3267:
reliable sources make that link with the topic, otherwise to do so is original research. If there is a reliably sourced broad concept of tertiary value like say "autoimmune disease", it likewise can't include just any verifiable smoking info, on the same basis. If there is a reliably sourced concept of tertiary value like 'highest court', it can't include that verifiable discussion of the 'court of oyer and terminer' in the Salem Witch trials (or smoking), unless qualified secondary reliable sources make that link with the topic, otherwise to do so is original research. On the other hand, to the extent that qualified reliable secondary and tertiary sources on comparative law or legal systems, link courts-of-a-kind, such that there can be an unoriginal tertiary concept, those things and only those things can be discussed unoriginally and supported within the topic. It remains, if you've got an original way to explain -- through use of just verifiable-this-or-that or otherwise -- about a 'disease' or 'highest court' this is not the place for you to publish it. --
4596:
necessarily a broad concept article. A broad concept article, almost by definition will include prose text to assist a reader in distinguishing between conceptually similar topics (that may or may not all be similarly named). Where these point to existing articles, I'd expect the description on the BCA to align pretty closely with what is in the articles -- and as such, I wouldn't necessarily expect a full set of citations for such entries, presuming the article is reasonably up to snuff. If any portions in the BCA describe some topic that is not connected with an existing article, then yes, some sort of citations would be needed for that info. But of course, there is a wide range of articles in between as well as undoubtedly many misattributed to one that belong to the other (or to neither).
266:(i.e. without having degrees from different departments in the typical university)? Although there are many species of tuna that are called "bluefin tuna" person could be an expert in "bluefin tuna" without needing to specify a particular species. Compare that to a person claiming to be an expert on "Mercury", or a "battery" expert. The expert on "Mercury" would need to have both Roman mythology and astronomy in his knowledge base. The expert on "battery" would need both chemical engineering and law, as well as some military history and (depending how significant the subtopic was considered) baseball, too.
1550:
5432:
3334:
conformance is still needed to judge OR or NPOV or V -- ultimately it is what is in the summary
Knowledge article (including examination of the cite) which needs to prove itself for our content policies to be practically effective and continuously evaluated. (I know you were not trying to give a full summary, so this is not trying to be gotcha, it is trying to evaluate article text "smoking causes lung cancer" within specific article topic context.) --
4305:
4295:
2425:: "All material in Knowledge must be attributable to a reliable, published source" + "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." Meaning that if I question something, I have no idea how the text landed into the article: whether you copied from a book but forgot to footnote, or after reading very many books you formed an educated opinion, which may or may not reflect
123:
3426:, somewhere on the page; these were not one-source-per-sentence or even one-source-per-section proposals – and both failed to get consensus. I'd like us to get to that goal someday, and I think that taking baby steps is the way to get there. But if we can't admit that the existing policies don't actually say this now, then it will be harder to move them in the direction that we'd both like them to go.
2261:. Isn't it a court that can defenestrate decisions even of the supreme court? How about a logical sloppiness in the lede? "the highest court" and then a bit below "tend not to have a single highest court". It may be not exactly WP:SYNTH, but sloppily written out of someone's head (which is if not SYNTH, then definitely OR) and hence in a sore need in citations for verification. --
172:
154:
4675:
3149:
and the proposal was already failing. The end result is that there is no rule requiring a citation in any article (assuming you can write one with no direct quotations, no contentious matter about BLPs, etc.), and the non-existence of this longed-for (by some) rule has been confirmed by the community refusing to create such a rule earlier this year.
4865:
misunderstanding and misusing the concept of disambiguation to make pages characterized as disambiguation pages, but in actuality containing nothing but collections of variations on a specific concept. The approaches proposed are common sense. Removing this relatively compact guidance on the subject would be the opposite of common sense.
4901:
term. Such encompasses other article "types" like list articles (which are really a "editor invented topic" concept article), set index articles etc. The little guidance that
Knowledge provides for this type of thing is just scattered fragments. Maybe this could evolve to be good analysis and guidance regarding that. Sincerely,
2167:. What we have, rather, is a basic definition, some discussion of the broad categories of variation, and then a country-by-country list where any reader can find just about any country of interest, and either glean what they need to know or follow the link in that section to a more detailed discussion. What we can
5137:"Not a disambiguation page" has left a lot of editors asking, then, what is it? The clearest answer I've seen is that a BCA is an article. I realize you were the editor who split this guideline out in the first place, but it's left a lot to be desired in terms of clarity. "X is not Y" doesn't say anything. "
5280:
is perhaps the guideline closest to providing guidance in an area where existing guidance is minimal and fragmented and maybe it could be involved into such. Including changing the title to "concept article". Since my idea is perhaps very abstract/ethereal, I consider a merge to be fine. Sincerely,
5279:
My own view is a bit more abstract and so I can't provide a straightforward opinion. If the main scope is "make an article on these, not a disambig" then I'd say yes, let's merge it. The material is largely a duplication, and such would really be about disambig anyway. On a more abstract level, this
5155:
Yes, of course a BCA is an article. It is an article on a kind of abstraction, one that is typically very difficult for lay persons to write about, because we are not taught to think in terms of explaining such abstractions. That makes the work of writing these articles particularly nuanced, but also
4900:
While I don't consider "concept article" to be a unique category, this is a complex area which needs more analysis and guidance from
Knowledge. Topics that are somewhat created by editors, topics that are created by a term but which otherwise not distinct topics, topics that are really mostly about a
3348:
I agree with everything you've said, except perhaps the "prove itself" wording. I don't think that the
Knowledge article needs to prove itself. I think editors need to decide whether they accept it. The best route to that, of course, is for the editor(s) working on the article to write an accurate
3266:
Some of the above does not appear to fully appreciate that NOR is regularly context dependent, and it is not just another way to say 'verifiability'. As much as 'smoking causes lung cancer' may be verifiable, it is not to be included, in say the "multiple sclerosis" topic, unless qualified secondary
3235:
My post was clearly not implying that you didn't know what a lead or list was, I was pointing out that things about it that might be relevant. But I wasn't talking about lists when I wrote "Mere collection of content from different places about one (broad or narrow) topic in one article is not per se
3148:
earlier this year. I remember this particularly because I confidently asserted (on a different page) that I thought the community was ready to insist that all articles should have at least one source, and then discovered that a major discussion was underway to ban the creation of unsourced articles,
1820:
to know whether some portion of them are "the" White Terror (but it looks like it would only be some of them). It's possible that there could be a viable article on the subject of related events. I see books talking about "the White
Terrors", in the plural, which suggests that we could combine some
1123:
is problematic in that there really are not any defining features for what a BCA is. Without that, the category is likely to be populated by arbitrary subjective criteria (i.e., identifying a BCA is in the eye of the beholder--what one editor might think of as a BCA, to another editor would simply be
265:
There are some common sense tests that I like to use when examining potential dabconcept situations. One of these is what I call the "I'm an expert" test. It goes like this: could a person reasonably represent themselves as an expert in , without having to be an expert in multiple fields of knowledge
4564:
stitch together an article that links all of those topics nominally together (through etymology from the same Roman god). But a BCA shouldn't be a disambiguation that is expanded into a chimera, or an article about multiple examples sharing the same name. The more we talk about this the more I think
3378:
We are not writing for each other, we are writing for readers, so the text needs to prove itself. And no, I think that will be interpreted as you don't need a source, when in fact, you do need a source, always (preferably sources), even when we let you off, about being forthcoming and upfront with
2022:
is an article that addresses a concept" – "a concept", as in "exactly one concept", aka "one thing". BCAs are pages that are about "one thing" (the concept of a particle, a federation, or having a judicial entity that outranks the lower courts) with many related specific instances (see the contents
1907:
Based on the examples of supreme court and out of bounds, the problem there is that it's only a brief broad overview and then "here's a laundry list of examples". The "one section for each country" format is especially prominent, and it's very rare that it's the best way to present information. More
5234:
know how to do these things. Frankly, Knowledge would benefit greatly from an entire series of guidelines on things like "how to write a biographical article", "how to write a geographical article", "how to write an article on a company", "how to write an article on a legal case", and so on. No one
4595:
I'm not sure there is a simple or easy way to distinguish SIA and BCA. A simple listing of things of the same type with similar names is a set index (or if they are all topics with relevant content in existing articles and all the entities have the same name, perhaps a disambiguation page), but not
3499:
I think the proposition that most countries with a court system have a highest court in that system is basically just math, and that most countries call their highest court a "supreme court" while some use other names is evidenced by the fact that most of the sections listing highest courts link to
3179:
Or, even better, I can run an experiment. In my job stack I have a couple decent subjects for which sources are so obfusively eloquent, that I cannot collect enough stamina to summarize them into an encyclopedic article. Let me write an unreverenced plausible text and see if it survives for a week.
2901:
Both articles could use some work. And the
Supreme straddles the fence on whether it about a concept or a term, but in this case I think that that is inevitable. "Federation" probably needs a more specific title because it is about "national-level" type federations. While I question whether "broad
2840:
I don't think that these have any particular danger of wp:Synth specifically. I also don't think that these are some type of special case. Many topics are broad. Often they are groupings (of items covered in other articles) created by a term, where they have something in common. And sometimes the
2800:
are the first one in this table. It wasn't cited, but a couple of minutes with a search engine easily proved that it could be. WP:NOR doesn't require the existence of a single citation. It requires that everything be "attributable", but that means "possible to attribute", not "already attributed
4646:
I think this is a really important area for firm explication though. Perhaps the framing could be adjusted—"Writing about broad concepts" or what have you. Much of the unsatisfying gray areas of what should be on
Knowledge come from articles with novel scope (i.e. scope not definitively treated in
2978:
It's common accepted practice that material in the article is a summary of what is in sources, and that the lead is a summary of those summaries. It's accepted that this is not per se wp:synthesis. When it moves into the more creative stuff defined in wp:NOR as synth, or where the summarizaton is
1273:
guidelines for disambiguation pages that should be converted into SIAs or lists (or we could have all three rolled into one page). However, there has to be some means of marking disambiguation pages that do need to be converted into something else, because they are merely listing types of a single
615:
both were also intended to give editors reminders in the fine print to change internal links to point directly to the intended article instead of the disambiguation/set-index page (if necessary). But in many cases, internal links pointing to broad-concept articles are useful. As BD2412 stated, the
5301:
was reverted not long ago. Should editors be discussing the wording of this guideline here or there? It is disorganized and the duplication of the guideline in two differnet locations is not helping. A merge would at least centralize everything but we really just need to make it more readable and
4486:
into a BCA by somehow conceptually tying together the name of the element and the planet and the deity and the car company, and so on with pieces of text from the articles, yes, that would be problematic. In virtually all cases, however, a BCA is structured as a BCA precisely because the concepts
2518:
Wiki editing is a summary of what the source(s) says/say. And the lead is a summary of those summaries. You need to treat sentences individually. The operative definition is: If it's unchallenged, it's normal editing. If it's challenged and then not sourced according to WP:NOR/WP:Ver then it's
2256:
Well, what prevented you from adding the footnote to make me look completely stupid? But this is just sweeping the bug further under the carpet. How about "also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and high (or final) court of appeal, and court of final appeal"? Also I heard there is such
5353:
Except the majority of the content is at best only a disambiguation-adjacent topic, which is why it was split out in the first place. The content left in the disambiguation guideline should focus squarely on disambiguation pages (or in this case, what should not go on a disambiguation page). The
3333:
your PMID cite, you only covered smoking, but not cancer or the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, and thus if, how, and why "smoking causes lung cancer" matters to RS on the topic - that too may be in your cite, but it is not in your summary, so better and fuller summary text-to-cite
2792:
Only the last two are technically OR. The first one might not be a problem (we don't have a cite-everything rule), but assuming that it requires a source, then all of the first three are WP:V – but not WP:OR. The last two are WP:OR (and also WP:V, because all OR additionally violates WP:V).
2553:
Nice cherrypicking. NOR further say "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable...". Meaning that if you cannot cite, then it is probably OR. Even if a source exist there is no guarantee that a
Wikipedian (mis)reads something biased, suiting their
2158:
is exactly what it needs to be. Almost every country in the world has a judiciary with a unitary court to which final appeals are taken, but legal principles and separation of powers vary widely across the globe, to the point that discussing them in this context except in the most general terms
1953:
are in a sorry state because they are effectively a disambiguation for many different things, poorly written and poorly sourced. There are lots of words that are effectively homonyms, referring to multiple different things. This is a call for disambiguation / navigation aid, not a single article
2380:
But proceeding under the assumption that we do, then the fact that it's uncited is irrelevant to the NOR policy, and what matters is that someone, somewhere in the world, published this. It's possible that the synonyms would have to be cited separately, but I don't believe the list of synonyms
1331:
would be better as a Broad-concept article. The article may need summary paragraphs for each section and the 3 or 4 main usages but I think it's pretty good. Also, I'm wondering if there needs to be a new tag to replace the disamb tag. If anyone responds please be sure to ping me. Thanks in
4755:
makes sense. Especially because it largely duplicates the information there. When it's merged there, the meaning of the guidance is more clear, that editors shouldn't write a disambiguation page where we can write an article. Having it as a separate guideline makes it seem like a broad concept
3296:
But overall, it appears above that "NOR" is being used very loosely, to mean only "they didn't cite stuff as much as I would like them to". If we can't get a rule that requires citations (and so far, we haven't been able to), then we need to come up with a way of strongly encouraging the best
4418:
That's an interesting observation. I'm not sure how much categorizing them helps. It raises a different question for me, mainly if we even have a common framework for what a vital article should look like. IMO, the true vital articles look like a good article with a clear topic and focus. My
1812:
exists...somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article", to quote the definition of OR from that policy. (The key, and sometimes overlooked, part of OR is that it's only OR if it's impossible to cite the
3206:
against NPP and found that NPP was inconsistent and made up non-existent rules to reject articles. My favorite comment came from a reviewer, after the results were posted, who said that if he'd been warned about the project, he would have been more lenient with the articles he reviewed.
