295:
34:
547:
1001:
the template out. Sometimes I go to the trouble of finding explicit references to these points, but I certainly won't feel bad about it if I don't. I have seen plenty of similar behavior from other editors, and I always feel a tiny bit of joy when these templates are eliminated, whether or not a reference was added. In cases where the claim seems controversial and hard to source, I'm as likely to just remove the whole sentence just to get rid of the ugly
506:
402:
384:
264:
662:
1066:– as I said, I remove these in places where I believe them to be inappropriate, but way the templates have been intentionally made to be eyesores to readers and editors often tilts the scale against them in marginal examples. All I'm saying is, people would use these in a different set of places if they were less annoying; the strong incentive is to avoid them wherever possible. –
464:
772:
sections have problems...calling out individual statements as well in such a case isn't the worst idea (especially if you feel there's statements that editors might try to defend as not requiring sourcing), but my view is that by calling out the article entire you've already called out any unsourced content within the article.
914:("2001-07" is the ambiguous example given in the table). Many discussions and an RFC have taken place about it over the years. Citation needed templates are only clutter in the sense that they draw attention to the need for something to be fixed. When a citation is provided, the template (clutter) can be removed. –
1443:
The article contains the phrase "Double quotation marks" that I assume means "quotation marks". Punctuation in US English is defined in a number of authoritative places. I argue that double quotation marks mean "", so placing double quotation marks around 'dog' would appear as ""dog"". In my opinion,
932:
is about the use of dates in the text of wiki articles (including tables, citations, etc.), and doesn't say anything about non-rendering template parameters as far as I can tell. I strongly agree with it that "2001-07" would be an unacceptable format for article text. You are certainly right that the
895:
I think I prefer the unambiguity of having the date spelled out to the potential ambiguity of just having it as numbers. Similarly, "citation needed" is plain
English, while readers may not know what "cn" means. However, I don't feel strongly about this; if other editors believe a numerical format is
669:
Under "when not to use" there is a link reading "list of inline templates" that goes nowhere when I click it. I spent many minutes looking for what I needed, and if this link had done what I expected, from its wording and context, I would have found my answers much more quickly. I assume some editors
1000:
If I come across examples with a template which don't seem solidly justified (e.g. a claim which widely known in the field, or is supported by a source provided by the end of the paragraph or sometimes in the general references, etc.), if I take any action at all I tend to err on the side of taking
771:
It can be, but it's not a requirement. When I'm reading an article that I think needs more citations, I'll tag individual statements if there's only a handful of them, use the template
Jonesey referenced above if only a section or two have multiple issues, and use More citations needed if multiple
996:
Well for example, I personally try really hard not to add these templates even to somewhat questionable claims because I know how illegible they render both the markup and the output. I might remove the claim, start a talk page conversation, or take the (often significant) trouble to go look up a
601:
template does not display on the mobile version of
Knowledge. That list of inline templates is quite valuable when editing and, when it was "hard-coded" into the documentation, could be consulted easily. Any ideas how to get that navbox to appear regardless of one's device or wikiskin? Thanks! —
1168:– just because many editors are desensitized or indifferent to markup clutter doesn't mean it isn't an issue. Maybe this particular improvement is impossible, but trying to make the syntax more concise where we can is at least worth a shot, considering how many of these there are everywhere. –
868:
It would be great if all of the inline superscript templates worked this way! All of the other similar templates also cause significant amounts of visual clutter to markup source, and anything that could be done to improve that would be awesome. I don't really care about top-of-section or
1047:
to do. The whole point is to make it clear that we're less than certain than usual about the information that's been tagged. By removing them in cases where they're placed appropriately, you're leading readers to believe we have a level of faith in the material that may not be warranted.
882:
is the most common one and is found on a large proportion of
Knowledge articles, so fixing it would make the most significant improvement to Knowledge authors' lives. But if you think there's a better venue for this type of suggestion, I'd be happy to also propose it elsewhere.
