Template talk:Citation needed/Archive 1

2975:

pede justo, fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo, rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus. Vivamus elementum semper nisi. Aenean vulputate eleifend tellus. Aenean leo ligula, porttitor eu, consequat vitae, eleifend ac, enim. Aliquam lorem ante, dapibus in, viverra quis, feugiat a, tellus. Phasellus viverra nulla ut metus varius laoreet. Quisque rutrum. Aenean imperdiet. Etiam ultricies nisi vel augue. Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi. Nam eget dui.

2947:

2919:

31: 267:

strength--it's so obscene that trolls either come up with substantiating sources or remove their trollishness of their own accord. In retrospect, it's not how "unprofessional" it looks (although it looks unwikipedistic) that bothers me, it's that it loses its strength as a tool to cajole POV-pushers into sourcing their claims or deleting them on their own. Maybe I've misunderstood the purpose of the template...but I've always regarded it as a means of forcing the issue of

1445:. Taking up too much space isn't really a problem because ideally the template shouldn't be there for very long. Any statement that gets flagged with this template should either be referenced, or should be removed in a short time. It's analogous to the "cleanup" tags, that can be placed at the top of an article that needs work. They take up a 1498:"Citation needed" invites the reader/editor to seek out a source and post the citation in the article. "Uncited" or "??" does not. If the only argument against "citation needed" is that it is long, I don't think a change is necessary. I'm reverting the change to the template until consensus is apparent on a change. - 1017:

with Brian. I've seen it removed rather quickly whereëver it's been used. Michael, do you have statistics indicating that it's been sitting somewhere in some articles for a long period of time unattended? If it has, it should, along with the statement in question, either be commented out, or removed from the article.

2084:

it actually is going to be "officially" deprecated and eventually deleted, otherwise people will simply keep using it, making more work for the renaming effort, and hence more server load, and so on ad infinitum. (Nothing crippling in and of itself, but 5-6000 edits is not to be sneezed at either.)

1615:

will. They each look like they don't belong, and if someone is going to go to the trouble of looking up a reference, they will do it just as readily for any of them. But the first breaks all typographic conventions used in publications or on the Web, and looks like heck, especially when it is found

943:

Tom argues, in effect, that making the template typographically ugly helps serve its function of attracting attention. Good designers use a number of techniques to draw attention to elements on the page. Let's use a standard typographic technique to draw attention; let's not use poor design to draw

637:

The superscripted form has absolutely no precedent in typesetting design, and is not only eye-catching, but very ungainly, to be polite. How about something with a prominent character, like this? Or using a typesetter's fist, although I suspect this may not show up on MSIE/Win without specifying a

108:

used for long words like this template, which puts a big empty space in the middle of the text—it's an empty blot that stands out so much I can see it on my monitor from across the room, and further emphasizing it by italicizing is completely unnecessary. The note is long enough that when it appears

2694:

temporary. It is being added to Knowledge at a rate of close to 100 instances per day, and will continue to be seen by more readers, more often. That it is intended to be temporary doesn't matter anyway: it adversely affects readability of text and looks unprofessional when someone reads or prints

1763:

is deprecated. That was an older (the original?) name for this template, but should no longer be used. Deleting a template that is in wide use is a lot of trouble. It's usually better to just redirect it to the new template, and then "promote" the new name rather than the old one. In time, we should

1700:

According to the good faith principle, this template says that a citation is needed, nothing more. The article should remain readable and re-publishable. This template should only mark the place where a citation is needed in a sufficient and professional-looking manner, and not purposely drag down

1596:

That would be great, but it's not happening. Adding this template to an article is being used as a gesture of disapproval, by editors who don't follow through and do something about the "offending" text. A great deal of discussion on this page seems to assume that having this template be ugly will

3365:

Most importantly, I added a conditional code evaluating the {{NAMESPACE}} variable. This template will now only populate the category when used in article space. "Category:Articles with unsourced statements" implies that it should only contain articles, not project pages. Notice that this talk page

