to impose that opinion on the editors of other templates.

1795:

I agree, since the MOS is only a suggestion and not a policy, the appropriate place to discuss this is this talk page so that a local consensus can be formed. It seems you completely misunderstand how the MOS works.

1449:

Perhaps the point here is that some of these suggestions don't belong in the MOS... Clearly there is a difference between things like proper capitalization and punctuation versus the appearance of an infobox. —

1038:

As well, guidelines are descriptive, not proscriptive. That there is a local consensus against a particular application of a particular guideline should be reflected in the guideline, not the other way around.

2694:

What I meant was that in the absence of a concerted effort to standardize the look of infoboxes project-wide, the editors of each template should have plenty of leeway to decide what each one looks like.

2973:

I concluded on MOS Infobox Talk that the consensus was for headings to be mandatory. If you feel my conclusion was in error, the place to have corrected me was there. Please do so if you feel the need.

2830:, there is a consensus to have the name in bold on top of the infobox. There's no reason for making the hockey infobox an exception to that standard so I think we can go forward and edit the template. 1183:" It's not a policy because it doesn't need to be: it presupposes that editors are sufficiently responsible to use it with a modicum of common sense. Recall that the wiki definition of a guideline is " 2890:

responsibility to either abide by the standards or gather sufficient outside support for making an exception here. Are we really going to go to the mediation cabal to solve this shit. Let it go man.

1118:

bloody-mindedness rather than any particular attempt to prove everyone wrong. In fact in its present form it doesn't even emit valid markup by the looks of the two unneeded closing divs at the end.

4006:

And the number seems reasonable. The template has about 7000 transclusions and from looking at a few random samples in that list, the percentage of articles which are disambiguated is around 10%.

1653:

Nobody has previously claimed - because it would be false to do so - that WCAG guidelines allow for table captions to be hidden. As for supposed redundancy, that's just an aesthetic objection.

748:

Currently both his and your comments are falling into this part of that article "A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons." -

3191:

I still don't see how a name is a considered a clear caption. This has nothing to do with microformat or web standards, this is just you pushing your style preferences. This is just silly. —

2453:

Not really, there is still no-consensus above to change it from the current. Remember you need consensus to change, not consensus to stay the same. No-consensus defaults to stay the same. -

1731:, it should contain the subjects name in the title line. This is the convention used in most all, if not all, other person related infoboxes. I see no reason to have an exception here. 723:

Nope. Godwin's law states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.". Which bit of that do you think does not apply?

4047:

Just thinking out loud: there should probably be a maintenance category that contains articles that 1) end in ")" and 2) don't have name=. This should be possible with str functions. –

3118:

Well I'd love to see you answer that same question. Because if it's "yes, we should follow guidelines even if it doesn't serve my goal" then we can close this debate once and for all.

1213:

the point: the content of the infobox is also redundant with the article and in most cases with the lede so if we want to avoid redundancy, we might as well do away with the infobox.

2490:

I would recommend that this discussion be moved to the MOS talk page, if not by those supporting the omission of names in the title, then by those against the omission. Our spat at

1869:

Right, but local pages can decide to follow a guideline or not. We would not be able to override a policy, (ie consensus that all boxes be the same.) which there currently is none. -

1354:"For consistency the following guidelines apply: The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for people common name is optional." 2745:

The name in the infobox cannot be redundant, since it provides something that none of the other instances of the name does, nor can do: an "fn" property for an emitted microformat.

2085:

I would think it's a bit early to go ahead given the RfC only started two days ago. The bot which closes the RfC gives 30 days for consensus to be reached before closing it, see

955:

are saying change it. Currently the arguements to change it are a case of "What about X" which is not a valid arguement in deletion and I think is just as invalid in this case. -

484: 86: 81: 76: 64: 59: 2941:

There needs to be a wider community input on the matter of if and how show should we caption infoboxes. I think we need to discuss that before implementing any changes here. —

2539:(ec) It already was there and Andy was uniformly rejected when he tried to make changes requiring the name. But consensus can change so it can be brought up again I suppose. - 2990:

A name is not a caption, we need to discuss how they should be caption. And that IMO requires a whole lot more community input since it could affect many, many articles. —

2720:

Cite the contentious part of the MOS: "The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for people common name is optional."

3369:. Does that make it any clearer. You can see the result of the fix by clicking on the article. Its not broken persay I suppose, but rather messy might be a better word. - 1695:

for ignoring MoS or Knowledge-wide conventions; and they certainly don't outweigh the positive benefits of the proposed change, as outlined elsewhere in this discussion.

195:

instead of making a stand here. There's value in consistency throughout the project: this is why we have editors working their ass off in MOS task forces. Why go against

1760:

they should set aside their personal preferences in order that the encyclopedia, and its users, may benefit from greater consistency; just as we all do in other cases.

1149:

Where did you see Chris claim, to or act as though he did, own it (with, say, comments like "editors for the most part that don't even edit these sorts of templates")?

2785:

Note however that this was a debate over the hcards. The "include subject name in bold" is a very old component of the MOS-infoboxes. It traces back to October 2007.

2164:

Perhaps because people aren't interested in upsetting the larger applecart and are content to let other projects decide whether or not infoboxes should have names.

508:

I think the hockey infobox is the best looking on Knowledge, and having a name above it simply looks silly to me. The name is already in the lead and in the title. —

551:

It's not a silly little petty battle. Its a case of making the wiki better. Just because everyone else is doing something that isn't ideal doesn't mean we should. -

2346:

I apologize--perhaps I assumed too much. You would rather that the infoboxes be done away with, and each hockey player be formatted however the editors decide? --

2009:

I find it amusing that its editors for the most part that don't even edit these sorts of articles that seem to be the ones trying to force their opinions on others

424:

Wowsers, I've been around the hockey player articles for a long time (over 4yrs) & didn't notice ('til today) their names weren't at the top of the infoboxes.

340:. The redundant redundancy in redundantly listing the individual's name so many times is redundant, but if Knowledge chooses to be redundant, that is fine by me. 3157: 1991:

because they're part of the ice hockey project, but that's irrelevant when the discussion has basically nothing to do with the actual topic of the WikiProject.

1257:

It is also the opinion of almost everyone else who has involved themselves in the construction of infobox templates. You're handwaving this away with shouts to

3239: 3091:

It's nice to hear you say that guidelines should be followed. You do realize that this is precisely what adding the name to the top of the infobox is about.

2337:

Where did I say I was concerned about consistency among all hockey players? Merely by acknowledging the existence of a template used for such consistency?

1103:(so to speak) propagate upwards to be reflected in guidelines and policies. You are clearly an advocate of the former, but the latter works just as well. 483:" phrase in the guideline. This has nothing to do with having a name in bold or not. It's about an old dispute about using common names vs. full names. See 2071:

btw, I'm not exactly an expert on intricate templates but I'm ready to help whoever is building the 2.0 version of the template (within my limited means).