4864:
We are getting close to the territory of "I don't understand what this beam in the middle of the building does, let's pull it out". This page exists, and the specific categories of examples on the page exist, precisely because editors in the past have had a shameful history of routinely
2458:
It sounds to me like your opinion, no matter how rational, does not align with the policy. The NOR policy is about whether a source exists "somewhere in the world". Your view is about whether a source is cited in the
Knowledge article, which is an important point, but also a separate
3605:
Articles still need to have a real enclyclopedic topic. I think that this essay gives good and needed guidance on certain types of articles. But it also could cause problems....some will read it as saying that if it's a "broad concept" it can have an article. I'll get started on the
5084:
is a more appropriate home. I feel pretty strongly that neither one states the real point: don't make a disambiguation when an article is more appropriate. Whether we host it at one location or two, the point can be made shorter and more clear. I also think that separating it from
4503:, whether semaphore flags or wiring or traffic lights. While it is not the prettiest thing as a BCA, it was flatly incorrect as a disambiguation page. Now, at least, it provides some basic theory of what a color code is, why they exist, and what sorts of drawbacks they might have.
4918:
Per what I've said above, I agree. Though, I think this is always going to be a subject distinctly reliant on localized context and intuition; I worry there's limited unification we can do without assuming general philosophical positions regarding naming and linguistic reference.
3067:
WP:V requires inline citations in four circumstances (up from three, so we're slowly making progress). Anything that isn't one of those four circumstances doesn't require an inline citation. It only requires that it be possible to find a source – not that one already be cited.
2281:
For example, I could write "Smoking causes lung cancer", just "out of my head" (i.e., using prior knowledge), with no citations in sight. Are we agreed that even if this would be a violation of all that is right and decent, it would not technically be a violation of the
764:
Agreed; although I'm uncertain the poor distinction between summary-style articles and broad-concept articles implies that either or both wouldn't benefit from a category of their own. Nor would the large number of candidate articles be a valid reason not to get started.
3484:
So "The capital of France is Paris", without any source, is self-proving text? I think that does conform to (real-world) sources, and I don't think editors should insist that a source be produced, but I don't think I would describe that as "text that proves itself".
879:
just a dictionary definition and then came to
Knowledge to see what was there and sure enough there was a whole article on it? Try it sometime-- think of a word, and see if there is not an article on that word. Cause I betcha there is... and maybe there shouldn't
533:, it is important to note that broad concept articles still need to be reliably sources and cited. That is good example of a broad concept topic, however. The test is very simple. All "undersea mountain ranges" are some kind of range of mountains found under a sea.
2136:
article should be about "one thing". I can imagine a better version of that article where it focuses on legal principles and separation of powers, instead of the mishmash of badly sourced stubs pasted together. Alternmann brings up an interesting comparison with
2823:(edit conflict) IMO the "probably OR" is not correct. The process is that it needs to be challenged, and then if nobody sourced it the material needs to get removed. "Challenged and not sourced" is not a determination of whether or not it was OR. Sincerely,
2971:
My advice would be to follow the norms for articles in general. And IMHO the Supreme court article, while it could use some improvement it does not have the major problems that you feel it does. A couple of thoughts which may or may not be relevant here:
5560:(which is about removal of children from violent homes and the like). Perhaps the article that we are missing is indeed a broad concept article on child safety, outlining the array of hazards particular to children, and mitigating measures ranging from
1629:
at least in sections "Temporary organizational arrangements (general concept)" and "Temporary peaces". I am also not sure that "Legal concepts and procedures" is OK (contains phrases). And iun other places. Can you take a better look? E.g., split a BCA
5316:
The issue is that Broad Concept Articles are not disambiguation pages, even though some improperly constructed BCAs might superficially resemble a disambiguation page. A properly formed BCA has only a tangential relationship to disambiguation.
5302:
explain what editors are supposed to do if a single terminology has multiple uses and whether those should be multiple articles with the same terminology or just one article. IMO the remedy is always to follow how the sources handle that term.
707:. First, I do not think many of them are obvious. It is easy to spot a disambiguation/set-index page because it's basically a short list of related links. But as I mentioned, a broad-concept article can look like any normal article written per
4365:
This is a Knowledge maintenance category, not a general readership category, so if it is recognized as BCA, then in belongs to the category. Is it really important that DAB pages are included into category "All article disambiguation pages"?
1416:
Please remember when writing a broad-concept article that the concept must have been discussed specifically as a concept in third-party reliable sources. Do not synthesize sources that seem to you to be talking about something similar into an
3440:
It's not a matter of whether the source is in the article, it is a matter of whether the article conforms to the sources. For that to happen, the sources 1) must exist; and 2) the text must conform to them. So, the text must prove itself.
4610:
IMO these are not a distinct class. It's just a name for for a nature/situation that exists to varying degrees on different articles. I'm not weighing in on categorization (I don't work in that area), just making a general comment.
493:. Let me try and rephrase my original inquiry: is it desirable to tag a broad-concept primary-topic article as such, so as to avoid it becoming conflated with less general, more specific related concepts? I'm thinking specifically of
5334:
to make an article versus a disambiguation. It's useful if it tells us when to make one article for wide usage of the same name, compared to making a disambiguation for multiple separate articles with the same name. It was split from
1909:
3469:
Either it conforms to sources, or it does not. That said, it certainly would be better and more responsible to not force others to search for the source, and so people will keep on insisting that the source be produced, nonetheless.
3405:, especially for badly written articles about otherwise appropriate topics. I encourage everyone to get back to working on articles. But I'll reiterate that if this policy needs clarifying, I want to encourage that discussion too.
3281:
I agree that one would not want to imply relevance, which could violate both NPOV and NOR. If we'd like to develop this idea further, we should find a different example for smoking, as smoking is a significant problem for MS per
869:
like "report" which have lots of meanings in English, none of which are related to any of the existing subtopics specifically mentioned here now). I am not certain to what extent this would simply provide a method to circumvent
2539:, I quoted the policy: NOR says that a source has to exist "somewhere in the world". I wonder if you have been under the impression that "All material must be attributable" refers only to sources already cited in the article.
3363:
This would both raise the standard (no policy recommends "most", or any proportion at all) and perhaps discourage people from using "original research" when they mean "fewer citations than I personally believe would be ideal".
5014:
Would you mind answering a quick straw poll? At the moment, it looks like more than half of BCA is repeated word-for-word in DABCONCEPT, including all the examples. So imagine that the choices were artificially limited to:
2467:" – a category that is always required to have an inline citation per WP:V, and that is entirely dependent upon the personal judgment of editors. You could treat a statement like "the human hand has five digits" as something
3421:
I know you personally believe that "the text needs to prove itself", but that's not actually in any of our policies. There were two attempts earlier this year to say that articles need to have at least one source – at least
4720:, unless you can find sources that are primarily about the larger subject and not primarily about the individual instances. We must either have lots of separate articles or lose all the information on the specific ones.
1239:
1102:
3763:
2878:
article is C-class for a reason. It's not our best work. I'll leave it to other editors to argue whether it needs structural changes, or just some better prose and research. I think there is at least a consensus that
2171:
have is either a disambiguation page (because the concept is unambiguous, and the examples are just instances of the concept) or a set index article (because not all highest courts share the name "Supreme Court").
4774:
I don't quite follow, unless you think the inverse possibility of further filling out this page and making the summary on the other page more concise wouldn't work—it's a bit long for a summary on the other page.
3315:
the Knowledge editor just knows what they are talking about, including ultimately verifiability (and even more so NPOV and OR), so it is no wonder 'more citations' is a call that will be heard regularly and made
2462:
I want articles well-sourced, but I don't claim that uncited material is a violation of the NOR policy. If you were to take my advice, I'd suggest that you stop calling that "OR" and start calling it "something
5044:
For myself, I think that either of these would be a substantial improvement on what we've got, and I don't feel strongly about which one is best, but I think that the second option would be easier to implement.
240:, where they have previously been long established as a guideline. Cosmetic changes have been made here (addition of subheaders and the like), but no changes have been made to the substance of the guideline.
2954:. Are you going to argue with this? I am tired of this sidetracked bickering. Supreme Court was tagged in August. If it will remain in this sorry state in October, I will start mercilessly chopping off all
2403:. Adding citations looks like it would just be a matter of spending some time finding and spamming in citations. I doubt that a single word in the first paragraph would change as a result of that effort.
1908:
generally, there is a risk of synth with these articles, but it's the same risk of synth anywhere that someone might try to handpick "here are the most important aspects" instead of following the sources (
4195:
5381:
Personally, not at all. I don't think I've ever edited this page. Does being an essay somehow clarify the "loose and unclear" points? The page in general has seen almost no significant edits since 2014.
5399:, with the next biggest contributor offering 2.5% of the text. Was there ever a discussion, let alone a consensus to split this out? I agree with North8000 that this isn't a distinct class of article.
335:
I would like to add a line indicating that lists of cuisines featuring a common element or combining common elements and cooking styles are not ambiguous under this guideline. I just de-disambiguated
3520:
I would, so no need to quibble over the phrase. "The capital of France is Paris", should appear in almost no articles, and it won't be supported by sources on the subject of almost all articles.
2887:
are good examples of discrete topics, and not merely a single term referring to multiple things. If someone has a proposal to improve this guideline to encourage better articles, I am open to it.
2441:
paranoid. Using the "no smoking" example from the above, I would let it go in an article, say, about gamers who smoke too much and thus create nuisance to their roommates. But in an article about
1821:
of them into a broad-concept or overview article without violating any of our usual standards. Some of them are about the French Revolution, and others are about the Russian/communist ones.
2393:
4419:
observation is that a lot of broad concept articles are just disambiguation pages that have been built into a Frankenstein monster with a copy-paste of the leads of the articles they link to.
719:, you could wind up tagging almost every single product brand and multiple product lines article. Under that example, it could be argued that anything from a series of software products like
4800:
Whether it's merged or split, I would be in favor of DABCONCEPT being rather blunter. Like "Don't create a disambiguation page if someone could write an article instead". Or "For example,
3756:
2300:
A really bad example, colleague. If you don't provide an ironclad reputable ref, I can readily expand it "..., but its danger is greatly exaggerated", citing top notch researchers hired by
1846:- I agree, but the point is that for a BCA the risk of WP:SYNTH is especially high due to the very broadness. Therefore I think some words of caution would be handy, to prevent pages like "
2902:
concept" is a distinct class of article, I think that this provides much needed analysis and guidance for articles with this aspect and could be further developed to do that. Sincerely,
1784:
865:
editing guideline should have a subtopic for English words that are BCAs (right now the guideline has subtopics for physics, geography, aspects of sports, etc., but not for broad concept
63:
2042:
example above, someone could probably write a BCA on the White Terrors around the French revolution, and someone could write a different BCA on the White Terrors connected with the
1722:
leaves an impression that it was written by a student who got an assignment from a wikiphile professor and who knows how to write a good essay, but blissfully ignorant of our rules
3749:
3574:
1398:
815:, I'd like to look at reviving this. As a newcomer to the area of BCAs I found it very hard to get a handle on what a BCA is (still working on it), and the lack of entries in
2997:
Yes I know what a list and a lede are, but thank you for reminding. To decrease the chance of a revert war I will start with tagging the sentences I feel need reference. --
2598:{od} I feel like you keep confusing "did not" and "cannot". If you "cannot" cite, then it is probably OR. But if you "could" but "did not", then it's definitely not OR.
3534:
All right. The language I'd use for that is "All material must be verifiable", with (if contextually appropriate) the addition that "but not all material needs to be
2242:(Oxford Reference) defines "Supreme Court" as "The highest court in a court hierarchy". Therefore, the definition is not a violation of the original research policy.
5443:
I found this image today, and I have tried to find an article to put it in. It's possible that we need a broad-concept article. I don't even know what to call it.
1686:
appears to be complaining about an AFD, but this idea appears to be mentioned in less than 0.1% of AFDs. This page is linked in only 316 AFDs out of 537K (0.06%).
3929:
3145:
4379:
Identifying DAB pages changes how search results in the visual editor handle the page (to make it harder for unwary editors to accidentally link to a DAB page).
4200:
4190:
1394:
5519:
5041:
Is one of these options obviously superior in your mind? If everyone's agreed, and I just haven't noticed, I don't want to waste your time exploring options.
3097:
text I slap NOR tag and it is the job of authors to prove that I am wrong. Of course, if there 1-2 suspicious sentences, I slap "cn" on them individually. --
2331:
Let's not split hairs on hypothetical examples. I can readily nitpick that taken out of context the statement is vague up to the degree of incorrectness. --
4733:) to explain why "Floods in California" (or "Fast food restaurant buildings on the National Register of Historic Places", or a global overview article like
2200:
simply spread the lede thinly over the article, but this did not make the article less SYNTH. If you don't believe me, I can readily add a dirty dozen of
1402:
5483:
has no mention of blue dye being used as a signal that this product is not food. I remember when it was generally believed that food was not bright blue.
