469:
medicine) are likely to require a more vested involvement and background knowledge. Question is, how do we alert editors or keep this category 'on the radar'? Traffic gets reduced with each further 'click' of the mouse button, and I have found pages I never knew existed after being around here for over two years. My idea is to try and place BLP-related pages in more prominent positions to try and (hopefully) increase traffic to them. Ideas include:
160:, efforts to improve referencing have yet to make full use of the fact we have a large group of active WikiProjects filled with editors who are interested in specific subjects or topics in a certain language area. For example, people who are interested in chemistry are more likely to know where to find sources for chemistry-related articles and judge how reliable chemistry-related articles are.
1091:
1077:
1063:
1049:
1035:
1019:
1005:
991:
977:
948:
934:
920:
906:
893:
879:
863:
849:
53:
427:
reports which do not conform to the criteria are removed, establishing stronger social norms with regards to referencing could help encourage and reward effort at improving reference quality. For example, an influential essay which discouraged editors from nominating articles at AfD without searching
800:
just aren't that reliable, and with link rot being so prevalent who knows how many featured articles' cites are now broken, and it'd take forever to check them all. That's why I think we should make a stronger effort to archive any web references we use as they are cited when writing new articles.
728:
The process of researching and adding citations is lengthy and complex. Knowledge (XXG) makes it more complex with a combination of instruction creep and vagueness. The rules should be examined with an eye towards making them easier to follow. Some sort of technological fix should be implemented to
710:
Set up a scheme like DYK and GA and FA in which people are rewarded for levels of research on individual articles. 10 cites gets a person a
Research Apprentice award, 25 gets a Research Master award, and 100 gets a Research Doctorate. People could put these awards on the top of their UserPages much
692:
challenged material without finding a reference as egregious offense as restoring negative, unreferenced material about a living person. The kneejerk argument people make against this is basically "Well there's a lot of unreferenced content, we can't really expect every article to actually be based
187:
Information in articles always gets copied to many places on the Web. Leaving unreferenced information in articles for long periods of time can make it difficult to determine if existing information on the web came entirely from the unreferenced material, or preceded when the information was added
742:
verifiable fact plus some bureaucratic qualifications are enough for a DYK. There's an advertisement gap on the main page between DYK and FA. Advertising articles that have been reviewed as factual should entice participants to write fully verifiable articles. Many articles don't have FA potential
366:
It is a fact that
Wikipedians are more likely to do a task if it's easier. Over the years, a variety of tools have been created to make for example vandal- and newpage patrolling. If a tool was developed that would making tracking down sources and adding them to articles easier, more people would
245:
A simple yet effective way to encourage people to embark on a quest to fact-check articles is to reward them for their efforts. I still get an addictive warm, fuzzy feeling when I receive a barnstar and editors have shown to go through great lengths to get noticed or appreciated. Just look at the
439:
Before nominating articles for deletion, it is already deletion policy recommended to try to see if they can be improved. But there is no actual requirement to do so, and it is routine for articles to be nominated as unreferenceable or notability not demonstrated, when a basic referencing effort
83:
We tell people to not rely on
Knowledge (XXG) as their sole source of information but rather use it as a starting point for further research. For this to work, articles not only need external links to guide readers to further information, but also a list of sources we used to write the Knowledge
468:
I suspect that triaging editors in the direction of most need may be of value, namely
Biographies of Living People. This category is possibly the easiest of the three broad contentious areas for editors in general to address, the other areas (national disputes, and traditional vs. alternative
90:
With this page I hope to spur the discussion towards a proposal we can use to actively counter this problem by choosing a middle ground between the group of people who advocate deletion of unreferenced entries and those who prefer keeping them without actively working on their improvement.
796:. Not just here in this WikiProject but throughout Knowledge (XXG). I think it's very important for maintaining verifiability and reliability to preserve the countless web citations used on most articles. I'm guessing the vast majority of references cited are web sites, which because of
676:
tags that are, in the vast majority of cases, likely to just sit there for years... why not actually remove challenged material? Why should challenged, unreferenced material have the right to stick in articles for ages? It shouldn't, core policy says that it shouldn't... yet it does.