2495:

easier time of it. I don't think such a move can be considered forum shopping, as the issue is genuinely applicable beyond just the hockey infoboxes. --

409:

There's absolutely no good reason not to fall in line with 99.99% of the rest of the encyclopedia's infoboxes here. Let's just do it and be done with it.

2951: 2827: 2511: 1925: 1636: 979: 196: 192: 47: 17: 634:

in the lead, in fancy lettering at the top of the infobox. I'm sorry but there is a point where it becomes ridiculous, if not insulting to the reader. -

2471:

where it is clearly stated that the onus is on those resisting falling in line with a guideline to convince the wider community that this makes sense.

2028:

were saying that. That it didn't matter if there were a large number of editors who had one opinon that we didn't count cause we edited this subject. -

995:

For the record, I rather like the clean look of the current infobox and see no need to repeat someone's name three times at the top of the article.

897: 114: 1137:

If wikiprojects do not own templates, what makes you think you do, Chris? You are attempting to force your viewpoint without consensus support.

982:

has been updated; once this has been synced then there's a great deal more to get done to bring the codebase kicking and screaming out of 2006.

3478:

I dunno. It strikes me as reasonable to believe that the people who want something should be expected to deal with the fallout of the change.

267:

Right, no more comments saying anyone supported the change. It takes a clear consensus to change a guideline. Of which you did not have one. -

3270:

I will wait 24 hours just in case whats there doesn't do vcard correctly. As I am sure Andy will know better than I if it is all up to par. -

3043: 1635:, where the name length is a good reason for an exception. However, I have found that this issue is also being debated at the correct place, 1304: 4096:

You can't make that change without breaking the template, however I think I accomplished what you were trying to do by a different method. -

3352:

Once all the pages are recached by the server (which might take awhile) the code takes the name from the name of the page. So a page named

3082:

You were the one who brought it up... So basically we should follow guidelines and procedures, but only as long as it fulfills your goal? —

4020:

Yes, I made a list of all transclusions of the infobox and then excluded anything without a "(". So that should be most or all of them. –

4082: 3383:

I imagine there a quite a few of these (I've done the ones in my watchlist) but I imagine a bot would be able to this pretty quickly. --

3314: 2870: 2761: 2530: 2429: 2228: 2193: 2138: 1829: 1776: 1711: 1669: 1581: 1165: 916: 800: 739: 664: 624: 301: 258: 152: 113:

biography template that doesn't include the name in bold at the top of the template. In particular, I can't find a single instance in

2558:"The top text line should be bold and contain the full (official) name of the article's subject; for people common name is optional." 1397:

suggesting", my answer will still be the same. It is not policy; it is a guideline. This infobox is 19em wide, not 300px (25em) as

3010: 900:

which included hCard microformat mark-up. If you'd prefer to make a sandbox version, I'll be happy to apply the microformat there.

1379:. You want to standardize all infoboxes you need go to the source and make that page a policy and have the wording say requires. - 3015:

Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

2594:

Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

1883:

The exact quote from that page is "For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy

1185:

Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

2212:

You may be right. That would be a pity, because an RfC is explicitly a call for outside input where a stalemate has occurred.

1838:

That is the name for consensus achieved for a specific page by people interested in or who edit it. In this case a template. -

242:

That's a lie; there was plenty of discussion; with no comments since last September, so I implemented what was proposed then.

2666:

reason to focus on that specific aspect of their formatting over the many other inconsistencies that still will be present.

1907: 3205:

Being a busybody, I thought I'd pop back in and see why nothing has changed with the hockey infobox. Is there a hold up? --

2723:

State the argument for keeping names in the header (MOS says so) and the argument against (all those names are redundant).

2103:

Indeed. Now that we've gone as far as having a formal RfC opened, might as well go by the book regarding seeing that out.

1960:

only is this not the case, the fact is that Art LaPella and myself, who had never posted here before, support the change.

1534: 1498: 1461: 1412: 1337: 3490:

As you can see, we are all calmly contemplating solutions. In contrast you're flipping out as if we've broken the wiki.

188: 1435:

The manual of style is only a suggestion. It is incorrect to treat it like a policy. It is not a policy for a reason. -

3048:

The top text line should be bold and contain either the full (official) name or common name of the article's subject

3017:

If you can make the case that there's something specific about this infobox that justifies an exception, please do.

178:

I don't get it. I don't give a rat's ass about this template. The reason I ended up on this talk page is that while

4105: 4090: 4057: 4030: 4015: 4001: 3987: 3528: 3499: 3485: 3473: 3456: 3440: 3424: 3392: 3378: 3347: 3333: 3318: 3293: 3279: 3265: 3251: 3233: 3214: 3195: 3173: 3151: 3136: 3127: 3113: 3100: 3086: 3076: 3059: 3037: 3026: 2994: 2983: 2968: 2945: 2932: 2914: 2899: 2884: 2874: 2849: 2839: 2816: 2794: 2780: 2765: 2739: 2699: 2689: 2670: 2654: 2639: 2622: 2605: 2574: 2548: 2534: 2504: 2480: 2462: 2448: 2433: 2378: 2364: 2355: 2341: 2332: 2299: 2262: 2232: 2207: 2197: 2168: 2159: 2142: 2111: 2098: 2080: 2065: 2037: 2019: 2003: 1985: 1969: 1937: 1919: 1901: 1878: 1864: 1847: 1833: 1805: 1790: 1780: 1740: 1715: 1682: 1673: 1648: 1625: 1610: 1585: 1538: 1517: 1502: 1482: 1465: 1444: 1430: 1416: 1388: 1370: 1341: 1316: 1288: 1273: 1252: 1233: 1222: 1196: 1169: 1144: 1126: 1107: 1097: 1083: 1073: 1057: 1043: 1033: 1014: 999: 990: 964: 949: 935: 920: 890: 870: 850: 834: 804: 757: 743: 718: 699: 683: 668: 643: 628: 603: 589: 560: 546: 537:

Ok so go ahead and make your point there instead of stubbornly trying to win your silly, petty little battle here.

530: 512: 500: 471: 452: 433: 417: 402: 385: 364: 347: 320: 305: 276: 262: 237: 223: 208: 173: 156: 127: 38: 3353: 1786:

This would seem to be the correct location for decisions on whether or not to follow a particular convention.

1356:

As I noted earlier the "optional" refers to common name vs. full name as in PK Subban vs. Pernell Karl Subban.

648:

Well, that, too, is a convincing argument; especially when you look at all the other infoboxes on Knowledge.

4086: 3310: 2866: 2757: 2630:

MOS-infobox and if you can't convince people there, then just step aside and let us make this minor change.

2526: 2425: 2224: 2189: 2134: 1825: 1772: 1707: 1665: 1577: 1161: 912: 796: 735: 660: 620: 360: 297: 254: 148: 1735: 448: 2726:

Ask if there's sufficient reason for the MOS to recommend a name in the header, given all the redundancy.