2857:
itself (which could be a concept) is a topic worth covering which is a good example where the concept itself is suitable to cover in a separate article.
1092:, and I'm reluctant to add some of those already there... notably the Nokia one, I still think that's just plain wrong. So I guess that means removing it.
4298:
4210:
98:
4433:
Looking through the very short list of tagged BCAs, they seem to mostly be at an intermediate level. For example, it's not the very general article on
1125:
401:, how can we tag a broad-concept article as so to avoid it being confused for the primary-topic article? For now, I've created a Knowledge-maintenance
5651:
4265:
3018:, I'd argue with that. Unverifiable information is inadmissible. Uncited information (=what you're complaining about) is technically not. From the
1323:
as an example. I recently opened a can of disambiguation worms by improved the disamb page and redirections creating thousands of disamb links. But
198:
4804:
should be a whole article about the general concept of a particle, and not a dab page that just lists all the specific different kinds of particles."
3180:
Then despite my reluctance I will be reasonably close to permit myself to start considering arguments favoring the acceptance of your point of view (
3050:
Material in an article for which editors are unable to find any reliable sources that could be cited to support it. Unverifiable information may be
3826:
2050:(=one concept + same name) would be a better fit, because White Terrors aren't as abstract as a typical BCA subject, but it wouldn't be impossible.
448:
the primary topic; it's just primary for an unusually abstract topic with a range of discrete subtopics. Examples that I particularly like include
3393:
There is a lot of activity on this discussion so I may have lost the thread. I just want to support the overall call for sources, and respect for
1864:
4687:
In terms of why this page exists, I wonder if it relates to the merged-article notability problem. That is, we have some editors who say that:
3141:
It's not an instruction. It's a statement of fact: The absence of citations does not tell you anything about whether the article violates NOR.
5396:
4205:
4146:
3816:
850:
4807:
If we keep separate pages, I would prefer that DABCONCEPT gets much shorter. I'd start with a goal of cutting it to 25% the current length.
3311:
There are so many things in our policies that cannot be judged without citation (whether currently in the article or not), or leaving one to
1870:
1793:
1773:
1242:
and subsequent de-listing when they've been converted. Put a notice on it stating how waffly the definition is (perhaps not in quite (;-: -->
104:
4240:
4225:
3349:
representation of the literature as a whole, and to drop in plenty of good sources for the convenience of anyone checking up on them later.
2046:. You wouldn't write a single BCA on all of those, because those are "two things". I would suggest to any eager editor that the model of
194:
179:
159:
1265:
guideline we have on converting poorly styled disambiguation pages into something other than disambiguation pages. We could have separate
2801:
in the form of an inline citation". None of that is a NOR violation. (But you can still claim that it's a WP:V violation if you either
4220:
4156:
1653:
I agree with the above concern that this guideline opens wide gates to WP:SYNTH. There definitely must be some roadblock againts it. --
4647:
other tertiary sources), and I think this guideline is essentially good at, well, guiding editors on how to think about article scope.
1808:, that doesn't mean that even a single sentence in the article represents "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no
4835:
I suppose what I'm articulating is it seems there should be some top-level guideline dedicated to article scope as distinct from mere
4438:
4275:
3924:
2946:
To be clear, the whole discussion above was about semantics whether WP:SYNTH or not. While the major issue is that some BCA, such as "
2141:. I think there is a way to steer editors in the right direction to make better articles, where one word can refer to many concepts.
4255:
4250:
4230:
4055:
3152:
Or, to adapt your wording above, thoroughly unreferenced texts actually are admissible, whether or not you and I happen to like it.
2781:
2464:
2400:
2239:
1554:
1542:
1730:. Legal area is not the topic where verifiability is an trivial matter. Regarding your final question, my concern comes from here:
2399:
says the former is "chiefly in South Asia and Africa".) The others look like they may be the 'local' name for the subject, e.g.,
5089:
makes it less clear -- coincidentally, this guideline fails to take its own advice and compile related information in one place.
4308:
4245:
3777:
2233:
Is "the very definition" the first sentence's claim that "a supreme court...is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts"?
5064:
5019:
4839:. It might be one of the most common difficulties among editors of all stripes that names and topics and scopes are conflated.
4383:
4348:
4280:
3713:
2008:
1120:
1089:
816:
704:
568:
402:
48:
1764:
4710:
4215:
3972:
2975:
Mere collection of content from different places about one (broad or narrow) topic in one article is not per se wp:syntheses.
2283:
1433:
1142:
739:
628:
624:, with the discrete subtopics treated as detailed subarticles of the main broad-concept article. Furthermore, putting such a
589:
561:
406:
44:
3500:
articles titled "Supreme Court of ..." or "... Supreme Court", while some point to "High Court of..." or other such titles.
861:
of the word "report" (and not really comprehensive at that, but that's not the point for now). I am thinking that perhaps
4401:
4126:
93:
4628:
At the risk of sounding controversial, should this guideline be downgraded to an essay? At best, it's already covered at
1101:
As part of my education (and because it needs doing anyway) I'd like to write some BCAs. Can you suggest some members of
5494:
5196:
Editors already know how to write articles: use sources that cover the topic, or the combination thereof. That includes
4821:
Merge is generous, and redirect would be fine. DABCONCEPT already covers it. I agree the advice can be much more blunt.
4235:
3791:
2710:
2675:
2047:
1480:
Apologize for the ping if it's unwanted, but we could still use opinions at this discussion. Pinging top ten editors at
134:
1867:
problems are high, but I don't see why a "broad" (or "vague") subject would be at high risk for people making stuff up.
1238:
It could serve a useful purpose even if we just have these articles and ones that go through the process of listing at
4260:
4141:
4022:
3902:
3732:
3055:
3041:
2067:
1022:
986:
84:
4531:
they are stitched-together article leads, much like Frankenstein's monster was stitched together from various parts.
4400:
It occurred to me that there is substantial overlap between BCAs and vital articles, so I have left an invitation at
5330:
We don't need a guideline to tell us that "articles aren't disambiguation pages". The most useful guidance is about
3352:
Thinking back over this conversation, I am wondering this morning if NOR would benefit from a sentence like "Adding
2192:
I find it extremely weird that an unreferenced lede with oversweeping statements "is exactly what it needs to be."
857:, a broad concept article which is one step short of (or, depending on how you look at it, one step beyond) being a
5212:? It's so central to the guideline that it's right in the nutshell, and the rest of it mostly duplicates what's at
4174:
4136:
3967:
2841:
term gives a slanted view of the group. I think that sometimes we need to acknowledge that they are more of just a
599:
508:
413:
5297:
I would like to raise criticisms with the way that these guidelines are phrased and I found that the consensus at
5230:"Editors already know" is too much of an assumption. Bad articles are written all the time by editors who clearly
1235:
Understood, but in that the category does exist, the prototypical examples used at WP:BCA should be in it, surely?
5465:
4730:
4706:
4269:
3525:
3475:
3446:
3384:
3353:
3339:
3272:
3029:
2745:
2417:
You can argue what you want, my only answer will be "Sorry, colleague, you may be mistaken". I am sorry to sound
1928:
1689:
It seems to me that we probably don't need any extra roadblocks against it, and that adding some would likely be
656:
3297:
practice without misleading claims (e.g., that uncited text is a "violation of policy" or "original research").
5450:
5298:
4698:
4121:
3724:
3181:
2643:
1631:
1462:
1379:
883:
871:
858:
554:
530:
494:
237:
184:
2720:
The content combines information from multiple (cited) sources to claim something that no single source says.
2429:, or simply decided "it must be so, because it is self-evident". Now, the question is indeed "whether we read
585:
If you want to have a hidden category to track them, that is fine. But I fail to see how a separate, visible
5486:
5480:
5404:
5372:
5344:
5221:
5146:
5094:
4953:
4826:
4765:
4637:
4570:
4424:
4012:
3952:
3877:
3410:
2892:
2274:
So... just to make sure we're both using the same words to mean the same thing, are we actually agreed that
2146:
2032:
1972:
is many things. The article's subject is the highest judicial body in a given system. That's "one thing".
1959:
1809:
1341:
1324:
621:
609:
423:
5491:
4944:
I agree the guidance could be more clear. But this guideline isn't it. It mostly restates the section from
750:, etc.) could be considered a "broad-concept article" and would be required to be placed in that category.
663:
5608:
5531:
5484:
5050:
4812:
4742:
4546:
4536:
4462:
4409:
4391:
4356:
3672:
3596:
3543:
3538:" or "and that includes material whose verification process involves finding a reliable source yourself".
3490:
3460:
3431:
3369:
3302:
3212:
3157:
3119:
3073:
2814:
2544:
2480:
2408:
2322:
2291:
2247:
2119:
2055:
1986:
If it is an identifiable "one thing", then it is no longer a broad concept article. For example, we have "
1977:
1892:
1878:
1826:
1701:
1696:
I wonder whether your concern was prompted by a problematic example, rather than by the typical BCA page.
959:
716:
1850:" to be written in SYNTH style in the first place. I would very much like do delete half of its lede. --
5617:
Yes, I think that's the scope of it. I don't doubt that there are sources broadly covering the subject.
5400:
5368:
5340:
5217:
5142:
5090:
5008:
4949:
4822:
4761:
4725:
It's possible that this exists to give people something a little more specific to point at (compared to
4633:
4566:
4524:
4420:
4017:
3977:
3841:
3806:
3773:
3406:
2888:
2142:
1955:
770:
674:
576:
520:
434:
377:
140:
2437:, I treat any sufficiently nontrivial statement as Wikipedian's opinion, i.e., OR. Of course, I am not
1766:
Constitutional Courts in Comparison: The U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court
1270:
1165:
Note that I have about three dozen dabconcept resolver drafts in various states of disrepair listed at
4756:
article is different from a regular article, when they are the same thing. I believe that is what the
4320:
And may be more of such there, so that the adherence to this guideline can be monitored uniformly. --
3741:
1990:", and it does have the list of federations, but we dont classify the page as BCA.... Or shall we? --
1266:
5213:
5117:
any more than content describing the parameters of an article on a biography or an historical event.
5060:
5033:
5023:
4752:
4717:
4629:
4560:
example is instructive not just because there are so many Mercury articles, but because you probably
4495:. That used to be a disambiguation page that just laid out all the circumstances in which things are
4072:
4007:
3907:
3728:
3660:
3611:
3521:
3471:
3442:
3380:
3335:
3268:
2472:
2418:
2258:
2028:
1913:
1258:
645:
4632:. At worst, it's what North8000 says: articles are just articles, and this guideline is misleading.
5431:
5287:
4908:
4757:
4702:
4618:
4370:
4337:
4324:
4131:
4089:
4043:
3957:
3897:
3685:
3650:
3625:
3581:
3243:
3188:
3170:
3132:
3101:
3001:
2986:
2962:
2909:
2864:
2830:
2802:
2770:
2756:
2734:
2699:
2664:
2632:
2558:
2526:
2509:
2449:
2364:
2335:
2308:
2265:
2224:
2107:
2098:
2082:
1994:
1854:
1738:
1682:
We do not appear to be drowning in BCAs. We have relatively few disputes over BCAs. For example,
1657:
1638:
1595:
1375:
1166:
1076:
947:
501:
484:
395:
74:
4672:
The idea of downgrading it appeals to me, but there has been such a trend away from the idea that
1718:
is simply underreferenced and salvageable (although tagged since 2009; looks like dgaf case), but
1405:) to justify articles that at present include nothing but original research (usually specifically
5336:
5239:
5209:
5114:
5086:
5081:
4974:
4945:
4931:
4851:
4787:
4659:
4111:
4099:
4094:
4050:
4000:
3857:
3836:
3831:
3535:
3357:
3059:
3051:
3037:
3033:
3019:
2275:
2043:
2024:
1805:
1714:, to my tastes, is a perfict BCA, but the remaining two are glaring examples of bad articles. If
1679:) seem like appropriate subjects to me, with no unusual or unacceptable risk of SYNTH violations.