1030:
would seem to be assuming bad faith of the editor who initially placed it? If you can determine who placed it you can reach out to them, or you can start a discussion at the article's Talk page; simply removing it seems to be devaluing the opinion of the editor who placed
1363:
Some people might find syntax-highlighted text easier to process. OTOH, as it is now we could easily change the Usage section back since it's no longer syntaxhighlighted (I just did so now). To have an auto-date with syntaxhighlight you'd have to use
1078:
Thank you for clarifying! You're the first editor who I've seen state that they find the CN tags so obtrusive that they make a point of avoiding using them. If other editors feel that way, they really need to lend their voices to this discussion.
345:, a collaborative effort to improve and manage Knowledge's inline footnote, cleanup and dispute templates. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
981:
That may be an incentive, but in practice I've rarely witnessed such a thing, even among bad-faith or apparently new editors. If you're trying to argue that as a reason for making this change, I'd like to see some recent examples.
1124:
Can you explain why this would be ambiguous? We are specifying a particular month (not a year, not a range of years, not a day). There's no other meaning 2001-02 could have than "February 2001" in that context.
822:
The way the template works currently, readers should be forgiven for thinking that the primary goal is to cause as much of an eyesore as possible to interrupt reading of both the text and the markup source.
803:
670:
are thrown off a track of intended edits at the point at which I persisted, so if there's a fix to be done, I hope someone with the ability will do so. The page is locked for editing for me.
1034:
If I saw you (or anyone) removing a CN tag that seemed justified to me, I would issue a warning to them, especially if they did so without leaving an edit summary explaining their decision.
1196:, you changed the examples in the Usage and Examples sections. They now unchangingly say "July 2024", instead of automatically displaying the current month. Was this intentional?
1392:
tags is taken literally, there is no expansion at all and the only parsing is carried out purely in order to determine which colour, font-style, font-weight etc. to use for each
1311:
meant losing the helpful auto-date. Presumably they thought that would be more helpful than harmful, which if enough people blindly copy-paste the example may not be true. Then
479:
255:
933:
extreme ugliness in both markup and rendered output is a very strong incentive for wiki editors to never use (and remove ASAP with or without providing citations) the
1040:
You're the first person I've seen claim that the CN tag is "disruptive". I'll be curious to see whether other editors come forward in agreement with that perspective.
830:
1449:
869:
top-of-article templates. Since those are not inserted in running text, they are much less of an impediment to reading even if they are unnecessarily verbose.
54:. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
1011:. If the template were less disruptive (in markup, or especially in rendered output), the incentives would be different and behavior might be different.
955:
Editors who remove CN tags without resolving the situation (unless a source isn't reasonably needed) are editing disruptively and should be told such.
673:
Specifically, I suggest that the link point to
Knowledge:WikiProject_Inline_Templates (and in particular to the List of Inline Templates subsection).
1523:
132:
1062:
Sorry, by "disruptive" here I mean "visually interrupt the flow of reading", not the
Knowledge jargon sense of "disrupt the work of the project".
1037:
Obviously if a CN tag has been in place for a significant amount of time, removing the unsourced information is a reasonable course of action.
725:
1014:
On net, I think these poke-a-stick-in-readers'-eyes templates are moderately harmful for
Knowledge as a project and for its readers. YMMV. –
1513:
418:
349:
191:
707:
167:
1426:
1422:
1408:
1354:
1205:
555:
1193:
689:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
1375:
1358:
1336:
615:
95:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
808:
And also, could the date be used as an ordered first parameter in addition to being explicitly specified using the name "date"?
426:
1518:
1444:
this practice began with
English-deficient programmers who didn't know the correct names of 'apostrophe' and 'quotation mark'.
422:
341:
326:
764:
750:
648:
1498:
1209:
731:
I do, especially for specific claims in biographical articles. If a small section contains no references, I usually just put
575:
173:
795:
781:
701:
1132:
1119:
950:
890:
863:
263:
1088:
1073:
1057:
1021:
991:
976:
964:
923:
905:
1175:
1160:
997:
source, but if I'm feeling lazy I'll just leave the questionable claim alone, figuring it can be someone else's problem.