2645:

subjects have conformity I am happy. You asked if I was concerned about conformity. This was my answer. -

109:

I really don't understand why this template would be the exception to the rule. I'm hard pressed to find

3169: 3073: 2296: 2108: 2016: 1644: 1606: 1513: 1478: 1401:

by the MOS, but I see no major debate about that. So what's the big deal about the name at the top? —

1270: 1123: 1094: 1070: 1054: 1011: 987: 946: 887: 696: 414: 2804: 974:

If you want me to ping an uninvolved admin to settle this then I can do so. (I like the invocation of

608:

Well, that's a convincing argument; especially when you look at all the other infoboxes on Knowledge.

355:

It is quite pointless to include the name there, when it is displayed everywhere else on the article.

2845:

I think I speak for all of us when I say; No thanks, we're happy with the way things are right now. —

1852: 1632: 1470: 1049:

description of where templatespace was several years ago. That's changed across most of the project.

488: 467: 398: 2919:

Are you referring to Jack Merridew's response which starts with "Why?" Because his reply ends with "

2716:

the photo caption, and in an infobox header. I might suggest you try again, but do the following:

2468: 2288: 1523:

the "rules" need fixing, or we should all just move on to something that is actually important. —

4011: 3495: 3482: 3469: 3453: 3436: 3343: 3301: 3289: 3261: 3229: 3161: 3147: 3123: 3096: 3055: 3022: 2964: 2928: 2895: 2857: 2835: 2790: 2748: 2685: 2635: 2601: 2570: 2517: 2476: 2444: 2416: 2215: 2180: 2125: 2076: 2061: 1965: 1816: 1763: 1698: 1692: 1656: 1568: 1426: 1366: 1312: 1218: 1192: 1152: 1141: 903: 846: 828: 787: 726: 651: 611: 585: 542: 496: 356: 344: 288: 245: 233: 204: 139: 123: 4101: 3997: 3992:

As long as the majority are done, we can catch any outliers as we stumble upon them. Thanks. -

3420: 3374: 3329: 3275: 3247: 2910: 2650: 2618: 2544: 2491: 2458: 2033: 2011:

certainly implied that. It should be irrelevant whether or not one edits ice hockey articles.

1999: 1981: 1915: 1874: 1843: 1801: 1732: 1621: 1528: 1492: 1455: 1440: 1406: 1384: 1331: 1284: 1248: 1029: 960: 931: 753: 714: 679: 639: 599: 556: 526: 444: 429: 380: 316: 272: 219: 169: 3165: 3069: 2406: 2292: 2104: 2012: 1640: 1602: 1595: 1509: 1474: 1266: 1119: 1090: 1066: 1050: 1007: 983: 942: 883: 692: 410: 3106: 1279:

actually discussed and it was decided that all infoboxes should have the name at the top. -

3388: 3210: 2979: 2812: 2776: 2735: 2565:

uninvolved editors to chime in. But apparently, this failed to garner anyone's attention.

2500: 2374: 2351: 2328: 2155: 2094: 1933: 1897: 1860: 866: 463: 394: 3050:" and the only occurrence of the word "caption" is related to the caption of the image. 4055: 4028: 3985: 3526: 3338:

I'll be glad to help... once I understand what you're saying! Can you give an example?

2921:

Endorse the comments of Andy, Chris, and Graham; this is modern web-standards goodness.

565:

It's all about not wanting to lose face. You started arguing that it's not in the MOS

4007: 3491: 3479: 3465: 3450: 3432: 3339: 3285: 3257: 3225: 3143: 3119: 3092: 3051: 3018: 2960: 2924: 2891: 2831: 2786: 2696: 2681: 2667: 2631: 2597: 2566: 2472: 2440: 2361: 2338: 2259: 2204: 2174: 2165: 2086: 2072: 2057: 1961: 1787: 1679: 1422: 1362: 1308: 1258: 1230: 1214: 1188: 1138: 1104: 1080: 1040: 996: 975: 842: 818: 688: 581: 577: 538: 492: 341: 229: 200: 119: 1265:

should be followed here as well given that the MoS represents community consensus".

4097: 3993: 3416: 3370: 3325: 3271: 3243: 2906: 2646: 2614: 2540: 2454: 2029: 1995: 1977: 1911: 1870: 1855:

states that local projects cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. --

1839: 1797: 1617: 1524: 1488: 1451: 1436: 1402: 1380: 1327: 1280: 1244: 1025: 956: 927: 749: 710: 675: 635: 595: 552: 522: 425: 374: 312: 268: 215: 187:

there in any biography infobox. If you think it's a stupid choice, go and argue at

165: 3192: 3160:. Krm500's assertion that guidelines require a clear caption probably refers to 3133: 3110: 3083: 3034: 2991: 2942: 2881: 2846: 509: 46:

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

2854:

No, you don't. In fact you speak for no more than a small minority of editors.

1910:

for broader community input. This is how you get the broader community input. -

479:

People arguing that the name in bold is not part of the MOS misunderstand the "

3384: 3206: 2975: 2828:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Why are names necessary at the top?

2808: 2772: 2731: 2496: 2370: 2347: 2324: 2151: 2122:, though it does need checking for compatibility with any subsequent changes. 2090: 1976:

discussion the consensus has fallen towards the side of keeping it as it is. -

1929: 1893: 1856: 862: 594:

I couldn't care less about "face". Adding the name to the top is ridiculous. -

485:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)/Archive_3#No Consensus for changes

4048: 4021: 3978: 3519: 3449:

this change take place go and clean up the mess they've created themselves.

2596:

What is so special about this infobox that makes it a reasonable exception.

2880:

about with the whole community since it will affect many, many articles. —

2089:. Of course if consensus is reached earlier, it can be manually closed. -- 3445:

The most efficient way is for people like Andy Mabbet and the others who

2589:

Do you not value consistent usage and formatting throughout the project?

2360:

I'm going to stop responding until you stop putting words in my mouth.

1307:

requiring that infoboxes contain the subject's name in bold at the top?

1691:" with them, though they are merely subjective. On their own they are 2582:

Aren't you at least a wee bit bothered by the fact that this is the

1926:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#Names_at_top_of_infoboxes

1178:

claiming is that the MOS owns the template. To quote from the MOS: "

841:

Again: this shouldn't be debated here but at the relevant MOS page.

2439:

That's what I suspected but good idea to ask the bot. Case closed.

2369:

LtPowers--it was a question. I want to understand your stance. --

1187:" There's no sensible justification for an exception in this case. 164:

per above. No point rehashing what has been clearly stated above. -

572:

and, just in case you can't get people to change the MOS, added

3238:

The required edit is already in the sandbox and can be seen at

1508:

classification of rules into guidelines, policies or whatever.

1361:

I guess the word require appears nowhere if that's your beef.