1530:
1501:
1481:
1470:
1430:
1335:
89:
5521:
3112:
Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy
3615:
5632:
5612:
5604:
5583:
5561:
5543:
5535:
5527:
5504:
5500:
5408:
5390:
5387:
5376:
5362:
5359:
5348:
5325:
5322:
5311:
5291:
5257:
5225:
5191:
5150:
5132:
5098:
5075:
5072:
5054:
5046:
4982:
4957:
4939:
4912:
4880:
4859:
4830:
4816:
4808:
4795:
4769:
4746:
4738:
4667:
4641:
4622:
4604:
4601:
4574:
4550:
4540:
4532:
4518:
4473:
4466:
4458:
4428:
4413:
4405:
4395:
4387:
4374:
4360:
4352:
4341:
4328:
4151:
4106:
4082:
4065:
3962:
3947:
3917:
3912:
3862:
3689:
3676:
3668:
3654:
3629:
3607:
3600:
3592:
3585:
3547:
3539:
3529:
3515:
3494:
3486:
3479:
3464:
3456:
3450:
3435:
3427:
3414:
3388:
3373:
3365:
3343:
3306:
3298:
3283:
3276:
3247:
3216:
3208:
3192:
3174:
3161:
3153:
3136:
3123:
3115:
3105:
3089:
say "for which no reliable, published source exists", sure. But how on Earth can I prove that
3077:
3069:
3005:
2990:
2966:
2941:
2913:
2896:
2868:
2834:
2818:
2810:
2562:
2548:
2540:
2530:
2513:
2484:
2476:
2453:
2412:
2404:
2386:
2368:
2339:
2326:
2318:
2312:
2295:
2287:
2269:
2251:
2243:
2236:
2228:
2187:
2150:
2123:
2115:
2102:
2086:
2059:
2051:
1998:
1981:
1973:
1963:
1934:
1896:
1888:
1882:
1874:
1858:
1830:
1822:
1790:
1770:
1742:
1731:
1705:
1697:
1661:
1642:
1620:
1599:
1575:
1534:
1474:
1449:
1438:
1383:
1349:
1303:
1299:
1289:
1252:
1248:
1226:
1222:
1200:
1153:
1150:
1136:
1133:
1114:
1110:
1012:
1009:
998:
994:
911:
907:
839:
835:
796:
792:
780:
774:
759:
755:
720:
678:
580:
548:
524:
475:
438:
381:
358:
320:
300:
296:
281:
255:
70:
5080:
Since the advice is about "should I make a disambiguation or a regular article", I feel like
3635:
620:
treated as the primary topic. And a number of broad-concept articles are usually written per
5627:
5578:
5557:
5307:
5252:
5186:
5127:
4875:
4513:
4116:
4077:
4038:
3510:
3199:
200K. A new article created by you won't be treated like a new article created by a newbie.
2936:
2806:
2468:
2182:
2075:
1887:(I've moved most of that "lead" – which was longer than most articles – to other sections.)
1690:
1615:
1505:
1489:
1284:
1195:
1072:
943:
812:
766:
744:
670:
572:
543:
516:
470:
430:
373:
353:
315:
276:
250:
5490:
Magnetic balls are toys that have been banned in the US because kids keep swallowing them.
1873:, so I don't think adding anything to this low-traffic will make any practical difference.
1079:
as good examples of BCAs. Maybe these might provide some better examples for the guideline.
5600:
5592:
5460:
5455:
4726:
4060:
3995:
3867:
3203:
3036:(editors could locate a reliable source that supports this material, if they tried to) or
2498:
2426:
2422:
2216:
2164:
1445:
1406:
1367:
1030:
955:
935:
5354:
details for how to construct a BCA do not belong in guidelines for disambiguation pages.
3197:
I think you might be disappointed by the double standards. You've been editing for : -->
287:
This strikes me as an excellent test, and should be incorporated into the guideline. The
3202:
I don't know if you remember it, but about 15 years ago, a small group of editors ran a
2979:
disputed, that's generally where it starts being considered to be synthesis. Sincerely,
659:
that could/should become a nice broad-concept/summary-style article? Or would we need a
5000:
4988:
4454:
4450:
4367:
4334:
4321:
3872:
3811:
3801:
3796:
3682:
3647:
3578:
3185:
3167:
3129:
3098:
3015:
2998:
2959:
2555:
2536:
2506:
2446:
2361:
2332:
2305:
2262:
2221:
2079:
1991:
1851:
1735:
1723:
1654:
1635:
1592:
5446:
The subject is "children eating things they shouldn't", and related to this, we have:
5645:
5565:
5549:
5242:, but it's just an aside to the question of what the scope of the article should be.
5205:
5201:
5173:
5004:
4964:
4921:
4841:
4777:
4751:
The more I think about it, the more I think deprecating this or merging this back to
4734:
4649:
4442:
3718:
3577:: a BCA (at ,east it looks like one) under scrutiny, just as I was arguing here. --
3402:
3398:
3086:
3062:. Determining whether material is truly unverifiable may require substantial effort.
2947:
2919:
2880:
2875:
2874:
There's been a lot of activity here in the last day, so I'll just reiterate that the
2797:
2502:
2430:
2374:
2301:
2155:
2133:
2071:
1969:
1950:
1946:
1847:
1756:
1727:
1719:
1715:
1676:
1672:
1626:
1526:
1517:
1493:
1466:
1425:
1206:
1178:
1173:
is ridiculous as a disambiguation page (it's just a list of fish sandwiches; compare
1170:
971:
939:
924:
899:
887:
784:
507:
is to be applied to disambiguation pages, can we come up with a template to apply in
5156:
very rewarding. However, the admonition against having mere disambiguation pages at
4962:
I mean, I see it as that section needing to be a shorter summary of this guideline.
902:
before implementing the idea of creating a subcategory on English words on my own.
711:. Second, I think such a category would eventually be unmanageable. If you take the
5588:
5553:
5383:
5367:
Those "how to" details are pretty loose and unclear. Have you considered an essay?
5355:
5318:
5104:
5068:
4996:
4836:
4597:
4482:
indicates a flawed understanding of disambiguation pages. If someone tried to make
3664:
2434:
2039:
1817:
1605:
Interim does appear to contain unrelated senses, such as the names of media works.
1513:
1509:
1497:
1359:
1295:
1244:
1218:
1160:
1146:
1129:
1106:
1005:
990:
951:
903:
831:
788:
751:
708:
292:
3093:? (I don't know what the term is for this fallacy). If I see a large unreferenced
2853:
turn into a random coatrack, even if not technically wp:synth. In other cases the
17:
5103:
Useful information can be repeated in more than one place. However, I agree with
3146:
Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 211#Deprecating new unsourced articles
3128:
Yes, they may. Or may not. How can this be an instruction for a (non-)action? --
3111:
3011:
2773:
the content, if you believe that no reliable source exists to support that claim.
2737:
the content, if you believe that no reliable source exists to support that claim.
2702:
the content, if you believe that no reliable source exists to support that claim.
2667:
the content, if you believe that no reliable source exists to support that claim.
2635:
the content, if you believe that no reliable source exists to support that claim.
1457:
Feedback sought for proposed article-to-DBA/SIA conversion at Allopathic medicine
1448:
is due, but it should not be too stringent. Otherwise it will kill articles like
898:). Thoughts?? If there aren't any in a day or two I will consider opening up a
5618:
5569:
5436:
5303:
5243:
5177:
5118:
4992:
4866:
4504:
3501:
3394:
2927:
2357:
2349:
2204:
2173:
1606:
1328:
1320:
1275:
1186:
1060:
1041:
975:
712:
534:
461:
344:
306:
267:
241:
3739:
IMO all entries in the following template must be reviewed for their BCAness.
5470:
5165:
5113:. Therefore, describing the parameters of a BCA does not inherently belong at
4680:
4492:
2884:
2138:
2111:
2012:
1987:
1355:
1048:
5603:, and simple facts (e.g., motor vehicles are more dangerous than strangers).
4523:
I tend to agree with you about the concept in theory, but I also think that @
3356:
after most material is the best practice, but the mere fact that material is
2958:
unreferenced statements (of course I will spare sky-is-blue-type texts). --
2317:
Sure, leaving it uncited is a bad idea. But are we agreed that it's not OR?
1863:
I'm not sure that the risk of SYNTH is especially high. I think the risk of
1683:
2497:
from the policy. I agree that a suspicious phrase or two is hardly NOR, but
2352:
in the same way. I know, tl;dr and stuff, but at the very beginning I wrote
1563:
1210:
1174:
967:
733:
728:
724:
340:
336:
329:
5176:
does nothing to educate the reader as to the parameters of these articles.
3455:
Is it possible, in this way of thinking, for uncited text to prove itself?
3286:
2018:
A broad-concept article is about "one thing". See the first sentence: "A
1945:
is well constructed because it does talk about a single broad concept. But
4480:
just disambiguation pages that have been built into a Frankenstein monster
4404:. They might find more value in your idea of tagging articles than I do.
2475:, and nobody can gainsay you in that (because it actually happened once).
1804:
or some intro-to-international-law textbooks, but even if it's completely
1124:
an overview article). A category that *might* work is something more like
5596:
5515:
5197:
5169:
5157:
4801:
4446:
3709:
3634:
Dunno about having nice day or easy work, but "medium height people have
2066:
P.S., and while we are at it we do have IMO a really weird disambig page
1942:
1711:
1668:
1064:
1056:
963:
931:
635:
453:
5063:
trimmed to summarize only the essential points and leave the details to
4716:
But you really cannot merge these articles into a broader article, like
4347:
Is it actually important for articles on broad concepts to be placed in
1294:
Yes, good point. Tempted to jump to a solution on that but I'll resist.
1213:
is awesome but flagged as inadequately referenced and it is, and I fear
4557:
4483:
3821:
1588:
1581:
1240:
Category:Disambiguation pages to be converted to broad concept articles
1182:
1103:
Category:Disambiguation pages to be converted to broad concept articles
652:
512:
369:
288:
5339:
without much change, and makes a lot less sense without that context.
3166:
Tell it to admins who move such artcles into draft space on sight. --
2759:
source anywhere in the world, in any language, supports this content.
921:
I'm trying to get a better idea of what a BCA is and how it's useful.
3643:
2442:
2132:
I was talking about the current state, and I agree with you that the
886:
is in the end a toothless policy: I have yet to see it applied in an
854:
460:, which address the variety of perspective for each of those topics.
5139:
Don't make a disambiguation page when an article is more appropriate
4333:
Also, shall be all/most of them categorized both as BCA and SIA? --
2849:
rather than everything in the group covered by the term. The latter
2725:
Find and cite a different reliable source that supports the content.
2690:
Find and cite a different reliable source that supports the content.
2220:" is an outrageous statement to hear from a seasoned Wikipedian. --
717:
WP:BROADCONCEPT#Product brands and multiple commercial product lines
171:
153:
2381:
introduces anything that hasn't already been published elsewhere.
2354:
Legal area is not the topic where verifiability is a trivial matter
2091:
Wow! Looks like the main thing that this guideline says not to do.
5430:
4691:
4434:
3639:
3082:
3012:
thororughly unreferenced texts, which is inadmissible in Knowledge
1052:
875:(have you ever tried to think up a term that you were pretty sure
457:
2601:
A few years ago, I set up this table to explain the differences:
2433:
the same way". My view is paranoid: until proven otherwise using
1126:
Category:Disambiguation pages changed into broad-concept articles
5568:
dangers to cautions about swallowing hazards like those listed.
5511:
5161:
1217:
might end up a lot worse. But thanks, this is very educational.
1068:
449:
3745:
2731:
Tag the statement to indicate that it needs a different source.
2696:
Tag the statement to indicate that it needs a different source.
2661:
Tag the statement to indicate that it needs a different source.
1088:
I think that all examples given in WP:BCA should be members of
480:
Thanks for the clarification; I was confused by the wording of
4565:
we should clarify this in the guideline, in one or two lines.
2658:
Replace the unreliable source with a reliable source yourself.
2554:
agenda. Just as you did now :-) (no offense, just teasing) --
2007:
a broad-concept article even if it's not (manually) placed in
236:
The contents of this page were initially copied directly from
116:
39:
26:
2605:
How to fix problems with verifiability and original research
1591:
is a BCA? If yes, how to indicate this (or edit the page)? -
1463:
Talk:Allopathic medicine#Make this page a disambiguation page
557:. While we don't conclude the discussion about the template
4697:
Some specific instances of that subject are also notable:
3638:, google say :-) Talking about being discriminated against
3401:. I also want to echo editors who say it's good to respect
1209:, it's a shame IMO it passed RfD in quite the way it did.
1021:
I'd like to help fix it, but I don't want to be like what
1393:
This guideline has been used a lot recently in AFDs (see
3236:
wp:syntheses." I was talking about articles in general.
1128:
which could be used to track such transformed entities.
291:
expert would need some physical chemistry as well, IMO.
5208:. How would we write this guideline without mentioning
4684:
that I think we should consider the implications first.
2197:
2193:
1371:
1205:
I'll have a look, thanks! Not sure I'm game to take on
1044:
927:
567:, I intend to make such articles members of the hidden
491:
189:
2505:
then something is wrong with Wikipedian's research. --
1185:
is another one that I have had my eye on for a while.
197:, where you can join the project or contribute to the
3575:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Address to the Nation
2922:
is ideal as an undercited article. I mean that it is
5110:
a broad-concept article is not a disambiguation page
1522:(Skipping already notified: Andrewa|BD2412|Bkonrad).
4402:
Knowledge talk:Vital articles#Broad-concept article
4183:
4167:
4031:
3986:
3938:
3886:
3850:
3784:
3054:(e.g., to an unreliable source or to a source that
2653:The cited source is not reliable for this content.
1816:I don't know enough about the historical events in
981:Frankly I find these a bit confusing. For a start,
5507:when kids swallow them, but we don't mention that.
3028:Material in an article that is not followed by an
1759:probably ought to be sourced to books like these:
703:And good luck trying to find articles to put into
387:How to tag broad-concept articles already written?
5141:" would be much clearer advice. And shorter too.
3832:Cabinet department / Office of the prime minister
2519:synth and a violation of both of these policies.
1625:If it is not a BCA, it is in severe violation of
372:is an instance of broad-concept article? Thanks.
187:pages on Knowledge. If you wish to help, you can
5435:Which of these are candy …and which of them are
1555:Knowledge:Village pump (idea lab) § Merge reform
1543:Knowledge:Village pump (idea lab) § Merge reform
634:template could get buried on long articles like
2950:" are thororughly unreferenced texts, which is
2764:Re-write the content to match reliable sources.
