1647:. I wrought the most havoc in the "Varieties of Capitalism" section. I enthusiastically tagged every vaguery, weasel wording and lack of sources I could find, and did some constructive edits to the text itself too, however on this article I read that I'm not supposed to do that, that you should never use more than 2 or 3 tags on a single article. My question is then, what else am I supposed to do when people write articles like that? Should I just delete the text I don't like? I can't use the "this section uses no citations" (or whatever) thing, because sometimes they do use 1 source in that section, and I frankly don't have the time to edit long texts about topics I'm not that invested in myself, plus I'm not a very good writer or a very motivated one, yet sometimes I do see content that's bad and I wanna do something about it. Should I just turn the disputed text into a comment in the source code so it's out of sight but not gone?
823:
removed. If there are issues and nothing is done then nothing can be fixed. I feel tags are necessary but should be accompanied by comments as to what led an editor to place the tag when the template is not clear. It certainly would be unreasonable to expect an editor to place a talk page comment on reasons for a tag that there are no references on an article. It is hard to even imagine stopping in the middle of work or research to address a problem that has come to light. Placing a tag not only calls attention to a problem it places the article on my watch list and I go over this from time to time. This means to me that tags do have an importance but there is also a need for an essay or guideline, especially important for newer users, to explain a community consensus on use.
1373:, After re-reading your reply, "Or are you just looking for a gadget which shows a list of markup and template options during editing which can be inserted on click rather than the usual copy-paste or manual typing?", yes, this is in the right vein of what it is I am looking for. Something where I would be able to get a list of applicable cleanup tags while editing an article. The problem for me isn't necessarily the typing aspect, or even the formatting - although that is a pain too. For me the biggest issue is that I do not know the comprehensive
1189:, and they are in two different locations, requiring different bookmarks and cross-checks to see if I'm using the best possible thing for the specific occurrence. I wouldn't mind creating this page myself, but I assume there are similar pages that already meet this need, or that I'm using/thinking about the site the wrong way - I recall that there's a tag specifically for articles that sound like "how-to's", so I assume that the concept I'm thinking of would not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s standards.
1407:
can fix such a problem in the same amount of time instead of searching for that specific tag. The more minor and specific a problem is, a tag for it for that situation seems more sillier. Take the instance of "Definition needed, Definition, Clarify, Ambiguous, How, Elucidate, Specify, or Vague", nearly all of them mean almost the same thing. Tagging is done with the sole purpose of alerting someone who can fix the problem when you can't;
1059:? At the top of every page, after one has clicked on "edit", there is the existing text and markup, which may include an infobox, redirect tags, "other uses", etc. Where is one supposed to insert the new tag? -above everything else? -below any existing tags but above any infobox? Really -- some simple instructions would be appreciated. And if that info already exists on some WP help page, damned if I can easily find it.
22:
81:
53:
610:(see threshold for inclusion). Tagging constitutes meta-commentary about the current state of the article and therefore comprises talk content, not article content. Problems related to an article should be discussed on an article's talk page, not made to blight an article. Further, tagging should not be considered an acceptable substitute to editing the article or discussing article problems.
1476:
145:
644:
67:
526:
that are not disputed. Unfortunately, many WP articles are polluted with such tags, rendering them almost useless to whom is trying to form an unbiased opinion. I think we need specific WP policy (not a personal essay) on it, stating that a justification for tagging on talk page, pointing out specific issue is mandatory. The current WP|Tagging essay is a good baseline.
219:
and stating "This article is clearly POV" on the talk page is not sufficient, according to NPOVD which requires the productive discussion of specifics. Specifics, not as in, "I specifically said it was POV but I don't have the time to fix it" but more in line of "This sentence: 'blah' is an unsourced statement that is pushing a POV."