1224:
787:
756:
717:
82:
409:
389:
1453:
76:
90:
682:
586:
566:
713:
113:
1418:
1350:
1201:
735:
162:
51:
596:
587:
306:
64:
62:}} to notify an administrator to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
1342:
153:
45:
844:
186:
632:, this is a controversial design feature that goes back years and apparently we're stuck with it. See
470:
1414:
1382:
1346:
1197:
1005:
937:
514:
117:
39:
1326:
692:, but the in-page section link was left behind. I have adjusted the link. Thanks for the note. –
59:
791:
760:
721:
609:
312:
678:
92:
8:
1494:
1404:
1183:
1172:
1129:
1115:
1070:
1018:
973:
969:
You can tell people whatever you like. I'm just telling you what incentive was created. –
947:
919:
887:
859:
827:
746:
697:
644:
143:
55:
1107:
Whilst "2001-07" might not be ambiguous, "2001-02" and "2006-07" certainly would be. --
158:
1438:
1084:
1053:
987:
960:
901:
777:
623:
604:
572:
528:
139:
278:
1461:
1445:
1372:
1333:
1156:
654:
633:
98:
847:
that operate in the way that you suggest, and if there are none, please show why
674:
629:
93:
1487:
1397:
1393:
1169:
1126:
1108:
1067:
1015:
970:
944:
915:
884:
852:
838:
824:
742:
693:
637:
524:
274:
1507:
712:
Should this template be used in articles or sections already marked with the
561:
69:
1319:
1080:
1049:
983:
956:
897:
773:
414:
417:
of
Knowledge articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the
1369:
1330:
1312:
1152:
1148:
1147:
It seems you have a personal issue with things that aren't an issue. Per
929:
911:
876:
279:
546:
628:
It's not specific to Inline cleanup tags, it's because it's a navbox.
1216:
1189:
485:
nomination withdrawn on procedural technicality (and discussion was
804:
Could a numerical YYYY-MM date format be allowed as an alternative?
276:
100:
1151:
and making life clearer for other editors, I oppose this request.
505:
1026:
To remove the template because it doesn't seem solidly justified
817:
Questionable factual claim.{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}}
401:
383:
280:
1475:
1478:
34 decimal, 22 hex. Contrast ASCII 39 dec, 27 hex, which is
1467:
463:
1368:(and some sort of inline escaping) like what I said above.
1227:, which since they used the tag instead of something like
815:
is dramatically less visual clutter in markup source than
97:
91:
1341:
Is there an advantage to using syntaxhighlight tags over
1043:
Poking the reader in the eye is what these templates are
1479:
1345:? Is it possible to include an auto-date in the tags?
80:. Functionality of the template can be checked using
910:
That date format is ambiguous and is not allowed by
108:
348:Some discussion of this template may take place at
851:one should be different from all of the others. --
559:by a notable professional or academic publication:
1505:
1486:, the apostrophe or single quotation mark. --
1329:, with no explanation beyond "some cleanup".
928:Can you explain what is ambiguous about it?
1219:decided to change all the examples to use
813:Questionable factual claim.{{cn|2024-02}}
305:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
1064:cases where they're placed appropriately
413:, a collaborative effort to improve the
74:Any contributor may edit the template's
1524:Knowledge pages referenced by the press
708:Use with Template:More citations needed
52:heavily used or highly visible template
1506:
896:a net improvement, I won't push back.
359:Knowledge:WikiProject Inline Templates
525:"Artifact: The World Needs Citations"
362:Template:WikiProject Inline Templates
339:This template is within the scope of
294:
292:
541:
500:
458:
288:
28:
15:
311:It is of interest to the following
116:for discussing improvements to the
13:
1514:WikiProject Inline Templates pages
1315:changed just the Usage section to
474:
469:This template was considered for
14:
1535:
515:mentioned by a media organization
435:Knowledge:WikiProject Reliability
872:I'm bringing it up here because
660:
630:Navboxes don't display on mobile
545:
504:
462:
438:Template:WikiProject Reliability
400:
382:
293:
262:
133:Click here to start a new topic.