1154:
A: Unreferenced doesn't generally equal untrue, nor does it necessarily mean there are no references to be found. When faced with unreferenced information, an editor should make an effort to find sources before deleting material. The exception is when questioned material is
451:
Before keeping an article which is either prod'ed or Afd'ed all material concerning its notabiliy must be supported by reliable sources; the burden -contrary to DGG's suggestion above- is on the creator who created the problem, not the person who discovers the problem.
173:
The burden of proof for verifiability lies on the creator (initial author) of an article, but a lack of references doesn't mean an article is false, nor that it is non-notable. An article can only be deleted if no sources can be found after reasonable efforts have been
630:
in June 2007 and never done, then I decided to be bold and make the change a few days ago and was promptly reverted. Rather than rehash the case I've made over there I'd like to ask anyone concerned about the absurd backlog of unsourced articles to have a read of the
440:
would have shown adequate sources. If it were actually required to do such a basic search and present the results as part of the nomination, editors would immediately discover the possibilities for improvement and improve those articles that could be easily improved.
194:
When dubious statements and articles are to be removed, a frequent response by other editors is often to ask those removing the statements and articles to help improve articles and referencing; those making this response don't volunteer to actually do any improving
1116:
At the moment, there are over 525,894 articles with "Citation needed" statements. They are some of the easiest referencing issues to solve, because you are frequently looking for a targeted and singular reference. You can browse the whole list of these articles at
270:
If new editors are educated about the need to cite their sources when creating an article and reward them for doing so, we will lower the amount of unreferenced articles coming in so we can deal with the existing ones. We can do this by adding a lesson to the
321:
To ensure an article is checked by at least one set of eyes (preferably more) it's important to not let newly created articles slide by undetected. With the amount of articles that are created each day, it's important to use automated tools to our advantage.
355:
308:
Many hands make light work. If we were to make a press release that said "Knowledge (XXG) undertakes massive spring time cleanup" or something to that effect, we can attract new editors who are interested in working on the verification of articles. (See
61:
Lack of sourcing in
Knowledge (XXG) articles is a significant problem. We should find a consensus on what efforts we should make to provide references for all the material in Knowledge (XXG) and use technical tools to our advantage to reach this
525:
By the time a statement is identified as problematic - it can be referenced without much difficulty by almost anyone with experience. ~30-45 seconds in many cases. The problem is simply an attitude of unwillingness to accept responsibility.
129:. With a multiple-year backlog in this category only growing longer, there is little chance of editors catching up if something new is not done. (As of early January 2016, the total number of articles in this category was more than 217,000.)
143:
Simply deleting all unreferenced articles would leave a huge hole in
Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage; that isn't going to happen. Deleting all unsourced statements also isn't going to happen: certainly the majority of such statements are true.
428:
for sources first and discouraged commenters from arguing to keep based on the improvability of poorly referenced articles without making the effort to cite sources could go a long way towards a more collegiate and productive AfD process.
79:
himself said he believed
Knowledge (XXG) should focus more on the accuracy of our existing material instead of creating new material. Since then, we have broken the 5 million article mark and there is still much room for improvement.
295:
A lot of editors find the citation templates hard to use while using them helps people to provide the information needed to check a reference. The citation button can be added with the refTools feature in the
Gadgets section of
163:
To improve the situation, fact-checking efforts should make use of WikiProjects, categorization, and other technical features to attract the enthusiasts and experts who can add references and remove incorrect statements.
737:
To qualify for B-class an article needs to be verifiable from the references provided. GA has a few more whistles, mostly of the WP:MOS variety. Currently the B/GA articles have no visibility on the main page, but a
635:
and chip in. Even if it's mostly ignored a small improvement would be well worth a very short addition to the warning in my view. It's a very simple step with no changes to policy or software requried. —
684:
people to find references if they want that content to stay. Apparently people are content to not look for references if their content just gets a tag added to it, but otherwise remains in the article.
665:
says that challenged material can be removed and that the burden is on people who want to include that material to find references. This sounds like the solution to the whole problem. Instead of adding
112:
821:
Once the problem is no longer the lack of sources in articles, we need to go a step further and start checking references on a regular basis to make sure they still point in the right direction.