1105:, good point with the Twinkle recommendation. Do you know if something like that exists for Knowledge (XXG) tagging at large? I'd really love to have a simplistic point and click list of stuff like: {{how}} and {{Elucidate}}. I've looked through preferences myself a few times, and although they have things to say, make
1445:
the talk page, the standard way of raising article issues; tagging is never something you ought to do--though you seem to do both. I personally don't think you should raise a citation needed issue (or any straightforward tag) on the talk, it's obvious what the problem is and it is assumed that you've
794:
IMO it is best if editors find ways of venting their frustration which do not antagonise others. As I said, I've never seen an example of this kind of venting leading to cooperative editing: at its worst it encourages the formation of cliques devoted to hatred of a common enemy, examples of which are
380:
Oh.... I do not think there is much of a chance for that, Ted. There are other guidelines and policies in place that deal with these issues already. (See the comment above mine). FYI, there is no formal process for defining new policies. You can start by engaging editors in related guidelines such as
218:
and is an invitation for and a justification of drive-by tagging that attempts to excuse the tagger from participating constructively in page editing. Tag graffiti is a significant problem in
Knowledge (XXG). Better to follow the clear policies of NPOVD. Tagging articles is a POV issue. Tagging them
1604:
It's not just a problem with this page, really. In general, Knowledge (XXG) seems to be becoming less user-friendly; more and more designed for a (comparatively) small community of experienced editors who are familiar with the terminology and don't even notice the fact that some things might be near
1600:
Yes, I can see that it's not intended as that, Redrose64, but that's the problem. When you go to the 'Help' pages to try to find "how-to" information you are directed here. And in fact I had followed many of the shortcuts on the page and stiil found myself being redirected back here because they are
1548:
I know NOTHING about the topic myself, so can't even begin to fix it. I want to tag the page so that other editors are alerted to the problem. But the
Knowledge (XXG) help pages direct me here, and this essay is not in any way helpful for the editor who simply wants to know HOW to do this as opposed
499:
is too hostile to the idea of tagging, and fails to recognize that the problem with
Knowledge (XXG) are the number of false negatives where articles are untagged when they should be tagged. An editor shouldn't have to babysit a page with an NPOV dispute to ensure edit-warriors don't remove the tag.
1622:
Dear
Liamcalling, and anyone else who might be stuck in the same rut as I was just now, I think I've figured it out. When editing an article, at least with the visual editor (the source editor is beyond me), there's an insert button on the toolbar. You can insert templates from there, including tag
1406:
While I commend you for being thorough, looking at your ten-step process just for tagging something, what you do can definitely be relaxed. There's a lot of inline tags but I really can't see the use of them in practice. Some of the tags are so specific and silly that I can't imagine why the tagger
525:
Tagging without discussion on talk page is, in my opinion, not only useless, but harmful. It does not contribute to improve the article, it rises the emotional charge involved and, since does not point out specific problems, cast shadow of suspicion even over the informations in the article/section
1159:
I'm confused as to what your problem is. Is it just tagging or wikimarkup in general? If there's a list, point to each specific instances so that I can recommend something. I don't know what do you mean by "tag to figure out how to correctly format this", there isn't any to my knowledge for simply
1140:
too long, at almost 20 minutes. I don't know if I have enough technical expertise to create a plugin or gadget to implement what would essentially amount to a simplified, but very long list of what is already shown under the "Wiki Markup Insert" section. I'm strongly considering working on this,
554:
I do acknowledge tagging is fundamental in development of high-quality articles and certainly helps display the problems explicitly to uninvolved readers. However, I do believe that we need a more clearer policy on tagging and agree with the above user on this. It is really unhelpful if the tagger
305:
This is a good start, but needs a good pass of copyediting and clarification. Also, an essay needs to read as one, and not read as a guideline or quasi-policy. There are many good examples of well written essays, you may want to check these and get some ideas on how to improve this one. Until such
296:
Editors absolutely NEED a definitive, up-to-date list of tags. I'm a pretty experienced computer user - I can find my way around most things given time, Why can't I find a proper tag list - I've googled... It should be on every edit page. There is something at
Special:Tags and I only know this
1144:
I'll reply to this thread with a link to either, if I end up pursing either route. I'm really surprised that this isn't a thing directly integrated into
Knowledge (XXG) itself. I can't help but feel like I'm using the entire site wrong, due to the nature of how long completing relatively simple
912:
Five years since this comment was made and apparently nothing has been done about it (either that or I'm EXTREMELY dumb because no amount of searching has born any fruit). I would also really love a list of tags so I can go through articles and mark things that I or someone else can come back to
896:
I know I am not the only
Wikipedian who finds it incomprehensible and maddening that there doesn't seem to be a complete list of Knowledge (XXG) tags. If there is, where is it, and why doesn't this help page link to it? If there isn't, why doesn't someone create one? (Don't tell me to do it, I
822:
I just ran across this essay and find the information important and deserving of community support. I sometimes place a tag on an article I run across in the course of other work. I do not troll to place tags and in fact have taken the position that unaddressed tags or long term tags should be
261:
This article contains some good advice. But I came here looking for a list of tags, so that I could choose the right one. I didn't find it. In fact, there is a link at the bottom that _looks_ like it's a link to the list I want, but returns tags that the software may add, not tags that I'm
555:
doesnt spend time explain the rationale and instead insist on tagging even if the author or authors of the article are willing to work with him or her. The distinction between un-oppsed drive-by tagging and cases where authors willing to work with the tagger needs to be made.