784:

Clearly, there is no "local consensus" to omit the name here.

199:

anyways? Sorry but the stubbornness of it all makes me dizzy.

25: 2592:

The procedural policy on Policies and Guidelines states that

3360:

as the players name at the top of the box. You can see this

576:. Come on man, you've been here long enough to know that 2512:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Naming issues

1637:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Naming issues

3974: 3461: 3361: 3256:

Oh thanks. I hadn't realized. Can you make the change?

3221: 2173:

As has been made abundantly clear here already; that's

1421:

Right. Manual of Style. Who needs it? You know better.

978:

where X is "99% of the encyclopedia", by the way.) The

573: 569: 566: 3162:

Knowledge:Captions#Clear identification of the subject

1924:

Of course you're correct. I've also directly asked at

2287:You don't have to be interested in ice hockey (and 2579:A few extra questions to those opposing the name. 2467:No consensus is not an excuse for no change. See 1994:I have not once said certain voices count more. - 2413:biographical infobox which has no name display. 3105:I was asking a question, as implied by the the 4077:{{pp-template}}{{esoteric}}</noinclude: --> 4069:{{pp-template}}{{esoteric}}</noinclude: --> 3158:User:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so 2771:Heck, I'll post the issue myself right now. -- 1889:unless they can convince the broader community 1303:Should this template follow the convention of 568:. Then when I showed that in fact it was, you 3298:I made a minor tweak; but it's fine, thanks. 3224:Andy to propose the required protected edit. 1887:does not apply to articles within its scope, 8: 3240:Template:Infobox ice hockey player/testcases 1756:hockey and the other about everything else. 491:. I think this basically closes the debate. 3156:My thoughts on following guidelines are at 3513: 2952:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes) 1906:This is an RFC which shows up on the main 228:Oh great. So this is a pissing contest... 197:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes) 193:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes) 18:Template talk:Infobox ice hockey biography 4078:{| class="db-aW5mb2JveA" cellpadding="2" 4070:{| class="db-aW5mb2JveA" cellpadding="2" 3132:My answer is no. Now you please answer. — 1678:What's wrong with aesthetic objections? 1326:the subject's name in bold at the top. — 3977:. Maybe I'm wrong though, let me know. – 3893:{{InfoboxIceHockeyPlayer |name=%%title%% 3220:I don't think there's any hold up and I 3042:What guideline are you reading exactly? 1393:If the RfC question is modified to say " 1229:obvious in the vast majority of cases. 285:read and understood the debate can see. 3516: 115:Category:Sportsperson infobox templates 2492:talk:wife selling#Long s in quotations 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3415:wiki's coding requirments for bots. - 3044:Knowledge:Manual of Style (infoboxes) 2118:The necessary code change is already 1928:for more input to this discussion. -- 1305:Knowledge:Manual of Style (infoboxes) 7: 2950:Isn't this exactly what happened at 2409:incidentally shows that this is the 1375:Exactly it specifically doesn't say 136:standardisation by adding the name. 2675:But I don't think anyone is asking 2175:not a decision for projects to make 2024:Actually that comment implied that 393:mainly for the lazy factor but meh 1892:best place for this discussion. -- 481:for people common name is optional 24: 3464:. Oh and Resolute, please chill. 3068:than to wait for that to happen. 3011:Knowledge:Policies and guidelines 2405:Discussion seems to have ceased. 1752:consensus one way or the other. 1565:preference, have been expressed. 3964: 3518:Fairly easy to do this in AWB. – 3013:) that specifically states that 2586:person-infobox without the name? 460:the standard of other infoboxes. 100: 29: 4081:so white space does not result. 2053:convinced the broader community 3070:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 2293:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 2105:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 2013:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 1267:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 1120:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 1091:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 1067:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 1051:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 1008:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 984:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 943:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 884:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 693:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 411:Chris Cunningham (not at work) 1: 3109:at the end of the sentence. — 3805:name(*)=(.*?)$icehockey$* 3731:|$ 2name$ 3=$ 1|$ 2image$ 3= 3724:\|*name*=(.*?)\|(*)image(*)= 2826:Following the discussion at 189:Template talk:Infobox person 3650:|$ 2name$ 3=$ 1|$ 2team$ 3= 3643:\|*name*=(.*?)\|(*)team(*)= 281:Another lie; as anyone who 4122: 2379:13:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC) 2365:12:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC) 2356:01:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC) 2342:01:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC) 2333:21:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC) 2300:17:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC) 2263:17:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC) 2233:16:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC) 2208:15:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC) 2198:12:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC) 2169:12:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC) 2160:21:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC) 2143:15:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 2112:16:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 2099:14:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 2081:14:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 2066:14:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 2038:14:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 2020:13:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 2004:13:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 1986:00:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 1970:20:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1938:14:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1920:14:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1902:14:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1879:14:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1865:14:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1848:13:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1834:12:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1806:11:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1791:11:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1781:10:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1741:23:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1716:11:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 1683:10:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC) 1674:20:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1649:20:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1626:19:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1611:19:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1591:If the rules need fixing, 