994:
424:
408:
1172:
A: Changing the bar of notability would lead to the removal of thousands of articles, but the ones that would be removed aren't necessarily the ones that currently lack any sources.
487:
104:
There are lots of articles that have unsourced and questionable information. Some articles are totally unreferenced. Only a tiny percentage of articles have citations/sources for
1080:
1052:
980:
262:, I was unable to find any barnstars that rewarded people for fact-checking or referencing articles that lack sources. A reward scheme would encourage people to do the job.
477:
in the
Welcome template, plus short, friendly note on extreme importance of referencing in this scenario. Targets new users who are the ones least likely to use references.
1066:
605:. If this really is a priority, let's make it a visible message for everyone who clicks "edit this page". Something like adding after verifiable the phrase "and cited in
1192:
255:
137:
833:
that help track the existing backlog of referencing activities. They fall into two major groups, Lacking
References and Ensuring Accuracy through existing references:
1118:
882:
231:
219:
42:
1187:
923:
503:
Find somewhere to highlight link to page or category of unreferenced BLP articles (I can't find the page now, anyone is welcome to link here now) and place on
300:, and it uses a fill-in-the-boxes method to easily insert a template with all the information needed. We should strive to have the button enabled by default.
391:
The stable versions feature is not yet finished, but if implemented it will help a lot in lowering the influx of new articles that lack any sort of sources.
344:. We can develop a bot that sorts articles based on their content and/or categories and leaves a list of articles to check on relevant WikiProject subpages.
1008:
951:
909:
177:
Trying to force editors to provide references may deter new editors from contributing good material - though a similar requirement is already in place on
1023:
1217:
483:
474:
358:, it would be a breeze to find new articles that need citation in a certain category without the need for bots to post long lists to WikiProject pages.
1197:
416:
937:
205:
Previous proposals to create a special speedy deletion criterion to delete unreferenced articles after a grace period have found no consensus. (
206:
897:
153:
71:
References are vital for the quality and usefulness of Knowledge (XXG) articles. If you don't believe me, don't take my word for it; At the
1095:
582:
template to do the same. If editors did this more often then we would find it easier to locate sources. A bot might do this automatically.
333:
771:
There are too many sub-FA-level review processes. All aim to produce fully verifiable content. A single review process should assign B
230:
This collapse box contains proposals from 2008 and 2009, many of which have been acted upon. If you have new ideas, please share them
412:
133:
1182:
852:
35:
632:
627:
272:
495:
1222:
1038:
867:
602:
1163:
to people; in such cases, it is entirely proper to remove unsourced or improperly sourced statements, immediately.
1125:
310:
84:(XXG) article so the reader can go and check our material against that of the sources to check our accuracy.
504:
491:
351:
327:
1202:
259:
721:
119:
1100:
1084:
1070:
1056:
1042:
1028:
1012:
998:
984:
955:
941:
927:
913:
886:
872:
856:
17:
1132:
makes that easier by suggesting random articles, which you can sort by topical category membership.
830:
743:
because of length issue; for many topics there aren't enough sources to write a FA-length article.
693:
on cited sources." I say that if we expect to be taken seriously as a factual encyclopedia we can.
548:
445:
376:
297:
640:
617:
535:
323:
289:
354:
that allows editors to watch new entries in categories. If this script can be combined with the
184:
Referencing articles may require expert knowledge; whether or not it does, it is time consuming.
87:
In other words, we need to make a joined effort to clean up the references in Knowledge (XXG).
1169:
Why not increase the bar of notability so we get a lower, more manageable number of articles?
614:
610:
576:
box at the head of the talk page when I create or edit an article. I recently improved the
337:
380:
368:
276:
247:
178:
157:
804:
Plus it's very easy to do and only takes 30 seconds! Just enter the url to be archived at
570:
530:
372:
606:
785:
764:
637:
401:
367:
engage in the task. An ideal referencing tool would combine the search capabilities of
254:
to get their work featured on the main page. I could be mistaken, but on my perusal of
72:
662:
1211:
703:
670:
655:
560:
462:
140:. Despite the combined efforts of these WikiProjects the backlog continues to grow.