2685:The cited source does not support the content.
1786:Interpreting Constitutions: A Comparative Study
5493:Swallowing one is usually fine, but two risks
2629:Tag the content as needing an inline citation.
1667:The examples of broad-concept articles (e.g.,
787:rather than a BCA? Just asking, I'm new here!
651:-- do you think it could be applied to, e.g.,
3757:
2767:Tag the statement as being original research.
2445:among gamers I would surely demand a ref. --
2278:text is not automatically a violation of NOR?
1243:those terms)... still thinking about that...
985:seems to me to be a prototypical topic for a
8:
5552:, where this content might fit. I note that
5235:is suggesting that this guideline would not
5107:here. The entire point of this page is that
3360:does not mean that it is original research".
1274:thing rather than listing ambiguous things.
1141:Just one other of a similar type of article
4478:I think the proposition that many BCAs are
989:rather than a BCA. Am I missing something?
845:Adding broad "language" words as a subtype?
641:Well, I was thinking for of a hatnote like
183:, an attempt to structure and organize all
3878:Assistant minister/Parliamentary secretary
3764:
3750:
3742:
2603:
2210:tags, starting from the very definition. "
1755:being inappropriate or at risk of SYNTH.
1553:You are invited to join the discussion at
148:
4553:(bad BCA). 05:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
2918:To be clear, I am not at all saying that
2845:and that the article should be about the
2626:Find and cite a reliable source yourself.
1783:Goldsworthy, Jeffrey Denys (2006-02-09).
193:attached to this talk page, or visit the
133:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
3040:(nobody can find a reliable source that
2421:, but let me give you my own a piece of
1844:being inappropriate or at risk of SYNTH.
4737:) is a viable way to organize content.
3289:, which means that would not be OR and
2373:The question is really whether we read
1865:Knowledge:Knowledge is not a dictionary
1763:Rogowski, Ralf; Gawron, Thomas (2016).
1257:I would also point out that as of now,
1027:an elephant reversing into a greenhouse
595:template would be practical or useful.
150:
4527:is not wrong to say that some of them
4479:
2728:Re-write it to match the cited source.
2693:Re-write it to match the cited source.
2499:when a whole huge section goes uncited
2353:
2211:
1835:
1461:Your feedback would be appreciated at
1424:(or equivalent) be added to the page?
1414:
1409:) and seem by their very nature to be
1366:Opinions are needed on the following:
1181:also deserves encyclopedic treatment.
1167:User:BD2412/sandbox#Disambig resolvers
737:with its multiple TV shows and films (
444:In a sense, the broad concept article
3659:I'd recommend merging the subject of
3591:That wasn't even open for two hours.
1871:Knowledge:Nobody reads the directions
638:, where it could get barely noticed.
7:
490:, which I just tried to improve now
207:Knowledge:WikiProject Disambiguation
122:
120:
3837:Speaker / President of the assembly
3329:And just to use solely the way you
2926:exactly as the encyclopedia needs.
2805:it or declare that you think it is
1105:that it would be good to start on?
896:No, no, not going there, not today!
511:? Now I'm thinking specifically of
210:Template:WikiProject Disambiguation
139:It is of interest to the following
47:for discussing improvements to the
5476:Then there is what we don't have:
4445:, in between those two. It's not
4439:Supreme Court of the United States
3925:International development minister
2503:is fullfilled mit astaunishing ken
1840:can be poorly written without the
1751:can be poorly written without the
669:, offering more specific wording?
364:Academy as a broad-concept article
25:
4731:Knowledge:Deletion policy#Merging
4299:Government ministers by portfolio
4056:Ministry of Education and Culture
2401:Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong)
177:This page is within the scope of
5652:WikiProject Disambiguation pages
4673:
4304:
4303:
4294:
4293:
2358:lawyers would not be filthy rich
1941:I sympathize with this concern.
1732:Talk:White Terror#Primary topic?
1548:
851:deletion discussion taking place
170:
152:
121:
64:Click here to start a new topic.
5526:So... is this a broad concept?
5456:Kinder Surprise#Safety concerns
5065:Knowledge:Broad-concept article
5020:Knowledge:Broad-concept article
4384:Category:Broad-concept articles
4349:Category:Broad-concept articles
3714:Category:Broad-concept articles
3032:. The uncited material may be
2616:optionally with this template:
2009:Category:Broad-concept articles
1413:based on such. Should the text
1368:Talk:Scare-line#WP:Content fork
1121:Category:Broad-concept articles
1090:Category:Broad-concept articles
817:Category:Broad-concept articles
731:, etc), to a media series like
705:Category:Broad-concept articles
569:Category:Broad-concept articles
403:Category:Broad-concept articles
343:, as examples. Any objections?
5633:23:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
5613:22:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
5584:22:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
5536:21:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
5409:19:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
5391:19:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
5377:19:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
5363:18:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
5349:18:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
5326:17:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
5312:16:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
5292:01:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
5258:21:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
5226:18:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
5192:18:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
5151:18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
5133:17:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
5099:17:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
5076:16:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
5055:16:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
4983:14:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
4958:14:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
4940:13:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
4913:12:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
4881:13:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
4860:11:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
4831:02:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
4817:02:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
4796:02:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
4770:02:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
4760:of this discussion has shown.
4747:18:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
4711:January 1982 California floods
4668:14:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
4642:13:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
4623:14:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
4575:13:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
3973:Ministry of trade and industry
3690:03:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
3681:Thanks for the hint. Done. --
3677:03:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2493:of the policy. Unlike you, I
2284:Knowledge:No original research
1143:Category:Introductory articles
827:of those are in the category!
740:Star Trek: The Original Series
407:Template:Broad-concept article
1:
4605:20:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
4556:Yes, that's what I mean. The
4549:(not what is meant here) and
4541:05:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
4519:01:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
4467:22:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
4429:20:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
4414:20:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
4396:20:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
4375:19:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
4361:18:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
4342:18:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
4329:18:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
4127:Ministry of religious affairs
3655:22:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
3630:20:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
3601:20:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
3586:17:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
3548:23:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
3530:23:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
3516:23:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
3495:23:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
3480:23:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
3465:23:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
3451:22:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
3436:21:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
3415:20:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
3389:17:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
3374:16:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
3344:10:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
3307:20:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
3277:17:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
3248:01:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
3217:02:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
3193:02:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
3175:02:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
3162:01:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
3137:01:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
3124:00:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
3106:00:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
3078:21:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
3006:20:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
2991:18:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
2967:18:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
2942:17:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
2914:21:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2897:16:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2869:18:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
2835:16:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2819:16:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2563:15:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2549:15:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2531:14:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2514:07:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2485:07:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2454:05:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2413:04:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2385:appears to be a generic term,
2369:04:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2340:04:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2327:04:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2313:04:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2296:03:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2270:03:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2252:03:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2229:03:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2188:01:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
2151:19:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
2124:20:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
2103:19:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
2087:19:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
2060:20:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
1999:19:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
1982:17:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
1964:16:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
1935:01:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1897:04:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
1883:04:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
1859:04:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
1831:03:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
1743:02:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
1706:01:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
1662:23:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
1643:20:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
1621:19:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
1444:Some kind of warning against
1350:11:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
1119:As I said elsewhere, I think
912:08:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
820:
61:Put new text under old text.
5495:Gastrointestinal perforation
2494:
2070:, which defies all rules of
2048:Knowledge:Set index articles
1384:05:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
723:with its multiple versions (
4437:or the specific article on
4142:Ministry of social security
4023:Ministry of water resources
3903:Ministry of foreign affairs
3772:Common types of government
3733:Category:Set index articles
2068:Federation (disambiguation)
1789:. Oxford University Press.
1684:the above comment from 2018
1304:13:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
1290:13:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
1253:13:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
1227:13:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
1201:12:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
1154:11:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
1137:10:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
1115:03:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
1013:02:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
999:21:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
840:21:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
797:22:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
359:17:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
301:14:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
282:17:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
256:04:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
69:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
5668:
4175:Minister without portfolio
4137:Ministry of social affairs
3968:Ministry of infrastructure
2465:WP:Likely to be challenged
1810:reliable, published source
1439:20:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
655:, which is an undesirable
339:, and would use that, and
321:22:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
180:WikiProject Disambiguation
5466:Child-resistant packaging
5397:92% written by one editor
4975:
4932:
4852:
4788:
4707:Los Angeles flood of 1938
4690:The general subject of a
4660:
4289:
4226:Communications ministries
3144:It looks like you missed
3110:See the text of WP:NOR:
2952:inadmissible in Knowledge
2615:
2612:
2609:
1632:Interim (general concept)
1576:17:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
823:... I'm not sure whether
775:18:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
760:08:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
679:18:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
581:06:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
549:04:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
525:03:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
476:20:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
439:18:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
165:
147:
99:Be welcoming to newcomers
33:Skip to table of contents
5461:Cannabis edible#Children
5451:Consumption of Tide Pods
4699:California flood of 1605
4457:, in between those two.
4221:Climate change ministers
4122:Ministry of home affairs
3725:Ministry of home affairs
2782:original research inline
2621:The content is uncited.
1600:21:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
1535:23:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
1475:06:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
1325:we've since discussed it
890:with success (maybe the
555:undersea mountain ranges
531:Undersea mountain ranges
495:Undersea mountain ranges
382:14:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
238:Knowledge:Disambiguation
32:
5481:Chemical drain cleaners
4309:Ministries by portfolio
4281:Public works ministries
4013:Ministry of electricity
3953:Ministry of the economy
3827:Office of the president
2796:The first sentences of
2610:When the problem is...
2033:Category:Supreme courts
1169:. On the current list,
1004:Nope. It is confusing.
622:Knowledge:Summary style
405:. I'd like to create a
213:Disambiguation articles
5564:to the aforementioned
5548:We have an article on
5518:mention child safety.
5440:
5395:Same. This article is
4246:Environment ministries
4216:Agriculture ministries
4211:Presidents of assembly
4206:Deputy prime ministers
2489:Well, I disagree with
1954:about several things.
1319:Please consider using
960:Southern United States
925:WP:BCA#Common examples
853:regarding the article
819:was part of that. See
616:broad concept article
94:avoid personal attacks
5434:
4241:Environment ministers
4147:Minister for Veterans
4018:Ministry of Petroleum
3978:Ministry of transport
3817:Deputy First Minister
3807:Deputy prime minister
3704:Categorization of BCA
2020:broad-concept article
859:dictionary definition
849:There is currently a
783:, for example, be an
715:example mentioned on
629:Broad-concept article
590:Broad-concept article
562:Broad-concept article
553:Thanks for improving
49:Broad-concept article
4718:Floods in California
4679:Policy is not magic
4382:Placing articles in
4236:Education ministries
4073:Information minister
4008:Environment minister
3908:Immigration minister
3729:Ministry of Interior
3661:Medium-height people
3612:Medium height people
3293:not be UNDUE either.
3198:20 years, with : -->
2809:to be challenged.)
2390:court of last resort
2259:Constitutional court
2029:Category:Federations
1389:Mentioning OR/SYNTH?
894:should be changed!
232:Note on attribution.
4703:Great Flood of 1862
4132:Ministry of science
4090:Ministry of justice
4083:Ministry of housing
4044:Ministry of culture
3958:Ministry of finance
3898:Ministry of defence
2711:failed verification
2606:
2491:your interpretation
2397:Oxford Dictionaries
2196:was hideous SYNTH.
2108:List of federations
1968:I don't think that
1806:WP:Glossary#uncited
1077:Worst-case scenario
1025:brilliantly termed
948:Ministry of Finance
509:WP:Chimera articles
5562:child safety seats
5441:
4276:Interior ministers
4157:Minister for women
4112:Ministry of sports
4100:Ministry of labour
4095:Minister of labour
4066:Ministry of health
4051:Education minister
4001:Ministry of energy
3858:Secretary of state
3636:plenty of coverage
2676:unreliable source?
2604:
2044:Russian revolution
2025:Category:Particles
1769:. Berghahn Books.
1023:Sir Lancelot Sprat
930:lists as examples
657:WP:Chimera article
497:. Secondly, while
135:content assessment
105:dispute resolution
66:
18:Knowledge talk:BCA
5556:as a redirect to
5505:Bowel obstruction
5501:Water crystal gel
5299:WP:disambiguation
4837:naming convention
4491:. Take a look at
4489:are not ambiguous
4386:does ...nothing?
4317:
4316:
4266:Health ministries
4261:Forest ministries
4256:Foreign ministers
4251:Finance ministers
4231:Defence ministers
4152:Ministry of women
4107:Regional minister
3989:natural resources
3963:Industry minister
3948:Commerce minister
3918:Interior ministry
3913:Interior minister
3889:foreign affairs /
3863:Minister of state
3091:no source:s exist
3058:the material) or
3042:directly supports
2790:
2789:
2348:But yes, we read
2198:This intervention
1910:plugging my essay
1795:978-0-19-927413-0
1775:978-1-78533-273-9
1573:
1561:
1524:
1523:
1450:Secretary (title)
1436:
1370:. A permalink is
1358:being split from
1346:
987:set index article
884:WP:NOTADICTIONARY
881:
872:WP:NOTADICTIONARY
781:Microsoft Windows
721:Microsoft Windows
600:Set index article
429:. Your thoughts?