1586:18:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1539:17:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1518:17:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1503:17:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1483:06:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 1466:23:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1445:23:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1431:23:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1417:23:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1389:23:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1371:23:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1342:23:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1317:23:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1289:23:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1274:18:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1253:18:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1234:16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1223:15:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1197:15:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1170:15:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1145:15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1127:18:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1108:16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1098:14:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1084:14:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1074:13:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1058:13:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1044:13:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1034:11:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1015:11:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 1000:00:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 991:12:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 965:12:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 950:11:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 936:11:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 921:11:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 891:09:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 871:21:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC) 851:20:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 835:19:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 805:15:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 758:11:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 744:11:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 719:11:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 700:09:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 684:00:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 669:23:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 644:23:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 629:23:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 604:22:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 590:15:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC) 570:said that the MOS is wrong 561:21:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 547:18:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 531:17:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 513:17:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 501:17:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 472:17:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 453:16:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 434:23:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 418:11:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 403:02:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 386:01:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 365:00:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 348:23:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 321:22:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 306:22:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 277:22:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 263:20:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 238:03:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 224:00:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 209:00:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC) 174:23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 157:17:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 128:17:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC) 98: 3935:</ifRegexOptions_: --> 3854:</ifRegexOptions_: --> 3773:</ifRegexOptions_: --> 3692:</ifRegexOptions_: --> 3358:Doug Harvery (ice hockey) 2905:being asked a question. - 2119: 95:Revisiting the name issue 4058:15:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 4031:16:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 4016:16:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 4002:16:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 3988:16:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 3973:I think I got them all. 3931:<ifRegexOptions_: --> 3886:{{InfoboxIceHockeyPlayer 3850:<ifRegexOptions_: --> 3769:<ifRegexOptions_: --> 3688:<ifRegexOptions_: --> 3536: 3529:15:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 3500:15:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 3486:15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 3474:14:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 3457:14:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 3441:13:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 3425:13:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 3393:13:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 3379:13:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 3354:Doug Harvey (ice hockey) 3348:13:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 3334:11:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 3319:08:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC) 3294:20:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 3280:20:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 3266:20:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 3252:19:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 3234:18:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 3215:15:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 3196:22:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 3174:01:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC) 3152:21:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3137:20:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3128:16:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3114:15:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3101:12:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3087:11:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3077:10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 3060:20:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 3038:19:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 3027:16:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2995:15:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2984:14:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2969:14:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2946:12:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2933:02:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2915:01:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2900:01:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2885:00:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 2875:23:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2850:23:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 2840:14:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 578:this isn't good