593:
347:
218:
Feel free to add your own proposal to the list. Discussions can be found on the
76:
527:
518:
456:
Prioritising the article groups with the most need of referencing (i.e. BLPs)
792:
There should be more emphasis put on archiving citations with tools such as
697:
Research Honours - Research Apprentice / Research Master / Research Doctor
805:
797:
433:
1160:
793:
808:
and then use the new archived url with |archiveurl= and |archivedate=
191:
Having unreferenced material is bad for Knowledge (XXG)'s credibility.
251:
1128:, sometimes it's hard to choose which article to work on. The tool
340:
and evaluates entries to see if they are suitable for inclusion in
1156:
587:
Add instructions to cite sources to the message under the edit box
341:
746:
I propose a DYK-like box on the main page for GA-level articles:
507:
or some other prominent noticeboard (or let run in signpost??).
47:
1135:
1129:
960:
688:
How to do this? It's actually kind of simple. Make restoring
836:
758:
Related proposal: unify peer-review/B-level review/GA review
425:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrator intervention against vandalism
395:
Changing norms and requirements for AfD deletion nominations
409:
Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
41:
For this page as it originally appeared in 2007, see this
34:"WP:IRE" redirects here. For the Ireland Wikiproject, see
488:
Knowledge (XXG):Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard
132:
The current WikiProjects that deal with this problem are
747:
25:
1193:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
256:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
138:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
775:GA status depending on coverage and prose quality.
680:Getting serious about removing challenged material
1151:Why not simply delete all unreferenced statements?
729:make adding citations in the right format easier.
419:contributors are strongly encouraged to make only
411:is used to beat down especially poor arguments at
181:, when the notability of an article is challenged.
1188:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Unreferenced articles
283:Adding a citation template button to the toolbar
1119:Category:All articles with unsourced statements
711:like people do now with DYK, GA and FA awards.
626:I'm glad someone else wants to do this. It was
1137:I can help! Give me a random citation to find!
484:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons
475:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons
371:(NewPageWatcher) with citation programs like
8:
1198:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Citation cleanup
512:If an article needs references ... add them
417:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
313:for one proposal for a "spring cleanup".)
225:
207:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for verification
733:Advertise B/GA articles on the main page
715:Simplify the process of adding citations
498:, although it attracted little interest.
490:(and actually other difficult areas) on
806:http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php
127:This article does not cite any sources
413:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
317:Bots and scripts tagging new articles
134:Knowledge (XXG):Unreferenced articles
7:
1218:Knowledge (XXG) editorial validation
373:Magnus Manske's reference generator
36:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Ireland
1124:With 525,894 statements that need
831:Knowledge (XXG) Backlog categories
342:the main page did you know section
14:
1183:Category:Articles lacking sources
1112:Help now: Solve Citations Needed!
981:Uses broken or outdated citations
601:The edit box is currently a mere
1089:
1075:
1061:
1047:
1033:
1017:
1003:
989:
975:
946:
932:
918:
904:
891:
877:
861:
847:
829:There are a number of different
379:and the editing capabilities of
246:amount of people who go through
113:thousands of articles are marked
51:
1090:
1076:
1062:
1048:
1034:
1018:
1004:
990:
976:
947:
933:
919:
905:
892:
878:
862:
848:
1:
618:04:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
536:19:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
69:Why references are important?
641:01:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
275:or, for example, update the
898:Needs more references (BLP)
754:(look under featured pic).
1239:
1203:Knowledge (XXG):Ref reform
995:Needs factual verification
217:
40:
33:
15:
1024:Needs references clean up
924:Needs reliable references
311:User:Naconkantari/cleanup
260:Knowledge (XXG):Barnstars
73:Wikimania conference 2006
952:Has unsourced statements
59:This page in a nutshell:
910:Needs in-text citations
505:Template:Editabuselinks
494:(see proposal I placed
492:Template:Editabuselinks
108:important information.