1541:
I'm trying to do something fairly straightforward. I've found a very confusing
Knowledge (XXG) page on Ata-Malik Juvayni. It contains no footnotes, but has five 'references' at the bottom numbered 1-5 as though there were footnotes in the text using those numbers.
1043:
Given that I presume WP wants to be user-friendly, why is it so absurdly difficult to find basic instructions on how and where to insert a tag?! I've been editing on WP for a decade now, and I'm not exactly stupid, but every time I need to tag an article for
877:). I brought the page up to GA while following COI best practices. In support of the tag, an editor says it's promotional to identify the article-subject by name in the article too frequently - I disagree. etc. Would appreciate someone taking a look.
1377:
of tags that are out there, and there doesn't appear to be a single, dedicated source. Whether that source be through a clickable gadget button, or
Wikipage, I would be happy with either, it just doesn't appear to exist, as far as I can tell.
733:
I am still strongly of the opinion that said template is needlessly antagonistic and assumes bad faith. As one of
Knowledge (XXG)'s most prolific taggers I am accused of this constantly despite also being one of Knowledge (XXG)'s most profilic
464:
For what it's worth, I think a well-reasoned essay will help some editors better understand taggers. When an editor marks up your article with ugly tags, it's very tempting to dismiss them as a non-contributing member of Knowledge (XXG)'s
1356:, similar to the way that Wiki markup, Latin, Greek, etc. get their own character subsets. I really need a cheatsheet for Wiki tags. Does anything like that exist either through a Wiki article, or a gadget, or some 3rd party plugin?
450:, for example became endorsed after being cited in some arbcom decisions, but this was a proposed policy that was acknowledged almost universally. I can't recall any disputed policies becoming official without intervention by Jimbo.
1141:
purely based on the amount of annoyance this has caused myself, and likely countless other Wikipedians. At the very least, an article with a comprehensive list of Knowledge (XXG) Tags with associated example would be excellent.
1337:
kind of functionality to give the user a list of all of Knowledge (XXG)'s tags. That is, it's nice to be able to click {{}} or the "No Wiki formatting" button, or the "signature and timestamp" button, but it would be even
578:. Secondly, there is no requirement in Knowledge (XXG) policies that an editor must "pay their dues" by working on an article before they can add a tag, so long as they explain the rationale for the tag on the talk page.
1699:
I came to this page hoping to find what tag to use to suggest a page/section needs to be cleaned up for better grammar/English. Perhaps this page itself could be improved to help people find the tags they need to use.
265:
Unfortunately, instead of tagging the article I was going to tag, I need to leave and have breakfast. Thus I fear that this article is "noise" that clouds the "signal" of what helpful editors are really looking for.
1133:, and while it's clearly a great tool, I think it swings a bit too far in the other direction of adding too many options to the toolbar, most of which go completely unused due to the niche or technical nature of them.
974:
I am going to ask you to stop editing this document directly. If I need an RfC to get you to stop doing that, I will do. If it is not obvious why I am asking you to not editing this document directly, please ask.
389:
and see if there is a need for such addition. As I said, I do not think is needed. Another way, would be to write a brilliant essay, and see if many editors start using it, at which point you may consider adding a
1642:
Yesterday I stumbled upon an article that was loaded with ideological sounding language, presented as objective fact. It was vague and weaselly, and almost none of it was sourced. This is the article in question:
738:
and doing more than most to fix the issues in these tags. I cannot recall a time when being attacked for being a "useless tagger" has led to an article being fixed faster, or better relationships between editors.
1185:, but for every, or at least most of, the commonly used tags in Knowledge (XXG) that use {{ and }}, on a single Wiki page. Both of the previously mentioned links have a ton of tags, but I don't think they list
1454:. It has an easy way of inserting templates, even the basic search mode for it with it attempting to fetch the template description (depending if there's template data). For example, try adding "cn" using it.
1449:
That's what I think, maybe that's why no one finds this such a big deal. What you've proposed isn't a bad idea, but really not urgent. Regarding better ways of doing some what you've mentioned above, there's
1249:
wrong, but I can not determine what the proper set of {{}} would be to best address it. I then have to go back to Google and try and describe the nature of what I want and hope I'm being descriptive enough:
1402:
is the main repository for all the possible tags as far as I know, there isn't (and shouldn't be) another to confuse people more. Like all pages here, if there's something missing, anyone can add it to it.
701:
1200:, so they would be notified when their name is mentioned, took a tremendous amount of time to format correctly. Broken links, ] instead of {{}}, not including the closing / for a "nowiki" clause, etc.
1160:
posting replies. Or are you just looking for a gadget which shows a list of markup and template options during editing which can be inserted on click rather than the usual copy-paste or manual typing?
1017:
them anyway. I have no intention of making further changes. You work as a paid editor and it looks very bad for you to be arguing against a change that affects your paid editing. Just knock it off.