414:Set index article
229:
228:
225:
224:
221:
220:
115:
114:
85:Assume good faith
62:
38:
37:
16:(Redirected from
5659:
5625:
5576:
5558:Child protection
5547:
5427:Possible subject
5250:
5184:
5125:
5059:I prefer to see
4981:
4979:
4973:
4969:
4938:
4936:
4930:
4926:
4873:
4858:
4856:
4850:
4846:
4794:
4792:
4786:
4782:
4677:
4676:
4666:
4664:
4658:
4654:
4511:
4477:
4307:
4306:
4297:
4296:
4117:Tourism minister
4078:Housing minister
4039:Culture minister
3766:
3759:
3752:
3743:
3727:redirected from
3618:articles. :-)
3508:
3354:inline citations
3113:
3013:
2934:
2786:
2780:
2750:
2746:synthesis inline
2744:
2715:
2709:
2680:
2674:
2648:
2642:
2607:
2209:
2203:
2180:
1931:
1925:
1922:
1919:
1916:
1799:
1779:
1613:
1574:
1571:
1570:
1568:
1559:
1552:
1551:
1521:
1486:
1485:
1429:
1347:
1344:
1340:
1338:
1282:
1193:
1164:
1073:World domination
944:Finance Minister
874:
830:How can I help?
813:User:Fgnievinski
668:
662:
650:
644:
633:
627:
614:
608:
604:
598:
594:
588:
566:
560:
541:
506:
500:
489:
483:
468:
428:
422:
418:
412:
400:
394:
391:After resolving
351:
313:
274:
248:
215:
214:
211:
208:
205:
192:
174:
167:
166:
156:
149:
126:
125:
124:
117:
40:
27:
21:
5667:
5666:
5662:
5661:
5660:
5658:
5657:
5656:
5642:
5641:
5619:
5601:Infant swimming
5593:Stranger danger
5570:
5541:
5429:
5244:
5178:
5119:
4971:
4965:
4963:
4928:
4922:
4920:
4867:
4848:
4842:
4840:
4784:
4778:
4776:
4674:
4656:
4650:
4648:
4547:WP:FRANKENSTEIN
4505:
4471:
4318:
4313:
4285:
4201:Prime ministers
4196:Vice presidents
4179:
4163:
4061:Health minister
4027:
3996:Energy minister
3982:
3934:
3882:
3868:Deputy minister
3846:
3780:
3770:
3706:
3522:Alanscottwalker
3502:
3472:Alanscottwalker
3443:Alanscottwalker
3381:Alanscottwalker
3336:Alanscottwalker
3269:Alanscottwalker
3204:sting operation
3182:means "you won"
3056:doesn't support
3044:this material).
3030:inline citation
2928:
2784:
2778:
2748:
2742:
2713:
2707:
2678:
2672:
2646:
2644:citation needed
2640:
2207:
2201:
2174:
1929:
1923:
1920:
1917:
1914:
1796:
1782:
1776:
1762:
1651:
1607:
1587:Can it be that
1585:
1564:
1562:
1558:
1549:
1546:
1487:
1459:
1391:
1364:
1342:
1336:
1334:
1276:
1187:
1158:
956:Northern Europe
936:triangle center
919:
882:but then maybe
847:
666:
660:
648:
642:
631:
625:
612:
606:
602:
596:
592:
586:
564:
558:
535:
504:
498:
487:
481:
462:
426:
420:
416:
410:
398:
392:
389:
366:
345:
333:
307:
268:
263:
242:
234:
212:
209:
206:
203:
202:
188:
111:
110:
80:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
5665:
5663:
5655:
5654:
5644:
5643:
5640:
5639:
5638:
5637:
5636:
5635:
5591:could include
5524:
5523:
5508:
5498:
5488:
5474:
5473:
5468:
5463:
5458:
5453:
5428:
5425:
5424:
5423:
5422:
5421:
5420:
5419:
5418:
5417:
5416:
5415:
5414:
5413:
5412:
5411:
5277:
5276:
5275:
5274:
5273:
5272:
5271:
5270:
5269:
5268:
5267:
5266:
5265:
5264:
5263:
5262:
5261:
5260:
5078:
5042:
5039:
5038:
5037:
5036:significantly.
5030:
5012:
4942:
4898:
4897:
4896:
4895:
4894:
4893:
4892:
4891:
4890:
4889:
4888:
4887:
4886:
4885:
4884:
4883:
4833:
4805:
4723:
4722:
4721:
4714:
4695:
4685:
4608:
4607:
4593:
4592:
4591:
4590:
4589:
4588:
4587:
4586:
4585:
4584:
4583:
4582:
4581:
4580:
4579:
4578:
4577:
4469:
4455:Word processor
4451:Microsoft Word
4380:
4315:
4314:
4312:
4311:
4301:
4290:
4287:
4286:
4284:
4283:
4278:
4273:
4263:
4258:
4253:
4248:
4243:
4238:
4233:
4228:
4223:
4218:
4213:
4208:
4203:
4198:
4193:
4187:
4185:
4181:
4180:
4178:
4177:
4171:
4169:
4165:
4164:
4162:
4161:
4160:
4159:
4149:
4144:
4139:
4134:
4129:
4124:
4119:
4114:
4109:
4104:
4103:
4102:
4092:
4087:
4086:
4085:
4075:
4070:
4069:
4068:
4058:
4053:
4048:
4047:
4046:
4035:
4033:
4029:
4028:
4026:
4025:
4020:
4015:
4010:
4005:
4004:
4003:
3992:
3990:
3988:
3987:Environment /
3984:
3983:
3981:
3980:
3975:
3970:
3965:
3960:
3955:
3950:
3944:
3942:
3941:infrastructure
3940:
3936:
3935:
3933:
3932:
3927:
3922:
3921:
3920:
3910:
3905:
3900:
3894:
3892:
3890:
3888:
3884:
3883:
3881:
3880:
3875:
3873:Undersecretary
3870:
3865:
3860:
3854:
3852:
3848:
3847:
3845:
3844:
3839:
3834:
3829:
3824:
3819:
3814:
3812:First minister
3809:
3804:
3802:Prime minister
3799:
3797:Vice president
3794:
3788:
3786:
3782:
3781:
3771:
3769:
3768:
3761:
3754:
3746:
3737:
3736:
3722:
3716:
3705:
3702:
3701:
3700:
3699:
3698:
3697:
3696:
3695:
3694:
3693:
3692:
3571:
3570:
3569:
3568:
3567:
3566:
3565:
3564:
3563:
3562:
3561:
3560:
3559:
3558:
3557:
3556:
3555:
3554:
3553:
3552:
3551:
3550:
3518:
3419:
3418:
3417:
3361:
3350:
3322:
3321:
3320:
3319:
3318:
3317:
3294:
3263:
3262:
3261:
3260:
3259:
3258:
3257:
3256:
3255:
3254:
3253:
3252:
3251:
3250:
3233:
3232:
3231:
3230:
3229:
3228:
3227:
3226:
3225:
3224:
3223:
3222:
3221:
3220:
3219:
3200:
3150:
3142:
3065:
3064:
3063:
3048:
3045:
3038:§ unverifiable
3026:
2994:
2993:
2976:
2838:
2788:
2787:
2776:
2775:
2774:
2768:
2765:
2760:
2752:
2751:
2740:
2739:
2738:
2732:
2729:
2726:
2721:
2717:
2716:
2705:
2704:
2703:
2697:
2694:
2691:
2686:
2682:
2681:
2670:
2669:
2668:
2662:
2659:
2654:
2650:
2649:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2630:
2627:
2622:
2618:
2617:
2614:
2611:
2596:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2585:
2584:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2568:
2567:
2566:
2565:
2495:directly cited
2460:
2378:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2279:
2234:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2036:
2016:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1885:
1868:
1814:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1794:
1780:
1774:
1694:
1687:
1680:
1650:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1623:
1584:
1579:
1545:
1541:Discussion at
1539:
1538:
1537:
1458:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1421:broad concept.
1390:
1387:
1376:Flyer22 Reborn
1363:
1353:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1236:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1016:
1015:
918:
915:
846:
843:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
777:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
610:Disambiguation
424:Disambiguation
388:
385:
365:
362:
332:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
262:
259:
233:
230:
227:
226:
223:
222:
219:
218:
216:
204:Disambiguation
185:disambiguation
175:
163:
162:
160:Disambiguation
157:
145:
144:
138:
127:
113:
112:
109:
108:
101:
96:
87:
81:
79:
78:
67:
58:
57:
54:
53:
52:
36:
35:
30:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
5664:
5653:
5650:
5649:
5647:
5634:
5631:
5630:
5626:
5624:
5623:
5616:
5615:
5614:
5610:
5606:
5602:
5598:
5594:
5590:
5587:
5586:
5585:
5582:
5581:
5577:
5575:
5574:
5567:
5566:childproofing
5563:
5559:
5555:
5551:
5550:Childproofing
5545:
5540:
5539:
5538:
5537:
5533:
5529:
5522:
5520:
5517:
5513:
5509:
5506:
5502:
5499:
5496:
5492:
5489:
5487:
5485:
5482:
5479:
5478:
5477:
5472:
5469:
5467:
5464:
5462:
5459:
5457:
5454:
5452:
5449:
5448:
5447:
5444:
5438:
5433:
5426:
5410:
5406:
5402:
5401:Shooterwalker
5398:
5394:
5393:
5392:
5389:
5385:
5380:
5379:
5378:
5374:
5370:
5369:Shooterwalker
5366:
5365:
5364:
5361:
5357:
5352:
5351:
5350:
5346:
5342:
5341:Shooterwalker
5338:
5333:
5329:
5328:
5327:
5324:
5320:
5315:
5314:
5313:
5309:
5305:
5300:
5296:
5295:
5294:
5293:
5289:
5285:
5284:
5259:
5256:
5255:
5251:
5249:
5248:
5241:
5238:
5233:
5229:
5228:
5227:
5223:
5219:
5218:Shooterwalker
5215:
5214:WP:DABCONCEPT
5211:
5207:
5206:weightlifting
5203:
5202:supreme court
5199:
5195:
5194:
5193:
5190:
5189:
5185:
5183:
5182:
5175:
5174:Weightlifting
5171:
5167:
5163:
5159:
5154:
5153:
5152:
5148:
5144:
5143:Shooterwalker
5140:
5136:
5135:
5134:
5131:
5130:
5126:
5124:
5123:
5116:
5112:
5111:
5106:
5102:
5101:
5100:
5096:
5092:
5091:Shooterwalker
5088:
5083:
5079:
5077:
5074:
5070:
5066:
5062:
5061:WP:DABCONCEPT
5058:
5057:
5056:
5052:
5048:
5043:
5040:
5035:
5034:WP:DABCONCEPT
5031:
5029:
5025:
5024:WP:DABCONCEPT
5021:
5017:
5016:
5013:
5010:
5009:Shooterwalker
5006:
5002:
4998:
4994:
4990:
4986:
4985:
4984:
4980:
4978:
4970:
4968:
4961:
4960:
4959:
4955:
4951:
4950:Shooterwalker
4947:
4943:
4941:
4937:
4935:
4927:
4925:
4917:
4916:
4915:
4914:
4910:
4906:
4905:
4882:
4879:
4878:
4874:
4872:
4871:
4863:
4862:
4861:
4857:
4855:
4847:
4845:
4838:
4834:
4832:
4828:
4824:
4823:Shooterwalker
4820:
4819:
4818:
4814:
4810:
4806:
4803:
4799:
4798:
4797:
4793:
4791:
4783:
4781:
4773:
4772:
4771:
4767:
4763:
4762:Shooterwalker
4759:
4754:
4753:WP:DABCONCEPT
4750:
4749:
4748:
4744:
4740:
4736:
4735:Supreme court
4732:
4728:
4724:
4719:
4715:
4712:
4708:
4704:
4700:
4696:
4693:
4689:
4688:
4686:
4683:
4682:
4671:
4670:
4669:
4665:
4663:
4655:
4653:
4645:
4644:
4643:
4639:
4635:
4634:Shooterwalker
4631:
4630:WP:CONCEPTDAB
4627:
4626:
4625:
4624:
4620:
4616:
4615:
4606:
4603:
4599:
4594:
4576:
4572:
4568:
4567:Shooterwalker
4563:
4559:
4555:
4554:
4552:
4548:
4544:
4543:
4542:
4538:
4534:
4530:
4526:
4525:Shooterwalker
4522:
4521:
4520:
4517:
4516:
4512:
4510:
4509:
4502:
4498:
4494:
4490:
4485:
4481:
4475:
4470:
4468:
4464:
4460:
4456:
4452:
4448:
4444:
4443:Supreme court
4440:
4436:
4432:
4431:
4430:
4426:
4422:
4421:Shooterwalker
4417:
4416:
4415:
4411:
4407:
4403:
4399:
4398:
4397:
4393:
4389:
4385:
4381:
4378:
4377:
4376:
4373:
4369:
4364:
4363:
4362:
4358:
4354:
4350:
4346:
4345:
4344:
4343:
4340:
4336:
4331:
4330:
4327:
4323:
4310:
4302:
4300:
4292:
4291:
4288:
4282:
4279:
4277:
4274:
4271:
4270:mental health
4267:
4264:
4262:
4259:
4257:
4254:
4252:
4249:
4247:
4244:
4242:
4239:
4237:
4234:
4232:
4229:
4227:
4224:
4222:
4219:
4217:
4214:
4212:
4209:
4207:
4204:
4202:
4199:
4197:
4194:
4192:
4189:
4188:
4186:
4182:
4176:
4173:
4172:
4170:
4166:
4158:
4155:
4154:
4153:
4150:
4148:
4145:
4143:
4140:
4138:
4135:
4133:
4130:
4128:
4125:
4123:
4120:
4118:
4115:
4113:
4110:
4108:
4105:
4101:
4098:
4097:
4096:
4093:
4091:
4088:
4084:
4081:
4080:
4079:
4076:
4074:
4071:
4067:
4064:
4063:
4062:
4059:
4057:
4054:
4052:
4049:
4045:
4042:
4041:
4040:
4037:
4036:
4034:
4030:
4024:
4021:
4019:
4016:
4014:
4011:
4009:
4006:
4002:
3999:
3998:
3997:
3994:
3993:
3991:
3985:
3979:
3976:
3974:
3971:
3969:
3966:
3964:
3961:
3959:
3956:
3954:
3951:
3949:
3946:
3945:
3943:
3937:
3931:
3928:
3926:
3923:
3919:
3916:
3915:
3914:
3911:
3909:
3906:
3904:
3901:
3899:
3896:
3895:
3893:
3891:public safety
3885:
3879:
3876:
3874:
3871:
3869:
3866:
3864:
3861:
3859:
3856:
3855:
3853:
3849:
3843:
3840:
3838:
3835:
3833:
3830:
3828:
3825:
3823:
3820:
3818:
3815:
3813:
3810:
3808:
3805:
3803:
3800:
3798:
3795:
3793:
3790:
3789:
3787:
3783:
3779:
3775:
3767:
3762:
3760:
3755:
3753:
3748:
3747:
3744:
3740:
3734:
3730:
3726:
3723:
3720:
3719:Supreme Court
3717:
3715:
3711:
3708:
3707:
3703:
3691:
3688:
3684:
3680:
3679:
3678:
3674:
3670:
3666:
3662:
3658:
3657:
3656:
3653:
3649:
3645:
3641:
3637:
3633:
3632:
3631:
3627:
3623:
3622:
3617:
3613:
3609:
3604:
3603:
3602:
3598:
3594:
3590:
3589:
3588:
3587:
3584:
3580:
3576:
3573:Here you go:
3549:
3545:
3541:
3537:
3533:
3532:
3531:
3527:
3523:
3519:
3517:
3514:
3513:
3509:
3507:
3506:
3498:
3497:
3496:
3492:
3488:
3483:
3482:
3481:
3477:
3473:
3468:
3467:
3466:
3462:
3458:
3454:
3453:
3452:
3448:
3444:
3439:
3438:
3437:
3433:
3429:
3425:
3420:
3416:
3412:
3408:
3407:Shooterwalker
3404:
3400:
3396:
3392:
3391:
3390:
3386:
3382:
3377:
3376:
3375:
3371:
3367:
3362:
3359:
3355:
3351:
3347:
3346:
3345:
3341:
3337:
3332:
3328:
3327:
3326:
3325:
3324:
3323:
3314:
3310:
3309:
3308:
3304:
3300:
3295:
3292:
3288:
3285:
3280:
3279:
3278:
3274:
3270:
3265:
3264:
3249:
3245:
3241:
3240:
3234:
3218:
3214:
3210:
3205:
3201:
3196:
3195:
3194:
3191:
3187:
3183:
3178:
3177:
3176:
3173:
3169:
3165:
3164:
3163:
3159:
3155:
3151:
3147:
3143:
3140:
3139:
3138:
3135:
3131:
3127:
3126:
3125:
3121:
3117:
3109:
3108:
3107:
3104:
3100:
3096:
3092:
3088:
3084:
3081:
3080:
3079:
3075:
3071:
3066:
3061:
3057:
3053:
3049:
3046:
3043:
3039:
3035:
3031:
3027:
3024:
3023:
3021:
3017:
3009:
3008:
3007:
3004:
3000:
2996:
2995:
2992:
2988:
2984:
2983:
2977:
2974:
2973:
2970:
2969:
2968:
2965:
2961:
2957:
2953:
2949:
2948:Supreme Court
2945:
2944:
2943:
2940:
2939:
2935:
2933:
2932:
2925:
2921:
2920:Supreme court
2917:
2916:
2915:
2911:
2907:
2906:
2900:
2899:
2898:
2894:
2890:
2889:Shooterwalker
2886:
2882:
2881:supreme court
2877:
2876:supreme court
2873:
2872:
2871:
2870:
2866:
2862:
2861:
2856:
2852:
2848:
2844:
2837:
2836:
2832:
2828:
2827:
2821:
2820:
2816:
2812:
2808:
2804:
2799:
2798:Supreme court
2794:
2783:
2777:
2772:
2769:
2766:
2763:
2762:
2761:
2758:
2754:
2753:
2747:
2741:
2736:
2733:
2730:
2727:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2719:
2718:
2712:
2706:
2701:
2698:
2695:
2692:
2689:
2688:
2687:
2684:
2683:
2677:
2671:
2666:
2663:
2660:
2657:
2656:
2655:
2652:
2651:
2645:
2639:
2634:
2631:
2628:
2625:
2624:
2623:
2620:
2619:
2608:
2602:
2599:
2564:
2561:
2557:
2552:
2551:
2550:
2546:
2542:
2538:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2528:
2524:
2523:
2517:
2516:
2515:
2512:
2508:
2504:
2500:
2496:
2492:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2482:
2478:
2474:
2473:WP:CHALLENGED
2470:
2466:
2461:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2452:
2448:
2444:
2440:
2436:
2432:
2428:
2424:
2420:
2419:WP:BLUECHEESE
2416:
2415:
2414:
2410:
2406:
2402:
2398:
2394:
2391:
2387:
2384:
2379:
2377:the same way.
2376:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2367:
2363:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2347:
2341:
2338:
2334:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2324:
2320:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2311:
2307:
2303:
2302:tobacco lobby
2299:
2298:
2297:
2293:
2289:
2285:
2280:
2277:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2268:
2264:
2260:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2249:
2245:
2241:
2240:9780195557558
2238:
2235:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2227:
2223:
2219:
2218:
2214:
2206:
2199:
2195:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2186:
2185:
2181:
2179:
2178:
2170:
2166:
2162:
2157:
2156:Supreme court
2154:
2153:
2152:
2148:
2144:
2143:Shooterwalker
2140:
2135:
2134:supreme court
2131:
2125:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2110:redirects to
2109:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2095:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2085:
2081:
2077:
2073:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2034:
2030:
2026:
2021:
2017:
2014:
2010:
2006:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1997:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1970:Supreme court
1967:
1966:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1956:Shooterwalker
1952:
1951:out of bounds
1948:
1947:supreme court
1944:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1926:
1911:
1906:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1884:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1869:
1866:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1848:Supreme court
1845:
1843:
1839:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1797:
1792:
1788:
1787:
1781:
1777:
1772:
1768:
1767:
1761:
1760:
1758:
1757:Supreme court
1754:
1750:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1720:Supreme court
1717:
1716:out of bounds
1713:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1692:
1688:
1685:
1681:
1678:
1677:Out of bounds
1674:
1673:Supreme court
1670:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1660:
1656:
1648:
1644:
1641:
1637:
1634:out of it? --
1633:
1628:
1624:
1622:
1619:
1618:
1614:
1612:
1611:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1583:
1580:
1578:
1577:
1569:
1567:
1556:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1502:JasonCarswell
1499:
1495:
1491:
1483:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1456:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1435:
1432:
1427:
1423:
1422:
1418:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1388:
1386:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1361:
1357:
1354:
1352:
1351:
1348:
1345:
1339:
1337:JasonCarswell
1330:
1326:
1322:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1288:
1287:
1283:
1281:
1280:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1259:WP:DABCONCEPT
1256:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1241:
1237:
1234:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1215:fish sandwich
1212:
1208:
1207:fish sandwich
1204:
1203:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1194:
1192:
1191:
1184:
1180:
1179:Finding water
1176:
1172:
1171:Fish sandwich
1168:
1162:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1122:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1091:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1043:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1014:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
984:
979:
977:
973:
972:out of bounds
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
941:
940:Supreme court
937:
933:
929:
926:
922:
916:
914:
913:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
878:
873:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
844:
842:
841:
837:
833:
828:
826:
822:
818:
814:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
776:
772:
768:
763:
762:
761:
757:
753:
749:
747:
742:
741:
736:
735:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
680:
676:
672:
665:
658:
654:
647:
640:
639:
637:
630:
623:
619:
611:
601:
591:
584:
583:
582:
578:
574:
570:
563:
556:
552:
551:
550:
547:
546:
542:
540:
539:
532:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
503:
496:
492:
486:
479:
478:
477:
474:
473:
469:
467:
466:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
442:
441:
440:
436:
432:
425:
415:
409:, similar to
408:
404:
397:
386:
384:
383:
379:
375:
371:
368:Do you think
363:
361:
360:
357:
356:
352:
350:
349:
342:
338:
331:
328:
322:
319:
318:
314:
312:
311:
304:
303:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
285:
284:
283:
280:
279:
275:
273:
272:
260:
258:
257:
254:
253:
249:
247:
246:
239:
231:
217:
200:
196:
191:
190:edit the page
186:
182:
181:
176:
173:
169:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
151:
146:
142:
136:
132:
128:
119:
118:
106:
102:
100:
97:
95:
91:
88:
86:
83:
82:
76:
72:
71:Learn to edit
68:
65:
60:
59:
56:
55:
50:
46:
42:
41:
34:
31:
29:
28:
19:
5628:
5621:
5620:
5605:WhatamIdoing
5589:Child safety
5579:
5572:
5571:
5554:Child safety
5544:WhatamIdoing
5528:WhatamIdoing
5525:
5503:beads cause
5475:
5445:
5442:
5437:firecrackers
5331:
5282:
5281:
5278:
5253:
5246:
5245:
5236:
5231:
5187:
5180:
5179:
5138:
5128:
5121:
5120:
5109:
5108:
5047:WhatamIdoing
5027:
4976:
4966:
4933:
4923:
4903:
4902:
4899:
4876:
4869:
4868:
4853:
4843:
4809:WhatamIdoing
4789:
4779:
4758:WP:CONSENSUS
4739:WhatamIdoing
4678:
4661:
4651:
4613:
4612:
4609:
4561:
4533:WhatamIdoing
4528:
4514:
4507:
4506:
4500:
4496:
4488:
4474:WhatamIdoing
4459:WhatamIdoing
4406:WhatamIdoing
4388:WhatamIdoing
4353:WhatamIdoing
4332:
4319:
3738:
3669:WhatamIdoing
3665:Human height
3620:
3619:
3593:WhatamIdoing
3572:
3540:WhatamIdoing
3511:
3504:
3503:
3487:WhatamIdoing
3457:WhatamIdoing
3428:WhatamIdoing
3423:
3379:the source.
3366:WhatamIdoing
3330:
3316:insistently.
3312:
3299:WhatamIdoing
3290:
3238:
3237:
3209:WhatamIdoing
3154:WhatamIdoing
3116:WhatamIdoing
3094:
3090:
3070:WhatamIdoing
3047:unverifiable
3034:§ verifiable
2981:
2980:
2955:
2951:
2937:
2930:
2929:
2924:structurally
2923:
2904:
2903:
2859:
2858:
2854:
2850:
2846:
2842:
2839:
2825:
2824:
2822:
2811:WhatamIdoing
2803:WP:CHALLENGE
2795:
2791:
2771:WP:CHALLENGE
2735:WP:CHALLENGE
2700:WP:CHALLENGE
2665:WP:CHALLENGE
2633:WP:CHALLENGE
2600:
2597:
2541:WhatamIdoing
2521:
2520:
2490:
2477:WhatamIdoing
2438:
2405:WhatamIdoing
2396:
2389:
2382:
2356:. Otherwise
2319:WhatamIdoing
2288:WhatamIdoing
2244:WhatamIdoing
2212:
2194:This version
2183:
2176:
2175:
2168:
2160:
2116:WhatamIdoing
2093:
2092:
2052:WhatamIdoing
2040:White Terror
2019:
2004:
1974:WhatamIdoing
1889:WhatamIdoing
1875:WhatamIdoing
1841:
1837:
1823:WhatamIdoing
1818:White Terror
1785:
1765:
1752:
1748:
1698:WhatamIdoing
1652:
1616:
1609:
1608:
1586:
1565:
1547:
1460:
1420:
1415:
1410:
1392:
1365:
1360:Scare quotes
1333:
1332:advance. ~
1318:
1285:
1278:
1277:
1262:
1214:
1196:
1189:
1188:
1026:
982:
980:
952:Central Asia
923:
920:
895:
891:
876:
866:
862:
848:
829:
824:
811:
745:
738:
732:
664:Split-apart2
617:
544:
537:
536:
471:
464:
463:
445:
390:
367:
354:
347:
346:
334:
316:
309:
308:
277:
270:
269:
264:
251:
244:
243:
235:
195:project page
178:
141:WikiProjects
131:project page
130:
43:This is the
5337:WP:DISAMBIG
5240:WP:DISAMBIG
5210:WP:DISAMBIG
5115:WP:DISAMBIG
5087:WP:DISAMBIG
5082:WP:DISAMBIG
4946:WP:DISAMBIG
4694:is notable.
3939:Economics /
3020:WP:Glossary
2613:you can...