1223:Knowledge (XXG) how-to
868:Needs references (BLP)
1081:Has original research
1009:Needs references list
883:Needs more references
649:Actually enforce WP:V
362:New computer programs
938:Has unsourced quotes
542:Add links to sources
279:with a new section.
1053:Neutrality disputed
825:How can I help now?
658:in 17 December 2008
596:in 15 December 2008
298:Special:Preferences
188:to Knowledge (XXG).
148:Solving the problem
1140:
1096:Self-contradictory
842:Lacking references
788:in 18 January 2009
556:I routinely add a
551:in 3 December 2008
241:Barnstar incentive
168:Current viewpoints
1134:
1108:
1107:
1039:Accuracy disputes
964:
813:
812:
767:in 6 January 2009
724:in 5 January 2009
706:in 3 January 2009
633:recent discussion
603:copyright warning
273:Virtual classroom
95:Current situation
66:
65:
1230:
1138:
1093:
1092:
1079:
1078:
1065:
1064:
1051:
1050:
1037:
1036:
1021:
1020:
1007:
1006:
993:
992:
979:
978:
959:
950:
949:
936:
935:
922:
921:
908:
907:
895:
894:
881:
880:
865:
864:
853:Needs references
851:
850:
837:
675:
669:
607:reliable sources
581:
580:
575:
569:
565:
559:
533:
338:Special:Newpages
226:
200:Failed proposals
124:
118:
55:
54:
48:
28:
1238:
1237:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1208:
1207:
1179:
1145:
1136:
1126:WP:Verification
1114:
1109:
827:
819:
814:
781:
760:
735:
717:
699:
673:
667:
651:
628:brought up here
589:
578:
577:
573:
567:
563:
557:
544:
531:
514:
458:
407:Similar to how
397:
389:
387:Stable versions
381:AutoWikiBrowser
364:
336:) goes through
319:
306:
285:
268:
266:Educate editors
243:
234:
232:discussion page
223:
220:discussion page
216:
170:
150:
122:
116:
102:
97:
52:
46:
39:
32:
31:
24:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1236:
1234:
1226:
1225:
1220:
1210:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1200:
1195:
1190:
1185:
1178:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1170:
1164:
1152:
1144:
1141:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1087:
1073:
1067:Needs updating
1059:
1045:
1031:
1015:
1001:
987:
972:
971:
966:
965:
958:
944:
930:
916:
902:
889:
875:
859:
844:
843:
835:
826:
823:
818:
815:
811:
810:
790:
789:
780:
779:Use of WebCite
777:
769:
768:
759:
756:
734:
731:
726:
725:
716:
713:
708:
707:
698:
695:
660:
659:
650:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
621:
620:
598:
597:
588:
585:
584:
583:
566:template in a
553:
552:
549:Colonel Warden
543:
540:
539:
538:
522:
521:
513:
510:
509:
508:
500:
499:
479:
478:
466:
465:
457:
454:
449:
448:
446:Carlossuarez46
437:
436:
405:
404:
396:
393:
388:
385:
363:
360:
318:
315:
305:
302:
293:
292:
284:
281:
267:
264:
242:
239:
236:
235:
229:
224:
215:
212:
211:
210:
202:
201:
197:
196:
192:
189:
185:
182:
175:
169:
166:
149:
146:
101:
98:
96:
93:
64:
63:
56:
30:
29:
21:
16:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1235:
1224:
1221:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1213:
1204:
1201:
1199:
1196:
1194:
1191:
1189:
1186:
1184:
1181:
1180:
1176:
1171:
1168:
1165:
1162:
1159:or otherwise
1158:
1153:
1150:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1139:
1133:
1131:
1130:Citation Hunt
1127:
1122:
1120:
1111:
1102:
1098:
1097:
1088:
1086:
1082:
1074:
1072:
1068:
1060:
1058:
1054:
1046:
1044:
1040:
1032:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1016:
1014:
1010:
1002:
1000:
996:
988:
986:
982:
974:
973:
969:
968:
967:
962:
957:
953:
945:
943:
939:
931:
929:
925:
917:
915:
911:
903:
900:
899:
890:
888:
884:
876:
874:
870:
869:
860:
858:
854:
846:
845:
841:
840:
839:
838:
834:
832:
824:
822:
816:
809:
807:
802:
799:
795:
787:
784:Suggested by
783:
782:
778:
776:
774:
766:
763:Suggested by
762:
761:
757:
755:
753:
752:
751:
744:
741:
732:
730:
723:
722:66.57.190.166
720:Suggested by
719:
718:
714:
712:
705:
702:Suggested by
701:
700:
696:
694:
691:
686:
683:
678:
672:
664:
657:
654:Suggested by
653:
652:
648:
642:
639:
634:
629:
625:
624:
623:
622:
619:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
599:
595:
592:Suggested by
591:
590:
586:
572:
562:
555:
554:
550:
547:Suggested by
546:
545:
541:
537:
534:
529:
524:
523:
520:
517:Suggested by
516:
515:
511:
506:
502:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
480:
476:
472:
471:
470:
464:
461:Suggested by
460:
459:
455:
453:
447:
444:Suggested by
443:
442:
441:
435:
432:Suggested by
431:
430:
429:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
403:
400:Suggested by
399:
398:
394:
392:
386:
384:
382:
378:
374:
370:
361:
359:
357:
353:
349:
345:
343:
339:
335:
332:
329:
325:
324:AlexNewArtBot
316:
314:
312:
304:Press release
303:
301:
299:
291:
290:MacGyverMagic
288:Suggested by
287:
286:
282:
280:
278:
274:
265:
263:
261:
257:
253:
249:
240:
238:
237:
233:
228:
227:
221:
213:
208:
204:
203:
199:
198:
193:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
171:
167:
165:
161:
159:
155:
147:
145:
141:
139:
135:
130:
128:
121:
114:
109:
107:
99:
94:
92:
88:
85:
81:
78:
74:
70:
60:
57:
50:
49:
44:
37:
27:
23:
22:
19:
1166:
1148:
1123:
1115:
1094:
1022:
896:
866:
828:
820:
803:
791:
772:
770:
749:
748:
745:
739:
736:
727:
709:
689:
687:
681:
679:
661:
467:
450:
438:
423:opposes and
420:
406:
390:
365:
356:CatScan tool
350:has created
346:
330:
320:
307:
294:
269:
244:
162:
151:
142:
131:
126:
120:unreferenced
110:
105:
103:
89:
86:
82:
68:
67:
58:
43:archive page
195:themselves.
111:Each month
77:Jimmy Wales
1212:Categories
579:{{rescue}}
482:Highlight
421:actionable
1157:libellous
786:OlEnglish
765:Xasodfuih
638:Trilobite
613:(away) -
402:Skomorokh
369:NPWatcher
214:Proposals
1177:See also
970:Accuracy
901:: 42,497
798:link rot
704:SilkTork
656:Rividian
473:Link to
463:Casliber
377:Wikicite
352:a script
334:contribs
277:tutorial
158:deletion
18:Shortcut
1161:harmful
961:Fix one
956:525,894
914:105,579
887:463,661
794:WebCite
750:preview
152:Unlike
100:Problem
1085:16,568
1071:38,975
1043:15,747
999:10,915
928:89,147
857:83,339
817:Future
740:single
682:forces
611:chaser
594:Chaser
571:notice
348:Ais523
252:T:TDYK
248:WP:FAC
179:WP:AFC
26:WP:IRE
1057:7,659
1029:1,458
942:1,248
519:WilyD
174:made.
154:stubs
115:with
62:goal.
671:fact
663:WP:V
615:talk
609:".--
561:find
528:Wily
496:here
486:and
375:and
328:talk
258:and
250:and
156:and
136:and
1143:FAQ
1101:760
985:255
873:699
690:any
434:DGG
383:.
106:all
1214::
1167:Q:
1149:Q:
1121:.
1099::
1083::
1069::
1055::
1041::
1027::
1013:29
1011::
997::
983::
954::
940::
926::
912::
885::
871::
855::
773:or
674:}}
668:{{
574:}}
568:{{
564:}}
558:{{
415:,
125::
123:}}
117:{{
75:,
963:!
532:D
331:·
326:(
222:.
209:)
45:.
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.