352:, the policy page for the use of the neutrality tag and discuss changes. All policy is open to change by all users, including the casual editors. You have the right spirit, just the wrong mechanism.
958:
I've backed out a couple of edits to restore the content to reflect the version submitted for the RfC. The COI editor issue can be taken up after the RfC has closed. Page protection was declined.
158:
199:
Looks fine to me. I once answered a help desk question about how many users need to dispute neutrality in an article to put up a POV tag, and I answered: one, as long as it's in good faith.
1048:
or the like (which, to be fair, has only been 15-20 times), I have to go through a long process of searching for the specific instructions on how to do so. There seem to be dozens of pages
764:
Not all prolific taggers do as much as you do to actually fix articles. While the tag shown above is antagonistic in tone, it does vent a very deep-seated frustration among several people.
314:
1748:
125:
335:
I'm hoping to get this upgraded to policy. How does one go about doing that? Is there any role for a casual editor on Knowledge (XXG), or does one need to be a full-time person?
1218:
Ensure that I am using {{CN}} in the commonly accepted manner (after or before the word? at the end of the sentence? at the end of the paragraph? in a specific area?), add {{CN}}
420:
BTW, there are really no "full-time" editors, Ted. We are all volunteers, like you. Some invest more time than others, but that is not an issue as it pertains to policy shaping.
1177:, it's difficult to explain as I am still struggling to get used to the format and terminology of Knowledge (XXG). The best way I can put it is: I'm looking for something like
897:
don't know nearly enough about them.) I bet that if someone created such a list, it would immediately become one of the most frequently consulted Knowledge (XXG) help pages.
1333:
I know the automatic population stuff in the summary section is probably asking a lot technically speaking, but I would really think that one of those gadgets would have
989:
If you didn't get the hint, I am asking you not to edit this essay while it is in policy discussions. Changing the content while it is being voted on is unacceptable.
1758:
310:
707:"Antagonistic and in breach of WP:AGF. Accusing other editors, even unspecified ones, of vandalism isn't something we should be encouraging with userboxen".
453:
I think Jossi is right about the similarities hurting the already-slim chances of this being made into policy; we tend to consolidate policies, such as how
88:
1545:
In addition, these references seem to have nothing at all to do with the article. It is about a Persian historian, and they are about a Chinese general.
1674:. Are CSD/PROD/XFD tags included? I think ideally we would explain exactly what tags we mean in the lead, and/or wikilink the word "tag" to something. –
135:
1209:
Look up how to annotate that a citation is needed (what is the name of the thing when someone adds a citation needed...thing? Oh! It's called a tag.)
1136:
Heck, just looking up the tag to figure out how to correctly format this reply (while having a about 15 links from the main article open) took way,
1262:
Determine if I want: Definition needed, Definition, Clarify, Ambiguous, How, Elucidate, Specify, or Vague by re-reading each template documentation
1671:
1515:
An RfC is underway that interested "watchers of this page" wound enhance by participating, I hope that many will! The discussion is located at
1575:
1178:
658:
Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.
1753:
1605:
incomprehensible to the casual reader who wants to make a small improvement without spending a whole day on it. It wasn't always like this.
933:
97:
1667:
1490:
1310:
so I wouldn't need to actively search them out through Google with broad terms like "wiki tag define" or "Knowledge (XXG) unclear tag"
940:
1302:" and scroll down through the tags listed (Clarify, Confusing, Definition, Definition needed, How, etc.). Each choice would have
1517:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Twinkle#RfC regarding "Ambox generated" maintenance tags that recommend the inclusion of additional sources
58:
33:
1579:
1215:
Go back to the article and click edit, ctrl+f for the area I was reading as most of the page is painful to read in edit mode
454:
66:
443:
1718:, maybe use {{copy edit}} for the article, {{copy edit section}} for the section, and {{copy edit inline}} for inline. –
1328:- with a new section opened, populated with the tag you selected and a reference to that tag/new section in the summary.