32:
571:(N.Y.: Viking, hardback 2011 (
567:The Better Angels of Our Nature
843:Please give examples of other
714:Template:More citations needed
702:17:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
683:16:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
1:
1519:WikiProject Reliability pages
1466:Double quotation marks means
130:Put new text under old text.
1390:...</syntaxhighlight: -->
796:15:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
782:14:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
765:15:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
751:00:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
726:22:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
588:Template:Inline cleanup tags
342:WikiProject Inline Templates
7:
1499:20:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1454:20:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1343:Template:Template link null
569:: Why Violence has Declined
523:Kerry Howley (March 2008).
138:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
1540:
1427:19:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
1409:18:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
1376:18:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
1359:18:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
1337:18:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
1210:17:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
658:
1228:
1176:07:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1161:06:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1133:07:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1120:07:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1089:14:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1074:14:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1058:14:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
1022:03:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
992:01:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
977:22:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
965:20:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
951:19:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
924:14:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
906:13:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
891:09:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
864:08:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
831:02:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
421:, where you can join the
407:This template is part of
395:
365:Inline Templates articles
332:
319:
168:Be welcoming to newcomers
22:Skip to table of contents
1389:<syntaxhighlight: -->
1221:<syntaxhighlight: -->
40:Template:Citation needed
21:
1327:Special:Diff/1237750529
1248:{{citation needed|date=
649:23:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
616:22:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
410:WikiProject Reliability
350:the project's talk page
163:avoid personal attacks
68:to add usage notes or
256:Auto-archiving period
1225:this series of edits
741:at the top of it. –
736:unreferenced section
593:For some reason the
477:. The result of the
441:Reliability articles
58:, editors may use {{
1415:Firefangledfeathers
1383:Firefangledfeathers
1347:Firefangledfeathers
1198:Firefangledfeathers
690:section was removed
597:Inline cleanup tags
552:This page has been
513:This page has been
352:, rather than here.
427:list of open tasks
307:content assessment
174:dispute resolution
135:
845:cleanup templates
582:
581:
576:978-0-670-02295-3
540:
539:
499:
498:
457:
456:
453:
452:
449:
448:
377:
376:
373:
372:
287:
286:
154:Assume good faith
131:
107:
106:
27:
26:
1531:
1490:
1483:
1471:
1465:
1400:
1391:
1387:Anything inside
1386:
1367:
1324:
1318:
1310:
1309:
1306:
1303:
1300:
1296:
1293:
1290:
1286:
1283:
1279:
1276:
1273:
1270:
1267:
1264:
1261:
1260:CURRENTMONTHNAME
1258:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1244:
1241:
1237:
1234:
1231:
1222:
1184:Date in examples
1111:
1010:
1004:
942:
936:
881:
875:
855:
842:
818:
814:
740:
734:
664:
663:
640:
627:
614:
612:
607:
600:
549:
542:
532:
508:
501:
476:
466:
459:
443:
442:
439:
436:
433:
404:
397:
396:
386:
379:
378:
367:
366:
363:
360:
357:
356:Inline Templates
334:
333:
327:Inline Templates
321:
320:
298:
297:
296:
289:
281:
267:
266:
257:
109:
101:
50:because it is a
36:
35:
29:
16:
1539:
1538:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1504:
1503:
1488:
1481:
1469:
1459:
1441:
1398:
1388:
1380:
1365:
1322:
1316:
1307:
1304:
1301:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1277:
1274:
1271:
1268:
1265:
1262:
1259:
1255:
1252:
1249:
1245:
1242:
1239:
1238:syntaxhighlight
1235:
1232:
1229:
1220:
1186:
1166:aren't an issue
1109:
1008:
1006:Citation needed
1002:
940:
938:citation needed
934:
879:
873:
853:
836:
816:
812:
811:Something like
806:
738:
732:
710:
667:
666:
661:
657:
638:
621:
610:
605:
603:
594:
591:
536:
535:
529:Reason Magazine
522:
518:
440:
437:
434:
431:
430:
364:
361:
358:
355:
354:
283:
282:
277:
254:
180:
179:
149:
118:Citation needed
103:
102:
96:
33:
12:
11:
5:
1537:
1527:
1526:
1521:
1516:
1502:
1501:
1440:
1439:Quotation Mark
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1378:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1041:
1038:
1035:
1032:
1012:
998:
870:
805:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
769:
768:
767:
709:
706:
705:
704:
659:
656:
653:
652:
651:
590:
585:
580:
579:
562:Pinker, Steven
560:
550:
538:
537:
534:
533:
519:
512:
511:
509:
497:
496:
487:overwhelmingly
467:
455:
454:
451:
450:
447:
446:
444:
405:
393:
392:
387:
375:
374:
371:
370:
368:
346:
337:
330:
329:
324:
317:
316:
310:
299:
285:
284:
275:
273:
272:
269:
268:
182:
181:
178:
177:
170:
165:
156:
150:
148:
147:
136:
127:
126:
123:
122:
121:
105:
104:
99:
94:
89:
88:
60:edit protected
37:
25:
24:
19:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1536:
1525:
1522:
1520:
1517:
1515:
1512:
1511:
1509:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1485:
1477:
1473:
1463:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1395:
1384:
1379:
1377:
1374:
1371:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1335:
1332:
1328:
1321:
1314:
1226:
1218:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1177:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1134:
1131:
1128:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1106:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1046:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1020:
1017:
1013:
1007:
999:
995:
994:
993:
989:
985:
980:
979:
978:
975:
972:
968:
967:
966:
962:
958:
954:
953:
952:
949:
946:
939:
931:
927:
926:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
908:
907:
903:
899:
894:
893:
892:
889:
886:
878:
871:
867:
866:
865:
861:
857:
850:
846:
840:
835:
834:
833:
832:
829:
826:
820:
809:
797:
793:
789:
785:
784:
783:
779:
775:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
753:
752:
748:
744:
737:
730:
729:
728:
727:
723:
719:
715:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
686:
685:
684:
680:
676:
671:
655:Link problem?
650:
646:
642:
635:
631:
625:
620:
619:
618:
617:
613:
608:
598:
589:
584:
577:
574:
570:
568:
563:
558:
557:
551:
548:
544:
543:
530:
526:
521:
520:
516:
510:
507:
503:
502:
494:
492:
488:
482:
481:
472:
468:
465:
461:
460:
445:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
411:
406:
403:
399:
398:
394:
391:
388:
385:
381:
380:
369:
353:
351:
344:
343:
338:
336:
335:
331:
328:
325:
323:
322:
318:
314:
308:
304:
300:
291:
290:
271:
270:
265:
261:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
190:
188:
184:
183:
175:
171:
169:
166:
164:
160:
157:
155:
152:
151:
145:
141:
140:Learn to edit
137:
134:
129:
128:
125:
124:
119:
115:
111:
110:
87:
85:
84:
79:
78:
71:
67:
66:
65:documentation
61:
57:
53:
49:
47:
41:
38:
31:
30:
23:
20:
18:
17:
1442:
1187:
1165:
1063:
1044:
1027:
848:
821:
810:
807:
788:83.168.137.1
757:83.168.137.1
718:83.168.137.1
711:
672:
668:
634:phab:T124168
624:SpikeToronto
592:
583:
565:
553:
490:
489:in favor of
486:
484:
478:
419:project page
408:
347:
340:
313:WikiProjects
302:
259:
185:
112:This is the
81:
75:
73:
63:
48:from editing
44:permanently
43:
1462:Gggustafson
1446:Gggustafson
1269:CURRENTYEAR
1215:Looks like
1149:MOS:DATESNO
943:template. –
930:MOS:DATESNO
912:MOS:DATESNO
554:cited as a
475:2006 July 1
432:Reliability
415:reliability
390:Reliability
1508:Categories
675:Al Begamut
578:)), p. 113
480:discussion
425:and see a
423:discussion
83:test cases
70:categories
1484:character
1472:character
1194:this edit
1170:jacobolus
1127:jacobolus
1068:jacobolus
1016:jacobolus
971:jacobolus
945:jacobolus
916:Jonesey95
885:jacobolus
839:Jacobolus
825:jacobolus
743:Jonesey95
694:Jonesey95
176:if needed
159:Be polite
120:template.