practice 4106:17:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC) 4091:17:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC) 3942:</regexOptions_: --> 3861:</regexOptions_: --> 3780:</regexOptions_: --> 3699:</regexOptions_: --> 2817:15:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2795:15:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2781:15:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2766:15:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2740:14:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2700:22:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2690:19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2671:18:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2655:15:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2640:15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2623:14:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2606:14:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2575:14:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2549:14:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2535:14:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2505:13:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2481:14:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2463:11:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2449:11:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2434:11:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 2289:I was, once upon a time 1487:Your point being...? — 898:previous change request 3948:</AdvancedReps: --> 3938:<regexOptions_: --> 3857:<regexOptions_: --> 3776:<regexOptions_: --> 3695:<regexOptions_: --> 3356:for example will list 2510:You're right, but see 2407:Research via WP:BOTREQ 1322:No. The MOS does not 896:Good. Please note the 861:thought looked best?-- 353:Also don't really care 4073:should be changed to 3928:</numoftimes_: --> 3847:</numoftimes_: --> 3766:</numoftimes_: --> 3685:</numoftimes_: --> 3539:<AdvancedReps: --> 3284:Sounds good. Thanks. 42:of past discussions. 3924:<numoftimes_: --> 3921:</ifIsRegex_: --> 3843:<numoftimes_: --> 3840:</ifIsRegex_: --> 3778:IgnoreCaseSingleline 3762:<numoftimes_: --> 3759:</ifIsRegex_: --> 3697:IgnoreCaseSingleline 3681:<numoftimes_: --> 3678:</ifIsRegex_: --> 1693:insufficient grounds 1633:Llanfairpwllgwyngyll 3917:<ifIsRegex_: --> 3881:</ruletype_: --> 3836:<ifIsRegex_: --> 3800:</ruletype_: --> 3791:Stripdisambiguation 3755:<ifIsRegex_: --> 3719:</ruletype_: --> 3674:<ifIsRegex_: --> 3638:</ruletype_: --> 3046:specifically says " 2469:Knowledge:Consensus 4076:<noinclude: --> 4068:<noinclude: --> 3904:<ifNotContains_ 3888:</replace_: --> 3877:<ruletype_: --> 3867:</Children: --> 3823:<ifNotContains_ 3807:</replace_: --> 3796:<ruletype_: --> 3786:</Children: --> 3742:<ifNotContains_ 3726:</replace_: --> 3715:<ruletype_: --> 3705:</Children: --> 3661:<ifNotContains_ 3645:</replace_: --> 3634:<ruletype_: --> 3624:</enabled_: --> 3602:</enabled_: --> 3580:</enabled_: --> 3558:</enabled_: --> 2805:added to MOS talk. 2087:WP:RFC#Ending_RfCs 1747:Comment on process 1687:There is nothing " 689:Paging Mike Godwin 521:can overrule it. - 3955: 3954: 3884:<replace_: --> 3803:<replace_: --> 3722:<replace_: --> 3641:<replace_: --> 3620:<enabled_: --> 3605:<Children: --> 3598:<enabled_: --> 3583:<Children: --> 3576:<enabled_: --> 3561:<Children: --> 3554:<enabled_: --> 704:I didn't compare 470: 384: 92: 91: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4113: 4053: 4026: 3983: 3972: 3968: 3967: 3949: 3946: 3943: 3939: 3936: 3932: 3929: 3925: 3922: 3918: 3915: 3914:</regex_: --> 3911: 3908: 3905: 3902: 3899: 3896: 3892: 3889: 3885: 3882: 3878: 3875: 3871: 3868: 3865: 3862: 3858: 3855: 3851: 3848: 3844: 3841: 3837: 3834: 3833:</regex_: --> 3830: 3827: 3824: 3821: 3818: 3815: 3811: 3808: 3804: 3801: 3797: 3794: 3790: 3787: 3784: 3781: 3777: 3774: 3770: 3767: 3763: 3760: 3756: 3753: 3752:</regex_: --> 3749: 3746: 3743: 3740: 3737: 3734: 3730: 3727: 3723: 3720: 3716: 3713: 3709: 3706: 3703: 3700: 3696: 3693: 3689: 3686: 3682: 3679: 3675: 3672: 3671:</regex_: --> 3668: 3665: 3662: 3659: 3656: 3653: 3649: 3646: 3642: 3639: 3635: 3632: 3628: 3625: 3621: 3618: 3615: 3612: 3609: 3606: 3603: 3599: 3596: 3593: 3590: 3587: 3584: 3581: 3577: 3574: 3571: 3568: 3565: 3562: 3559: 3555: 3552: 3549: 3546: 3543: 3540: 3524: 3514: 3462:Bot request made 3317: 3308: 3304: 2873: 2864: 2860: 2764: 2755: 2751: 2533: 2524: 2520: 2432: 2423: 2419: 2231: 2222: 2218: 2196: 2187: 2183: 2141: 2132: 2128: 1832: 1823: 1819: 1779: 1770: 1766: 1714: 1705: 1701: 1672: 1663: 1659: 1600: 1594: 1584: 1575: 1571: 1168: 1159: 1155: 919: 910: 906: 831: 826: 823: 803: 794: 790: 742: 733: 729: 667: 658: 654: 627: 618: 614: 461: 378: 338:Still don't care 304: 295: 291: 261: 252: 248: 155: 146: 142: 104: 103: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4121: 4120: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4066: 4049: 4022: 3979: 3965: 3963: 3956: 3951: 3950: 3947: 3945:</IRule: --> 3944: 3941: 3937: 3934: 3930: 3927: 3923: 3920: 3916: 3913: 3910:<regex_: --> 3909: 3906: 3903: 3900: 3898:<ifContains_ 3897: 3895:</with_: --> 3894: 3890: 3887: 3883: 3880: 3876: 3873: 3869: 3866: 3864:</IRule: --> 3863: 3860: 3856: 3853: 3849: 3846: 3842: 3839: 3835: 3832: 3829:<regex_: --> 3828: 3825: 3822: 3819: 3817:<ifContains_ 3816: 3814:</with_: --> 3813: 3809: 3806: 3802: 3799: 3795: 3792: 3788: 3785: 3783:</IRule: --> 3782: 3779: 3775: 3772: 3768: 3765: 3761: 3758: 3754: 3751: 3748:<regex_: --> 3747: 3744: 3741: 3738: 3736:<ifContains_ 3735: 3733:</with_: --> 3732: 3728: 3725: 3721: 3718: 3714: 3711: 3707: 3704: 3702:</IRule: --> 3701: 3698: 3694: 3691: 3687: 3684: 3680: 3677: 3673: 3670: 3667:<regex_: --> 3666: 3663: 3660: 3657: 3655:<ifContains_ 3654: 3652:</with_: --> 3651: 3647: 3644: 3640: 3637: 3633: 3630: 3626: 3623: 3619: 3616: 3613: 3610: 3607: 3604: 3601: 3597: 3594: 3591: 3588: 3585: 3582: 3579: 3575: 3572: 3569: 3566: 3563: 3560: 3557: 3553: 3550: 3547: 3544: 3541: 3538: 3531: 3520: 3306: 3300: 3299: 3222:was just asking 3203: 2862: 2856: 2855: 2824: 2753: 2747: 2746: 2522: 2516: 2515: 2421: 2415: 2414: 2403: 2220: 2214: 2213: 2185: 2179: 2178: 2130: 2124: 2123: 2051:Look. Have you 1821: 1815: 1814: 1768: 1762: 1761: 1749: 1738: 1703: 1697: 1696: 1661: 1655: 1654: 1598: 1592: 1573: 1567: 1566: 1301: 1263:counterargument 1157: 1151: 1150: 908: 902: 901: 879: 829: 819: 816: 792: 786: 785: 731: 725: 724: 656: 650: 649: 616: 610: 609: 293: 287: 286: 250: 244: 243: 144: 138: 137: 107: 106: 101: 97: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4119: 4117: 4109: 4108: 4065: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 3953: 3952: 3891:<with_: --> 3874:</Name: --> 3810:<with_: --> 3793:</Name: --> 3729:<with_: --> 3712:</Name: --> 3648:<with_: --> 3631:</Name: --> 3537: 3533: 3532: 3517: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3296: 3202: 3199: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2823: 2820: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2728: 2727: 2724: 2721: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2609: 2608: 2590: 2587: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2537: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2402: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1748: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1736: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1651: 1613: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1345: 1344: 1300: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1236: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1018: 1017: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 923: 878: 875: 874: 873: 854: 853: 838: 837: 808: 