282:
101:
1192:
When I wrote "tag to figure out how to correctly format this", I meant that when linking to articles in this manner:
769:
1628:
1257:
1182:
154:
1193:
1110:
1516:
652:
An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. That editor won't actually make any effort to fix it,
587:
474:
39:
1728:
1684:
1265:
Re-read the articles on Etiquette on Knowledge (XXG) and tag bombing, to ensure I'm not going against policy
270:
1652:
1459:
1165:
1093:
902:
855:
765:
200:
1644:
1624:
1623:
templates. I just added a copy edit template to an article from there. Hopefully this helps. Sincerely,
1613:
1557:
800:
744:
685:
574:
First of all, the expression "drive-by tagging" is problematic, as it appears to invoke a comparison to
914:
898:
1524:
882:
697:
629:
615:
186:
1733:
1709:
1689:
1656:
1632:
1617:
1594:
1561:
1528:
1505:
1463:
1387:
1365:
1169:
1154:
1097:
1075:
1068:
1026:
1009:
saying the same thing at 00:25, 21 May 2016. There was only one plus !vote before then, and I have
996:
984:
965:
952:
929:
917:
906:
886:
859:
832:
803:
773:
747:
720:
688:
674:
619:
592:
568:
535:
527:
504:
478:
429:
409:
369:
339:
329:
286:
250:
236:
203:
193:
1590:
1501:
1064:
581:
531:
470:
362:
229:
1224:
Go to the talk page and figure out how to create a new section, == CN tag added to example area ==
1212:
Google "Knowledge (XXG) citation needed tag", find out it's {{CN}} after reading the documentation
93:
1719:
1675:
1130:
246:. Simply driving by and saying it contradicts it is unproductive. Where is the contradiction?
1379:
1357:
1146:
1082:
496:
447:
442:
New official policies are very rarely endorsed, but I do recognize some relatively new faces at
382:
349:
243:
215:
1705:
1648:
1455:
1370:
1174:
1161:
1102:
1089:
851:
575:
394:
1411:
is going to check whether you tagged "correctly". Personally, I just know three inline tags,
1313:
After choosing the relevant tag, summary is populated with a reference to the tag I've chosen
1241:
This is fairly involved process, but certainly not impossible, just annoying. What makes it
1045:
842:
What would it take to get this essay (or some variation of it) turned into a guideline? (See
386:
1609:
1569:
1553:
1435:
1022:
980:
828:
796:
740:
681:
278:
1399:
843:
458:
1520:
1383:
1361:
1150:
993:
962:
949:
878:
611:
562:
425:
405:
325:
306:
time, I would avoid linking to it from policy or guidelines pages, which I have removed.
96:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
1451:
1346:. That not withstanding, a page listing every tag could work, if there was a link to it.
941:
Knowledge (XXG):Village_pump_(policy)#Promote_WP:Tagging_pages_for_problems_to_guideline
1583:
1494:
1197:
1060:
716:
670:
355:
222:
607:
600:
1742:
501:
336:
247:
190:
654:
but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag.
1715:
1701:
1425:
870:
1538:
This essay contains lots of info about when to tag a page, but not how to do it.
1052:
tags -- the variety of them, when they should be used, and so on -- but how about
466:
1415:
1196:, or figuring out the correct way to reply/"ping" fellow Wikipedians like this:
1018:
976:
824:
606:
The practice of tagging in the article space should be proscribed on a basis of
274:
182:
1608:
I might have another go later, or might just not bother. Thanks for your help.
1129:
editing process are weirdly limited. I've been struggling to get a handle on
990:
959:
946:
557:
421:
401:
321:
144:
80:
52:
1013:
that person; the changes would not have affected the oppose !vote but I have
712:
666:
680:
Such assumptions of bad faith are unlikely to lead to cooperative editing.
1446:
failed the initial procedure of finding one and doubt its verifiability.
1342:
if I could click something similar to {{}} and get a dropdown list for
1106:
297:
isn't it cos I notice there is (E.G.) no { { fact } } tag in the list
874:
702:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:UBX/HatesUselessTaggers
1221:
Add information to the summary area that mentions this change, save
1574:
The page isn't intended as a "how-to" guide. It includes links to
693:
thanks once again for your good faith and constructive comments.
1552:
I would appreciate it if someone could help with this please.
1491:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Template messages#Can you update the date?
92:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of
1479:
1352:
would be if you were to choose the dropdown field and have an
637:
15:
1233:
Mention in the talk summary that a new section has been added
315:
Knowledge (XXG):The_role_of_policies_in_collaborative_anarchy
143:
1441:--these apply to nearly all situations. You can always use
1206:: I am reading an article that needs citation, I have to:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
847:
1245:
difficult is when I know that something in a sentence
1057:
to insert the tag(s), relative to the code on the page
1280:(Click edit, ctrl+f to find the offending phrase and
495:
I'd be happy to merge this into an existing policy.
293:
Krobin you are totally right - this is REAL problem.
1039:
Why is there no simple info on where to insert tags?
311:
Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is in the real world
189:. I look forward to your comments and improvements.
1749:
Mid-impact WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
696:I note that the community decided to keep (11-4)
181:This essay was inspired by a talk-page comment by
469:" brigade, but we shouldn't look at it this way.
1549:to why and when it might be advisable to do so.