2038:To use the
2011:. I think
2003:A page can
1506:Brightgalrs
1490:Fgnievinski
1411:necessarily
1329:Open source
1321:Open source
1061:High priest
1042:User:BD2412
1031:wp:creed#13
983:Nokia Lumia
976:Nokia Lumia
767:Fgnievinski
713:Nokia Lumia
671:Fgnievinski
646:Split-apart
573:Fgnievinski
517:Fgnievinski
431:Fgnievinski
374:Fgnievinski
5599:risks and
5471:Toy safety
5166:Comparison
4681:pixie dust
4551:WP:CHIMERA
4493:Color code
4191:Presidents
3887:Defence /
3785:Leadership
3778:ministries
3667:, though.
3331:summarized
2956:nontrivial
2885:federation
2383:Apex court
2139:federation
2112:Federation
2013:Federation
1988:Federation
1813:material.)
1465:. Thanks,
1356:Scare-line
1327:and think
1271:WP:DABLIST
1049:Color code
1047:I look at
515:. Thanks.
502:Dabprimary
485:Dabprimary
396:Dabprimary
261:Some tests
199:discussion
5283:North8000
5022:into the
5001:North8000
4989:Altenmann
4904:North8000
4614:North8000
4529:look like
4368:Altenmann
4335:Altenmann
4322:Altenmann
3792:President
3774:ministers
3683:Altenmann
3648:Altenmann
3621:North8000
3616:Easy work
3579:Altenmann
3239:North8000
3186:Altenmann
3168:Altenmann
3130:Altenmann
3099:Altenmann
3060:§ uncited
3016:Altenmann
2999:Altenmann
2982:North8000
2960:Altenmann
2905:North8000
2860:North8000
2826:North8000
2807:WP:LIKELY
2757:published
2556:Altenmann
2537:Altenmann
2522:North8000
2507:Altenmann
2469:WP:LIKELY
2447:Altenmann
2362:Altenmann
2333:Altenmann
2306:Altenmann
2263:Altenmann
2257:thing as
2222:Altenmann
2094:North8000
2080:Altenmann
2076:WP:MOSDAB
2015:is a BCA.
1992:Altenmann
1852:Altenmann
1736:Altenmann
1691:WP:CREEPY
1655:Altenmann
1636:Altenmann
1593:Altenmann
1426:Hijiri 88
1267:WP:DABSIA
1211:Rice cake
1175:Rice cake
1045:suggested
968:dead ball
928:currently
821:#Examples
779:Wouldn't
746:Star Trek
734:Star Trek
729:Windows 8
725:Windows 7
341:Rice cake
337:Fish stew
330:Fish stew
107:if needed
90:Be polite
45:talk page
5646:Category
5597:Drowning
5516:Medicine
5510:Neither
5198:particle
5170:Schedule
5158:Particle
5032:Shorten
5026:section
5005:Remsense
4967:Remsense
4924:Remsense
4844:Remsense
4802:Particle
4780:Remsense
4727:WP:FAILN
4652:Remsense
4447:Software
3842:Minister
3710:Particle
3608:Nice day
3287:32905534
3014:: Yes,
2427:WP:TRUTH
2423:WP:SYNTH
2388:as does
2286:policy?
2217:WP:SYNTH
2165:WP:SYNTH
1943:Particle
1838:articles
1749:articles
1712:Particle
1669:Particle
1649:WP:SYNTH
1527:Mathglot
1525:Thanks,
1518:Hijiri88
1494:SilkTork
1467:Mathglot
1446:WP:SYNTH
1419:original
1407:WP:SYNTH
1065:Schedule
1057:Guessing
964:football
932:particle
917:Examples
636:Football
454:Schedule
75:get help
5237:mention
5105:Bkonrad
4997:Bkonrad
4558:Mercury
4484:Mercury
4453:; it's
4441:; it's
3822:Premier
3721:is not.
3644:midgets
3358:uncited
3095:dubious
3052:§ cited
3025:uncited
2855:linkage
2360::-). --
2276:uncited
1842:subject
1753:subject
1724:WP:CITE
1589:Interim
1582:Interim
1516:, and
1514:KDS4444
1510:Zzyzx11
1498:Philg88
1362:article
1296:Andrewa
1261:is the
1245:Andrewa
1219:Andrewa
1183:Godhead
1161:Andrewa
1107:Andrewa
991:Andrewa
904:KDS4444
832:Andrewa
789:Andrewa
752:Zzyzx11
653:Academy
513:Academy
370:Academy
293:Andrewa
289:Mercury
5622:BD2412
5573:BD2412
5304:Jorahm
5247:BD2412
5181:BD2412
5122:BD2412
5018:Merge
4993:BD2412
4870:BD2412
4713:, etc.
4508:BD2412
4032:Social
3930:Europe
3851:Titles
3731:is in
3712:is in
3646:... --
3640:giants
3505:BD2412
3403:WP:BRD
3399:WP:NOR
3313:assume
3184:). --
3087:WP:NOR
3010:About
2931:BD2412
2471:to be
2459:point.
2443:cancer
2431:WP:NOR
2375:WP:NOR
2177:BD2412
2072:WP:DAB
1728:WP:NOR
1710:While
1627:WP:DAB
1610:BD2412
1482:WT:BCA
1343:(talk)
1279:bd2412
1190:bd2412
1075:, and
974:, and
900:WP:RfC
892:policy
888:WP:AfD
855:Report
748:(film)
538:bd2412
465:bd2412
456:, and
348:bd2412
310:bd2412
305:Done.
271:bd2412
245:bd2412
137:scale.
5388:wiser
5384:older
5360:wiser
5356:older
5323:wiser
5319:older
5232:don't
5073:wiser
5069:older
4692:Flood
4602:wiser
4598:older
4562:could
4501:color
4497:coded
4435:Court
4371:: -->
4338:: -->
4325:: -->
4184:Lists
4168:Other
3686:: -->
3663:into
3651:: -->
3582:: -->
3536:cited
3291:might
3189:: -->
3171:: -->
3133:: -->
3102:: -->
3083:tl;dr
3002:: -->
2963:: -->
2559:: -->
2510:: -->
2450:: -->
2435:WP:RS
2365:: -->
2336:: -->
2309:: -->
2304:. --
2266:: -->
2225:: -->
2213:would
2161:would
2083:: -->
2078:. --
1995:: -->
1924:alien
1855:: -->
1739:: -->
1658:: -->
1639:: -->
1596:: -->
1151:wiser
1147:older
1134:wiser
1130:older
1053:Enemy
1010:wiser
1006:older
867:terms
709:WP:SS
458:Enemy
129:This
103:Seek
51:page.
5609:talk
5532:talk
5514:nor
5512:Drug
5405:talk
5373:talk
5345:talk
5332:when
5308:talk
5288:talk
5222:talk
5162:Size
5147:talk
5095:talk
5051:talk
4954:talk
4909:talk
4827:talk
4813:talk
4766:talk
4743:talk
4729:and
4638:talk
4619:talk
4571:talk
4545:FYI
4537:talk
4463:talk
4425:talk
4410:talk
4392:talk
4372:talk
4357:talk
4339:talk
4326:talk
3776:and
3687:talk
3673:talk
3652:talk
3642:and
3626:talk
3614:and
3597:talk
3583:talk
3544:talk
3526:talk
3491:talk
3476:talk
3461:talk
3447:talk
3432:talk
3411:talk
3397:and
3395:WP:V
3385:talk
3370:talk
3340:talk
3303:talk
3284:PMID
3273:talk
3244:talk
3213:talk
3190:talk
3172:talk
3158:talk
3134:talk
3120:talk
3103:talk
3074:talk
3003:talk
2987:talk
2964:talk
2910:talk
2893:talk
2883:and
2865:talk
2847:term
2843:term
2831:talk
2815:talk
2560:talk
2545:talk
2527:talk
2511:talk
2501:and
2481:talk
2451:talk
2439:that
2409:talk
2366:talk
2350:WP:V
2337:talk
2323:talk
2310:talk
2292:talk
2267:talk
2248:talk
2237:ISBN
2226:talk
2147:talk
2120:talk
2099:talk
2084:talk
2056:talk
1996:talk
1978:talk
1960:talk
1949:and
1930:talk
1921:ugly
1893:talk
1879:talk
1856:talk
1836:The
1827:talk
1791:ISBN
1771:ISBN
1747:The
1740:talk
1726:and
1702:talk
1659:talk
1640:talk
1597:talk
1566:Sdkb
1560:{{u|
1531:talk
1471:talk
1403:here
1401:and
1399:here
1395:here
1380:talk
1372:here
1300:talk
1269:and
1263:only
1249:talk
1223:talk
1111:talk
1069:Size
995:talk
908:talk
863:this
836:talk
793:talk
771:talk
756:talk
675:talk
605:and
577:talk
529:Re:
521:talk
450:Size
435:talk
419:and
378:talk
297:talk
92:and
5204:or
5200:or
5172:or
5168:or
5164:or
5160:or
5007:, @
5003:, @
4999:, @
4995:, @
4991:, @
4499:by
4449:or
3424:one
2851:can
2755:No
2215:be
2169:not
2163:be
2023:of
1918:big
1915:The
1912:).
1557:.
1177:);
880:be)
877:was
825:any
785:SIA
5648::
5611:)
5595:,
5534:)
5407:)
5386:≠
5375:)
5358:≠
5347:)
5321:≠
5310:)
5290:)
5224:)
5216:.
5149:)
5097:)
5071:≠
5067:.
5053:)
5028:or
4972:‥
4956:)
4948:.
4929:‥
4911:)
4849:‥
4829:)
4815:)
4785:‥
4768:)
4745:)
4709:,
4705:,
4701:,
4657:‥
4640:)
4621:)
4600:≠
4573:)
4539:)
4465:)
4427:)
4412:)
4394:)
4366:--
4359:)
4351:?
3675:)
3628:)
3610:,
3599:)
3546:)
3528:)
3493:)
3478:)
3463:)
3449:)
3434:)
3413:)
3387:)
3372:)
3342:)
3305:)
3275:)
3246:)
3215:)
3160:)
3122:)
3114:.
3085:.
3076:)
3022::
2989:)
2912:)
2895:)
2867:)
2833:)
2817:)
2785:}}
2779:{{
2749:}}
2743:{{
2714:}}
2708:{{
2679:}}
2673:{{
2647:}}
2641:{{
2547:)
2529:)
2483:)
2411:)
2325:)
2294:)
2250:)
2208:}}
2205:cn
2202:{{
2149:)
2122:)
2114:.
2101:)
2058:)
2035:).
2031:,
2027:,
2005:be
1980:)
1962:)
1933:)
1895:)
1881:)
1829:)
1734:--
1704:)
1675:,
1671:,
1572:}}
1533:)
1512:,
1508:,
1504:,
1500:,
1496:,
1492:,
1484::
1473:)
1437:)
1434:やや
1397:,
1382:)
1374:.
1302:)
1251:)
1225:)
1149:≠
1145:.
1132:≠
1113:)
1071:,
1067:,
1063:,
1059:,
1055:,
1051:,
1029:.
1008:≠
997:)
978:.
970:,
966:,
962:,
958:,
954:,
950:,
946:,
942:,
938:,
934:,
910:)
838:)
795:)
773:)
758:)
743:,
727:,
677:)
667:}}
661:{{
649:}}
643:{{
632:}}
626:{{
618:is
613:}}
607:{{
603:}}
597:{{
593:}}
587:{{
579:)
571:.
565:}}
559:{{
523:)
505:}}
499:{{
488:}}
482:{{
452:,
446:is
437:)
427:}}
421:{{
417:}}
411:{{
399:}}
393:{{
380:)
299:)
73:;
5629:T
5607:(
5580:T
5546::
5542:@
5530:(
5497:.
5439:?
5403:(
5371:(
5343:(
5306:(
5286:(
5254:T
5220:(
5188:T
5145:(
5129:T
5093:(
5049:(
5011::
4987:@
4977:论
4952:(
4934:论
4907:(
4877:T
4854:论
4825:(
4811:(
4790:论
4764:(
4741:(
4662:论
4636:(
4617:(
4569:(
4535:(
4515:T
4476::
4472:@
4461:(
4423:(
4408:(
4390:(
4355:(
4272:)
4268:(
3765:e
3758:t
3751:v
3735:.
3671:(
3624:(
3595:(
3542:(
3524:(
3512:T
3489:(
3474:(
3459:(
3445:(
3430:(
3409:(
3383:(
3368:(
3338:(
3301:(
3271:(
3242:(
3211:(
3156:(
3118:(
3072:(
2985:(
2938:T
2908:(
2891:(
2863:(
2829:(
2813:(
2543:(
2535:@
2525:(
2479:(
2407:(
2395:(
2392:.
2321:(
2290:(
2246:(
2184:T
2145:(
2118:(
2097:(
2074:/
2054:(
1976:(
1958:(
1927:(
1891:(
1877:(
1825:(
1798:.
1778:.
1700:(
1693:.
1617:T
1529:(
1520::
1488:@
1469:(
1452:.
1431:聖
1428:(
1378:(
1298:(
1286:T
1247:(
1221:(
1197:T
1163::
1159:@
1109:(
993:(
906:(
834:(
791:(
769:(
754:(
673:(
575:(
545:T
519:(
472:T
433:(
376:(
355:T
317:T
295:(
278:T
252:T
201:.
143::
77:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.