807: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 760: 534: 533: 515: 503: 477:Important note 474: 455: 437: 436: 421: 420: 406: 405: 388: 367: 350: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 240: 159: 99: 96: 93: 90: 89: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4118: 4107: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4088: 4084: 4083:198.161.203.6 4079: 4074: 4071: 4063: 4059: 4056: 4054: 4052: 4046: 4045: 4032: 4029: 4027: 4025: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4005: 4004: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3986: 3984: 3982: 3976: 3971: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3870:<Name: --> 3789:<Name: --> 3708:<Name: --> 3627:<Name: --> 3535: 3534: 3530: 3527: 3525: 3523: 3515: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3484: 3481: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3455: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3307:Pigsonthewing 3303: 3297: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3200: 3198: 3197: 3194: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3149: 3145: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3135: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3112: 3108: 3107:question mark 3104: 3103: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3085: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3075: 3071: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3036: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3012: 2996: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2944: 2940: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2883: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2863:Pigsonthewing 2859: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2848: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2821: 2819: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2754:Pigsonthewing 2750: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2725: 2722: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2701: 2698: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2678: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2669: 2664: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2611: 2610: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2588: 2585: 2581: 2580: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2563: 2559: 2556: 2555: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2523:Pigsonthewing 2519: 2513: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2493: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2422:Pigsonthewing 2418: 2412: 2408: 2400: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2363: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2340: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2301: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2264: 2261: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2221:Pigsonthewing 2217: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2206: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2186:Pigsonthewing 2182: 2176: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2167: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2131:Pigsonthewing 2127: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2054: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1992: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1853:WP:CONLIMITED 1851: 1850: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1822:Pigsonthewing 1818: 1812: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1789: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1769:Pigsonthewing 1765: 1757: 1753: 1746: 1742: 1739: 1734: 1730: 1727: 1726: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1704:Pigsonthewing 1700: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1681: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1662:Pigsonthewing 1658: 1652: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1614: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1597: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1574:Pigsonthewing 1570: 1540: 1536: 1533: 1530: 1526: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1500: 1497: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1471:WP:EXCEPTIONS 1469: 1468: 1467: 1463: 1460: 1457: 1453: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1414: 1411: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1355: 1352: 1351: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1343: 1339: 1336: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1298: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1241: 1237: 1235: 1232: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1177: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1158:Pigsonthewing 1154: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1143: 1140: 1136: 1128: 1125: 1121: 1116: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1106: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1096: 1092: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1082: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1072: 1068: 1063: 1059: 1056: 1052: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1042: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1016: 1013: 1009: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 998: 993: 992: 989: 985: 981: 977: 966: 962: 958: 953: 952: 951: 948: 944: 939: 938: 937: 933: 929: 924: 922: 918: 914: 909:Pigsonthewing 905: 899: 895: 894: 893: 892: 889: 885: 876: 872: 868: 864: 859: 856: 855: 852: 848: 844: 840: 839: 836: 832: 824: 822: 813: 810: 809: 806: 802: 798: 793:Pigsonthewing 789: 783: 759: 755: 751: 747: 746: 745: 741: 737: 732:Pigsonthewing 728: 722: 721: 720: 716: 712: 707: 703: 702: 701: 698: 694: 690: 687: 686: 685: 681: 677: 672: 671: 670: 666: 662: 657:Pigsonthewing 653: 647: 646: 645: 641: 637: 632: 631: 630: 626: 622: 617:Pigsonthewing 613: 607: 606: 605: 601: 597: 593: 592: 591: 587: 583: 579: 575: 574:screw the MOS 571: 567: 564: 563: 562: 558: 554: 550: 549: 548: 544: 540: 536: 535: 532: 528: 524: 519: 516: 514: 511: 507: 504: 502: 498: 494: 490: 489:WP:COMMONNAME 486: 482: 478: 475: 473: 469: 465: 459: 456: 454: 450: 446: 442: 439: 438: 435: 431: 427: 423: 422: 419: 416: 412: 408: 407: 404: 400: 396: 392: 389: 387: 382: 377: 376: 371: 368: 366: 362: 358: 357:Kaiser matias 354: 351: 349: 346: 343: 339: 336: 322: 318: 314: 309: 308: 307: 303: 299: 294:Pigsonthewing 290: 284: 280: 279: 278: 274: 270: 266: 265: 264: 260: 256: 251:Pigsonthewing 247: 241: 239: 235: 231: 227: 226: 225: 221: 217: 212: 211: 210: 206: 202: 198: 194: 190: 186: 181: 177: 176: 175: 171: 167: 163: 160: 158: 154: 150: 145:Pigsonthewing 141: 135: 132: 131: 130: 129: 125: 121: 116: 112: 94: 88: 85: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4080: 4075: 4072: 4067: 4064:Edit request 4050: 4023: 3980: 3969: 3812:name$ 1=$ 2 3521: 3446: 3413: 3366: 3357: 3315:Andy's edits 3302:Andy Mabbett 3204: 3190: 3066: 3047: 3014: 3007: 2955: 2920: 2871:Andy's edits 2858:Andy Mabbett 2825: 2803: 2762:Andy's edits 2749:Andy Mabbett 2729: 2714: 2676: 2593: 2583: 2557: 2531:Andy's edits 2518:Andy Mabbett 2489: 2430:Andy's edits 2417:Andy Mabbett 2410: 2404: 2229:Andy's edits 2216:Andy Mabbett 2194:Andy's edits 2181:Andy Mabbett 2139:Andy's edits 2126:Andy Mabbett 2052: 2050: 2025: 2008: 1958: 1888: 1885:or guideline 1884: 1830:Andy's edits 1817:Andy Mabbett 1810: 1777:Andy's edits 1764:Andy Mabbett 1758: 1754: 1750: 1733:Plastikspork 1728: 1712:Andy's edits 1699:Andy Mabbett 1688: 1670:Andy's edits 1657:Andy Mabbett 1582:Andy's edits 1569:Andy Mabbett 1563: 1531: 1495: 1458: 1409: 1398: 1394: 1376: 1353: 1350:Ok. It says 1334: 1323: 1302: 1262: 1239: 1211: 1184: 1179: 1175: 1166:Andy's edits 1153:Andy Mabbett 1114: 994: 973: 917:Andy's edits 904:Andy Mabbett 880: 857: 820: 811: 801:Andy's edits 788:Andy Mabbett 740:Andy's edits 727:Andy Mabbett 705: 665:Andy's edits 652:Andy Mabbett 625:Andy's edits 612:Andy Mabbett 517: 505: 480: 476: 457: 445:JohnnyPolo24 440: 390: 373: 372:, why not?