257:Possibly unhelpful: needs a link to the tag list
1306:of a brief definition or example, as well as a
1268:Repeat the previous referenced 10 stage process
32:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
704:using much of the same language you use here:
348:I would recommend going to the talk page for
8:
1354:entire character subset devoted to wiki tags
1078:? It can automatically do all those for you.
1227:Explain why I felt the CN tag was necessary
1005:at 20:13, 20 May 2016 and a second change
161:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.
1485:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.
1230:Sign my message. I often forget this one.
928:Related discussion on promoting the essay
869:Requesting a second opinion about whether
47:
1576:Knowledge (XXG):Template messages/Cleanup
1308:clickable link to each documentation page
1074:Do you manually do a PROD? don't you use
1759:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
242:The language in this article comes from
116:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages
461:was a failed attempt to merge V ans OR.
49:
1253:"Knowledge (XXG) clarification needed"
924:New related discussion at Village Pump
700:, when you nominated it for deletion,
400:to the essay and take it from there.
301:A good start, but needs a lot of work
7:
1277:is if there was a gadget that would:
795:sadly commonplace on WP these days.
21:
19:
1287:Click a button for something like "
38:It is of interest to the following
1121:an article, but it seems like the
1081:Where to place it, I know there's
110:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Essays
100:. For a listing of essays see the
89:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays
14:
1580:Knowledge (XXG):Template messages
455:Knowledge (XXG):Undeletion policy
86:This page is within the scope of
1474:
642:
444:Knowledge (XXG):List of policies
214:This personal essay contradicts
79:
65:
51:
20:
1754:NA-Class Knowledge (XXG) essays
1578:in three different places, and
873:warrants a tag (see discussion
309:Some essays that I quite like:
1633:18:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
1489:Please join the discussion at
1145:tasks end up taking on here.
797:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
741:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
682:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
1:
1236:Add the page to my watch list
918:00:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
907:23:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
804:14:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
774:23:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
748:00:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
721:17:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
689:10:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
262:supposed to consider adding.
1734:21:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
1710:11:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
1690:04:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
1529:06:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
1506:15:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
1464:18:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
1388:16:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
1366:16:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
1170:14:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
1155:21:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
1098:04:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
860:22:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
833:14:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
675:19:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
593:12:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
569:18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
130:This page has been rated as
1069:18:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
113:Template:WikiProject Essays
1775:
1472:
1298:I want, in this example, "
1258:Template:Definition_needed
1183:Category:Cleanup templates
505:12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
479:06:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
457:was folded into deletion.
430:04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
410:04:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
370:03:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
340:03:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
330:03:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
251:03:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
237:03:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
204:02:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
194:02:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
1511:RfC of potential interest
1179:Template messages/Cleanup
1107:reviewing logs look nicer
287:00:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
151:
129:
74:
46:
1695:Tagging for poor English
1618:10:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
1595:11:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
1562:02:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
1469:Can you update the date?
1318:automatically redirected
1027:01:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
997:01:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
985:21:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
966:20:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
953:15:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
887:20:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
620:18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
536:14:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
1657:13:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
818:Tagging for future work
1662:What is a tag exactly?
1534:HOW do you tag a page?
838:Promotion to guideline
385:, and polices such as
155:automatically assessed
148:
136:project's impact scale
94:Knowledge (XXG) essays
1645:History of capitalism
1289:Magic Wiki Tag Button
153:The above rating was
147:
1316:After hitting save,
892:Why no list of tags?
698:User:UBX/Overtagging
630:User:UBX/Overtagging
599:Tagging contradicts
187:Talk:Competition law
1666:I assume tag means
1601:not clear either.
1582:once. Try those. --
1088:Hope I've helped.
1001:I made one change
149:
34:content assessment
1732:
1688:
1109:, or things like
915:User:CaptainColon
664:
663:
659:
625:Tagging templates
591:
576:drive-by shooting
467:wonk and twiddler
428:
408:
368:
328:
320:Hope this helps.
290:
273:comment added by
235:
210:Contradicts NPOVD
174:
173:
170:
169:
166:
165:
162:
1766:
1726:
1724:
1682:
1680:
1672:maintenance tags
1625:VDizzleFoShizzle
1586:
1573:
1497:
1486:
1478:
1477:
1440:
1434:
1430:
1424:
1420:
1414:
1125:tools available
1117:for when you're
657:
646:
645:
638:
590:
584:
579:
565:
560:
550:drive-by tagging
424:
404:
399:
393:
367:
365:
359:
353:
324:
289:
267:
234:
232:
226:
220:
152:
118:
117:
114:
111:
108:
83:
76:
75:
70:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
25:
24:
23:
16:
1774:
1773:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1739:
1738:
1720:
1697:
1676:
1664:
1640:
1584:
1567:
1536:
1513:
1495:
1487:
1484:
1482:
1475:
1471:
1438:
1432:
1428:
1422:
1418:
1412:
1041:
926:
894:
867:
840:
820:
660:
647:
643:
627:
604:
586:
580:
563:
558:
552:
397:
391:
363:
357:
354:
303:
268:
259:
230:
224:
221:
212:
179:
115:
112:
109:
106:
105:
102:essay directory
64:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1772:
1770:
1762:
1761:
1756:
1751:
1741:
1740:
1737:
1736:
1696:
1693:
1663:
1660:
1639:
1638:Too many tags?