114:talk page
56:consensus
46:protected
1423:contribs
1413:Thanks.
1355:contribs
1297:wikitext
1206:contribs
1045:supposed
665:Resolved
471:deletion
303:template
187:Archives
144:get help
1081:DonIago
1050:DonIago
984:DonIago
957:DonIago
898:DonIago
786:thanks
774:DonIago
755:thanks
611:Toronto
260:60 days
77:sandbox
1491:rose64
1401:rose64
1370:Anomie
1331:Anomie
1313:Gonnym
1302:inline
1285:nowiki
1275:nowiki
1272:}}<
1253:nowiki
1243:nowiki
1153:Gonnym
1112:rose64
1028:to you
856:rose64
641:rose64
556:source
309:scale.
1476:ASCII
1474:, or
1394:token
1288:: -->
1282:</
1278:: -->
1256:: -->
1250:</
1246:: -->
1240:|<
1192:. In
688:That
606:Spike
483:was "
301:This
192:Index
172:Seek
1495:talk
1493:🌹 (
1480:the
1468:the
1450:talk
1419:talk
1405:talk
1403:🌹 (
1396:. --
1366:#tag
1351:talk
1292:lang
1233:#tag
1217:JPxG
1202:talk
1190:JPxG
1188:Hey
1157:talk
1116:talk
1114:🌹 (
1085:talk
1054:talk
988:talk
961:talk
920:talk
902:talk
860:talk
858:🌹 (
849:this
792:talk
778:talk
761:talk
747:talk
722:talk
698:talk
679:talk
645:talk
643:🌹 (
636:. --
573:ISBN
491:keep
161:and
1489:Red
1399:Red
1325:in
1320:tlx
1223:in
1173:(t)
1130:(t)
1110:Red
1071:(t)
1031:it.
1019:(t)
974:(t)
948:(t)
888:(t)
854:Red
828:(t)
639:Red
473:on
42:is
1510::
1497:)
1452:)
1425:)
1421:/
1407:)
1357:)
1353:/
1323:}}
1317:{{
1308:}}
1280:}}
1266:{{
1263:}}
1257:{{
1230:{{
1208:)
1204:/
1159:)
1118:)
1087:)
1056:)
1009:}}
1003:{{
990:)
963:)
941:}}
935:{{
922:)
904:)
880:}}
877:cn
874:{{
862:)
819:.
794:)
780:)
763:)
749:)
739:}}
733:{{
724:)
716:?
700:)
681:)
647:)
599:}}
595:{{
564:,
527:.
495:".
258::
252:15
250:,
248:14
246:,
244:13
242:,
240:12
238:,
236:11
234:,
232:10
230:,
226:,
222:,
218:,
214:,
210:,
206:,
202:,
198:,
194:,
142:;
86:.
72:.
1482:'
1470:"
1464::
1460:@
1448:(
1417:(
1385::
1381:@
1373:⚔
1349:(
1334:⚔
1305:=
1299:|
1295:=
1289:|
1236::
1200:(
1155:(
1125:–
1083:(
1052:(
986:(
959:(
918:(
900:(
883:–
841::
837:@
823:–
790:(
776:(
759:(
745:(
720:(
696:(
677:(
626::
622:@
531:.
517::
493:)
429:.
315::
228:9
224:8
220:7
216:6
212:5
208:4
204:3
200:2
196:1
189::
146:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.