-- 369: 352: 337: 302:Andy's edits 289:Andy Mabbett 282: 259:Andy's edits 246:Andy Mabbett 184: 179: 161: 153:Andy's edits 140:Andy Mabbett 133: 110: 108: 70: 43: 37: 3879:OnWholePage 3798:OnWholePage 3717:OnWholePage 3636:OnWholePage 3367:Doug Harvey 3311:Andy's talk 3201:Change made 3166:Art LaPella 2867:Andy's talk 2758:Andy's talk 2527:Andy's talk 2426:Andy's talk 2225:Andy's talk 2190:Andy's talk 2135:Andy's talk 2120:shown above 1908:RFC listing 1826:Andy's talk 1813:consensus? 1773:Andy's talk 1708:Andy's talk 1666:Andy's talk 1641:Art LaPella 1603:Art LaPella 1578:Andy's talk 1510:Art LaPella 1475:Art LaPella 1238:It is your 1174:What Chris 1162:Andy's talk 913:Andy's talk 797:Andy's talk 736:Andy's talk 661:Andy's talk 621:Andy's talk 298:Andy's talk 255:Andy's talk 149:Andy's talk 36:This is an 3933:IgnoreCase 3859:IgnoreCase 2401:Conclusion 464:MrDolomite 395:Triggerbit 3975:648 edits 3611:xsi:type= 3608:<IRule 3589:xsi:type= 3586:<IRule 3567:xsi:type= 3564:<IRule 3545:xsi:type= 3542:<IRule 2822:Moving on 1399:suggested 1395:requiring 375:Львівське 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 4008:Pichpich 3629:Cleanup2 3492:Pichpich 3466:Pichpich 3447:demanded 3433:Pichpich 3340:Pichpich 3286:Pichpich 3258:Pichpich 3226:Pichpich 3144:Pichpich 3120:Pichpich 3093:Pichpich 3052:Pichpich 3019:Pichpich 2961:Pichpich 2925:Pichpich 2892:Pichpich 2832:Pichpich 2787:Pichpich 2682:Pichpich 2632:Pichpich 2598:Pichpich 2567:Pichpich 2473:Pichpich 2441:Pichpich 2073:Pichpich 2058:Pichpich 1962:Pichpich 1535:contribs 1499:contribs 1462:contribs 1423:Pichpich 1413:contribs 1377:requires 1363:Pichpich 1338:contribs 1309:Pichpich 1215:Pichpich 1189:Pichpich 843:Pichpich 821:alaney2k 582:Pichpich 539:Pichpich 493:Pichpich 230:Pichpich 201:Pichpich 120:Pichpich 105:Resolved 4098:DJSasso 3994:DJSasso 3872:Addname 3710:Cleanup 3417:DJSasso 3371:DJSasso 3326:DJSasso 3272:DJSasso 3244:DJSasso 2907:DJSasso 2647:DJSasso 2615:DJSasso 2541:DJSasso 2455:DJSasso 2030:DJSasso 1996:DJSasso 1978:DJSasso 1912:DJSasso 1871:DJSasso 1840:DJSasso 1798:DJSasso 1618:DJSasso 1596:sofixit 1525:Andrwsc 1489:Andrwsc 1452:Andrwsc 1437:DJSasso 1403:Andrwsc 1381:DJSasso 1328:Andrwsc 1324:require 1281:DJSasso 1245:DJSasso 1240:opinion 1026:DJSasso 980:sandbox 957:DJSasso 928:DJSasso 858:Support 750:DJSasso 711:DJSasso 676:DJSasso 636:DJSasso 596:DJSasso 553:DJSasso 523:DJSasso 518:Comment 458:Support 441:Support 426:GoodDay 370:Support 313:DJSasso 269:DJSasso 216:DJSasso 180:reading 166:DJSasso 134:Support 39:archive 3907:/: --> 3901:/: --> 3826:/: --> 3820:/: --> 3745:/: --> 3739:/: --> 3664:/: --> 3658:/: --> 3614:"Rule" 3592:"Rule" 3570:"Rule" 3548:"Rule" 3305:(User: 3193:Krm500 3134:Krm500 3111:Krm500 3084:Krm500 3035:Krm500 2992:Krm500 2943:Krm500 2882:Krm500 2861:(User: 2847:Krm500 2752:(User: 2697:Powers 2668:Powers 2521:(User: 2420:(User: 2362:Powers 2339:Powers 2260:Powers 2219:(User: 2205:Powers 2184:(User: 2166:Powers 2129:(User: 1820:(User: 1788:Powers 1767:(User: 1702:(User: 1680:Powers 1660:(User: 1572:(User: 1259:WP:WAX 1231:Powers 1156:(User: 1115:except 1105:Powers 1081:Powers 1041:Powers 997:Powers 976:WP:WAX 907:(User: 877:Update 812:Oppose 791:(User: 730:(User: 655:(User: 615:(User: 510:Krm500 506:Oppose 391:Oppose 292:(User: 249:(User: 185:always 162:Oppose 143:(User: 3912:false 3838:false 3757:false 3676:false 3617:: --> 3595:: --> 3573:: --> 3551:: --> 3385:JD554 3207:Rsl12 2976:Rsl12 2956:every 2809:Rsl12 2773:Rsl12 2732:Rsl12 2497:Rsl12 2371:Rsl12 2348:Rsl12 2325:Rsl12 2152:Rsl12 2091:JD554 1930:JD554 1894:JD554 1857:JD554 1811:local 1689:wrong 863:Rsl12 16:< 4102:talk 4087:talk 4051:xeno 4024:xeno 4012:talk 3998:talk 3981:xeno 3970:Done 3940:None 3919:true 3852:None 3831:true 3771:None 3750:true 3690:None 3669:true 3622:true 3600:true 3578:true 3556:true 3522:xeno 3496:talk 3483:lute 3480:Reso 3470:talk 3454:lute 3451:Reso 3437:talk 3421:talk 3389:talk 3375:talk 3362:here 3344:talk 3330:talk 3290:talk 3276:talk 3262:talk 3248:talk 3230:talk 3211:talk 3170:talk 3148:talk 3124:talk 3097:talk 3074:talk 3056:talk 3023:talk 2980:talk 2965:talk 2929:talk 2911:talk 2896:talk 2836:talk 2813:talk 2791:talk 2777:talk 2736:talk 2686:talk 2651:talk 2636:talk 2619:talk 2602:talk 2584:only 2571:talk 2545:talk 2501:talk 2477:talk 2459:talk 2445:talk 2411:only 2375:talk 2352:talk 2329:talk 2297:talk 2156:talk 2109:talk 2095:talk 2077:talk 2062:talk 2034:talk 2017:talk 2000:talk 1982:talk 1966:talk 1934:talk 1916:talk 1898:talk 1875:talk 1861:talk 1844:talk 1802:talk 1645:talk 1622:talk 1607:talk 1529:talk 1514:talk 1493:talk 1479:talk 1456:talk 1441:talk 1427:talk 1407:talk 1385:talk 1367:talk 1332:talk 1313:talk 1285:talk 1271:talk 1249:talk 1219:talk 1193:talk 1181:use. 1142:lute 1139:Reso 1124:talk 1095:talk 1071:talk 1055:talk 1030:talk 1012:talk 988:talk 961:talk 947:talk 932:talk 888:talk 867:talk 847:talk 830:talk 754:talk 715:talk 697:talk 680:talk 640:talk 600:talk 586:talk 557:talk 543:talk 527:talk 497:talk 487:and 468:Talk 449:talk 430:talk 415:talk 399:talk 381:talk 361:talk 345:lute 342:Reso 317:talk 273:talk 234:talk 220:talk 205:talk 170:talk 124:talk 3309:); 3242:. - 2865:); 2756:); 2677:you 2525:); 2424:); 2223:); 2188:); 2133:); 2026:you 1824:); 1771:); 1729:Yes 1706:); 1664:); 1576:); 1299:RFC 1160:); 911:); 795:); 734:); 706:him 659:); 619:); 296:); 283:has 253:); 191:or 147:); 111:any 4104:) 4089:) 4014:) 4000:) 3498:) 3472:) 3439:) 3423:) 3391:) 3377:) 3346:) 3332:) 3313:; 3292:) 3278:) 3264:) 3250:) 3232:) 3213:) 3172:) 3150:) 3126:) 3099:) 3072:- 3058:) 3025:) 2982:) 2974:-- 2967:) 2931:) 2923:" 2913:) 2898:) 2869:; 2838:) 2815:) 2807:-- 2793:) 2779:) 2760:; 2738:) 2730:-- 2688:) 2653:) 2638:) 2621:) 2604:) 2573:) 2547:) 2529:; 2514:. 2503:) 2479:) 2461:) 2447:) 2428:; 2377:) 2354:) 2331:) 2295:- 2227:; 2192:; 2177:. 2158:) 2150:-- 2137:; 2107:- 2097:) 2079:) 2064:) 2036:) 2015:- 2002:) 1984:) 1968:) 1936:) 1918:) 1900:) 1877:) 1863:) 1846:) 1828:; 1804:) 1775:; 1737:―Œ 1710:; 1668:; 1647:) 1639:. 1624:) 1609:) 1601:. 1599:}} 1593:{{ 1580:; 1537:) 1516:) 1501:) 1481:) 1473:. 1464:) 1443:) 1429:) 1415:) 1387:) 1369:) 1340:) 1315:) 1287:) 1269:- 1251:) 1221:) 1195:) 1176:is 1164:; 1122:- 1093:- 1069:- 1053:- 1032:) 1010:- 986:- 963:) 945:- 934:) 915:; 886:- 869:) 849:) 833:) 825:ʘ 817:ʘ 799:; 756:) 738:; 717:) 695:- 691:. 682:) 663:; 642:) 623:; 602:) 588:) 559:) 545:) 529:) 499:) 466:• 462:— 451:) 432:) 413:- 401:) 363:) 319:) 300:; 275:) 257:; 236:) 222:) 207:) 172:) 151:; 126:) 4100:( 4085:( 4010:( 3996:( 3926:1 3845:1 3764:1 3683:1 3494:( 3468:( 3435:( 3419:( 3387:( 3373:( 3342:( 3328:( 3324:- 3288:( 3274:( 3260:( 3246:( 3228:( 3209:( 3168:( 3146:( 3122:( 3095:( 3054:( 3033:— 3021:( 3009:( 2978:( 2963:( 2927:( 2909:( 2894:( 2834:( 2811:( 2789:( 2775:( 2734:( 2684:( 2649:( 2634:( 2617:( 2600:( 2569:( 2543:( 2499:( 2475:( 2457:( 2443:( 2373:( 2350:( 2327:( 2154:( 2093:( 2075:( 2060:( 2032:( 1998:( 1980:( 1964:( 1932:( 1914:( 1896:( 1873:( 1859:( 1842:( 1800:( 1796:- 1643:( 1620:( 1616:- 1605:( 1532:· 1527:( 1512:( 1496:· 1491:( 1477:( 1459:· 1454:( 1439:( 1425:( 1410:· 1405:( 1383:( 1365:( 1335:· 1330:( 1311:( 1283:( 1247:( 1243:- 1217:( 1191:( 1028:( 959:( 930:( 926:- 865:( 845:( 827:( 752:( 713:( 709:- 678:( 674:- 638:( 598:( 584:( 555:( 541:( 525:( 495:( 447:( 428:( 397:( 383:) 379:( 359:( 315:( 311:- 271:( 232:( 218:( 214:- 203:( 168:( 122:( 50:.

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

Index