1636:
1598:
1597:
1535:
1532:
1519:. Thank you.--
1512:
1509:
1473:
1470:
1467:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1368:
1347:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1314:
1311:
1292:
1278:
1273:What would be
1271:
1270:
1269:
1266:
1263:
1260:
1254:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1231:
1228:
1225:
1222:
1219:
1216:
1213:
1210:
1201:
1190:
1142:
1134:
1086:
1079:
1040:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
969:
968:
944:
943:
925:
922:
921:
920:
893:
890:
866:
865:Second opinion
863:
852:Dr. Fleischman
839:
836:
819:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
726:
725:
724:
723:
710:
709:
708:
694:
662:
661:
656:
653:
650:
648:
641:
626:
623:
603:
597:
596:
595:
582:OnBeyondZebrax
551:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
462:
451:
435:
434:
433:
432:
415:
414:
413:
412:
375:
374:
373:
372:
343:
342:
302:
299:
258:
255:
254:
253:
211:
208:
207:
206:
201:71.174.240.210
178:
175:
172:
171:
168:
167:
164:
163:
150:
140:
139:
128:
122:
121:
119:
84:
72:
71:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1771:
1760:
1757:
1755:
1752:
1750:
1747:
1746:
1744:
1735:
1730:
1725:
1723:
1722:Novem Linguae
1717:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1694:
1692:
1691:
1686:
1681:
1679:
1678:Novem Linguae
1673:
1669:
1661:
1659:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1637:
1635:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1620:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1606:
1602:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1581:
1577:
1571:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1550:
1546:
1543:
1539:
1533:
1531:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1510:
1508:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1492:
1481:
1468:
1466:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1452:Visual Editor
1447:
1444:
1437:
1427:
1417:
1410:
1404:
1401:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1376:
1372:
1369:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1348:
1345:
1344:all wiki tags
1341:
1336:
1332:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1312:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1283:
1279:
1276:
1272:
1267:
1264:
1261:
1259:
1255:
1252:
1251:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1232:
1229:
1226:
1223:
1220:
1217:
1214:
1211:
1208:
1207:
1205:
1202:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1084:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1056:
1051:
1047:
1038:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
999:
998:
995:
992:
988:
987:
986:
982:
978:
973:
972:
971:
970:
967:
964:
961:
957:
956:
955:
954:
951:
948:
942:
939:
938:
937:
935:
931:
923:
919:
916:
911:
910:
909:
908:
904:
900:
891:
889:
888:
884:
880:
876:
872:
864:
862:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
837:
835:
834:
830:
826:
817:
805:
802:
798:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
775:
771:
767:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
749:
746:
742:
737:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
722:
718:
714:
711:
706:
705:
703:
699:
695:
692:
691:
690:
687:
683:
679:
678:
677:
676:
672:
668:
655:
649:
640:
639:
636:
633:
631:
624:
622:
621:
617:
613:
609:
602:
598:
594:
589:
583:
577:
573:
572:
571:
570:
567:
566:
561:
549:
537:
533:
529:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
506:
503:
498:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
480:
477:
476:
472:
468:
463:
460:
456:
452:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
431:
427:
423:
419:
418:
417:
416:
411:
407:
403:
396:
388:
384:
379:
378:
377:
376:
371:
366:
361:
360:
351:
347:
346:
345:
344:
341:
338:
334:
333:
332:
331:
327:
323:
318:
316:
312:
307:
300:
298:
294:
291:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
263:
256:
252:
249:
245:
241:
240:
239:
238:
233:
228:
227:
217:
209:
205:
202:
198:
197:
196:
195:
192:
188:
184:
176:
160:
156:
146:
142:
141:
137:
133:
127:
124:
123:
120:
103:
99:
95:
91:
90:
85:
82:
78:
77:
73:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
31:
27:
18:
17:
1721:
1698:
1677:
1668:cleanup tags
1665:
1649:Dapperedavid
1641:
1621:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1551:
1547:
1544:
1540:
1537:
1514:
1488:
1456:Ugog Nizdast
1448:
1442:
1408:
1405:
1398:
1374:
1371:Ugog Nizdast
1353:
1349:
1343:
1339:
1334:
1326:in edit mode
1325:
1321:
1317:
1307:
1303:
1300:Cleanup tags
1299:
1295:
1288:
1281:
1274:
1246:
1242:
1203:
1186:
1175:Ugog Nizdast
1162:Ugog Nizdast
1137:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1113:, which are
1103:Ugog Nizdast
1090:Ugog Nizdast
1054:
1053:
1049:
1042:
945:
927:
899:Littlewindow
895:
871:Guthy-Renker
868:
841:
821:
735:
665:
651:
634:
628:
605:
556:
553:
473:
358:∴ Therefore
356:
319:
308:
304:
295:
292:
269:— Preceding
264:
260:
225:∴ Therefore
223:
213:
180:
131:
87:
40:WikiProjects
30:project page
29:
1610:Liamcalling
1570:Liamcalling
1554:Liamcalling
1294:Choose the
736:copyeditors
183:User:Beland
1743:Categories
1521:John Cline
1350:Better yet
1304:hover text
1187:everything
930:WP:TAGGING
879:CorporateM
612:Robert K S
564:“what up?”
132:Mid-impact
98:discussion
62:Mid‑impact
1322:talk page
1282:highlight
1198:Bricology
1061:Bricology
934:Guideline
846:proposal
471:Cool Hand
422:≈ jossi ≈
402:≈ jossi ≈
322:≈ jossi ≈
1296:category
1194:MoreMenu
1111:MoreMenu
1083:WP:ORDER
1015:notified
1011:notified
936:status.
528:M.Campos
497:WP:NPOVD
448:WP:WHEEL
395:proposed
383:WP:NPOVD
350:WP:NPOVD
283:contribs
271:unsigned
244:WP:NPOVD
216:WP:NPOVD
1716:Rebroad
1702:Rebroad
1436:clarify
1320:to the
1204:Example
1123:editing
1119:reading
1076:TWINKLE
1046:WP:PROD
913:later.
635:Also:
387:WP:NPOV
177:Welcome
134:on the
1587:rose64
1498:rose64
1409:no one
1400:WP:TMC
1340:better
1256:Go to
1243:really
1131:WikiEd
1127:during
1019:Jytdog
994:(Talk)
977:Jytdog
963:(Talk)
950:(Talk)
844:WP:VPP
825:Otr500
632:(UTC)
559:Docku:
459:WP:ATT
426:(talk)
406:(talk)
326:(talk)
313:, and
275:Krobin
157:using
107:Essays
59:Essays
36:scale.
1380:Sawta
1358:Sawta
1275:great
1147:Sawta
1115:great
1055:where
1050:about
991:009o9
960:009o9
947:009o9
850:.) --
364:talk
231:talk
28:This
1729:talk
1706:talk
1685:talk
1670:and
1653:talk
1629:talk
1614:talk
1591:talk
1589:🌹 (
1558:talk
1525:talk
1502:talk
1500:🌹 (
1460:talk
1443:just
1431:and
1384:talk
1375:list
1362:talk
1335:some
1166:talk
1151:talk
1094:talk
1065:talk
1023:talk
1007:here
1003:here
981:talk
903:talk
883:Talk
875:here
856:talk
848:here
829:talk
801:talk
770:talk
745:talk
717:talk
713:Ikip
686:talk
671:talk
667:Ikip
616:talk
608:WP:V
601:WP:V
588:TALK
532:talk
475:Luke
279:talk
159:data
1585:Red
1496:Red
1480:FYI
1426:who
1181:or
1138:way
932:to
766:たろ人
502:THF
337:THF
248:THF
191:THF
185:at
126:Mid
1745::
1708:)
1655:)
1631:)
1616:)
1593:)
1560:)
1527:)
1504:)
1493:--
1483:–
1462:)
1439:}}
1433:{{
1429:}}
1423:{{
1421:,
1419:}}
1416:cn
1413:{{
1386:)
1364:)
1324:-
1284:)
1247:is
1168:)
1153:)
1096:)
1067:)
1025:)
983:)
905:)
885:)
858:)
831:)
799:-
772:)
743:-
719:)
684:-
673:)
618:)
585:•
534:)
446:.
398:}}
392:{{
317:.
285:)
281:•
1731:)
1727:(
1704:(
1687:)
1683:(
1651:(
1627:(
1612:(
1572::
1568:@
1556:(
1523:(
1458:(
1382:(
1360:(
1291:"
1164:(
1149:(
1092:(
1085:.
1063:(
1021:(
979:(
901:(
881:(
854:(
827:(
768:(
715:(
669:(
614:(
530:(
465:"
277:(
138:.
104:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