2974:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. Donec

2946:

2918:

2406:

I read the discussion here and I must say that I like the present version: with upper index and square brackets. Perhaps I simply got used to it, but I like it more than any of the alternatives proposed above. Also, as someone noted, the template in fact should distract one's eye. If it does not, a

2298:

Such a font switch is used in many publications to indicate a change of context, for example, to indicate different parts of a definition in a dictionary. The different font stands out significantly in running text. The square brackets still imply an editorial remark, standing outside of the text

2287:

In the last 41 days the number of inclusions of this template has doubled, to about 4,900. Its occurrence grew by about 120 per day, and appears to be accelerating. Perhaps it will level off, but this template will continue to be seen more and more by Knowledge readers. Please let's not continue

2571:

Speaking as an author of 25+ years experience, and considerable interaction with professional typesetting, I have personally set entire words in superscript, or in subscript, or in underscript-overscript pairs. Short words. Short references. That is, is perfectly acceptable, while is horrible

867:

There's about 280 of them. You guys are adding these templates all over the place and leaving them in there. What you want is for it to be prominent. That is not the same thing as being ugly, poorly-designed, unprofessional. Prominent gets attention, ugly is just ugly. What a way to design an

619:

I would rather reach consensus too, than edit-war. I'm not crazy about colour, either. I see your point about this being like proofreader's markup—It is like that in that it is intended to be replaced, but is also like an editorial comment in that 1. it is regarding editorial content, not merely

1016:

I guess it's a matter of degrees of comfort then. I don't see a problem with its proliferation given the statistic you cite. Since way more than 280 articles have been created in the past 4.5 months, I'd say we're doing good that only 280 outrageously unsupported statements have been made. I'm

3591:

My rationale is that even if we decide not to use a second parameter in the template, recommending that people add a reason as the second parameter might be useful in helping other editors clean up articles. (Note that this would have the added benefit of reducing viral growth since the template

3076:

I agree. Was about to post this: Putting in a separate category was a good idea, you're right it didn't seem appropriate before. I liked the italics though. I don't know about making it "stand out", but they distinguished it more from the regular text of the article. I added them back for now, I

560:

First of all, it is not "editorial comment". An editorial comment is a normal element in the book or article. and live "forever", so to say. We don't comment the isssue. This is a wikipedia's marker that something is poorly done. I would compare them to big ugly margin marks, This thing must be

476:

With the use of a background colour, the brackets also help accessibility; in case the colour is lost (in a print version, repurposed text, unusual web browser) the nature of the notice is still evident. I don't mind if you add the colour to the template now to help with your troll-baiting, and

450:

even. The only reason I noticed the change was bcz I slapped a couple of tags on some particularly troll-heavy articles, and all of a sudden they looked less obnoxious than I wanted them to. :-D That said, I think the pale yellow is a bit too unobtrusive (check out how it appears on LCDs, for

266:

look very unprofessional, and I guess that's kind of how I've always used the template...as a kind of weapon against POV warriors who insist on reinserting unsubstantiated crap into articles. Reviewing how I've used the template, I realize that its very unprofessional appearance is its greatest

921:

Ta bu shi da yu implies that it's okay this is ugly because then it gets removed. This template is now placed in Knowledge in about 280 places. In a month or two it will be in 500—it's not being removed, it's being added. You guys put this template in the text, and then forget about it. The

328:

I'm not sure...like I said, I've regarded it primarily as a troll-fighting tool. Basically, whatever draws sufficient attention to the fact that the statement to which it's attached is being made w/o citation, works for me. Being inline with the text and set off by square brackets isn't quite

2664:

Mr. Simpson, I'm happy for your successful career, but you won't win any arguments just by stating your length. Can you cite any examples of good typesetters' work where entire words are set in superscript which we can refer to? I do agree that four-letter word like "fact" would be much less

1738:

Folks, I was surprised to see {{fact}} as a synomym for this page, "Citation needed." For newbies, and even experienced users like me, it's completely misleading and confusing, as it appears in the wikimarkup that this is a declared "fact" rather than something that needs "fact checking." Can

1548:

In 2-1/2 months, this template's usage has grown from about 280 inclusions to somewhere around 2,500! If anyone is still claiming that it is okay that this template is an eyesore because it's only going to be in place temporarily, then I ask you to retract that statement, or get ready to work

229:

are always used for this purpose in professional publishing. It does stand out a bit more than round parentheses, but that's by design—an editorial remark should not be mistaken for part of the text. Since this template is meant to be a temporary notice that encourages its replacement with a

2720:

It could serve its purpose just as well while looking more professional. I'm opposed to the working principle of this design element, which more often than not is to shame an editor into providing a reference or allowing disputed text to be removed. The practical result is that thousands of

1392:

to the fact that a citation is needed. The ?? version does not do this. In particular, this template is typically used when a fact critically needs to be backed up by a reference because it is in dispute or otherwise doubtful. In principle, adding this tag to a statement in the article is a

3396:

One day a MediaWiki developer will fix the main.css file so that superscripts/references do not muck up line heights in bulleted lists or indented text; this would have the unfortunate side-effect of making this template unobtrusive, which we don't want. I propose adding something like

1723:

Being an incentive to find a source shouldn't be a reason for making this template bloated. Knowledge articles are read by everyone, and the point of the template should only be to inform the reader that the statement may not be true; without being at the expense of layout and style.

825:

Exactly. Which is why I prefer it to be incredibly ugly. It draws attention to the fact that unsupported/unsupportable information is being held up as fact. Like I said above, it's a tool of last resort, but it it usually rather effectively stops trolls. Making it pretty, or less

620:

orthography, and 2. it is visible in a published Knowledge article. Electronic publishing makes possible what was not possible in paper books, but we should try to extend traditional typesetting conventions when possible. For reference, here's a demonstration of proofreader's marks

3031:

I also changed the formatting of the text from italics to normal. The text is already superscripted and in brackets... the italics didn't make it stand out any more. I won't yell if anyone reverts the formatting, but I really do think that the new category is a better name.

2105:

should be used for the citiation needed template... I'm neutral with it. Its name is a tad bit weird for the template's type, but I keep adding {{fact}} when I want to add this template. Simply put, {{fact}} won't be going away as a usage of this template anytime soon.

1582:

am more concerned that it has been placed on the article in the first place! Two solutions: remove the text and place on talk page, or research the facts and provide a source. The solution is not to "fix" this template: the solution is to fix the article it is used on. -

3587:

For example, the text "Object was not designed for verbatim use by people with allergies.{{citeneeded|that use is not verbatim}}" shows that we are requesting a citation about said Object not being for verbatim use, instead of about its use by people with allergies.

296:

Hm, that is a good point, although you seem to be arguing that it is both too ugly and not ugly enough. But this template currently sits in about 280 articles, so it doesn't seem get replaced with references often enough. Can we reach some sort of compromise?

551: 3584:, so that when the mouse hovers over the link, "Citation needed: what to reference" appears as the tooltip. This would help point other editors in the right direction and avoid misunderstandings between editors over what is needed to fix up that section. 3114:

This template currently has 8,674 inclusions and links. Its rate of inclusion is beginning to drop, having been added to Knowledge only an average of 94 times per day over the last forty days (compared to 120 times per day over the previous 41 days).

3118:

If someone still thinks the ridiculous design of this template is encouraging its removal, then maybe we should set it in 64-point pink script letters. When they see that, they'll hit the stacks and enter all those references by next week.

2486:

I object; the superscript is smaller, less obtrusive, and more professional looking. When it's in the main body it looks like its part of the actual text itself. I also note that several others objected, above, and made counter-suggestions.

198:

the square brackets look very unprofessional. maybe it's just because I've spent too much time on wikipedia. maybe they should be replaced with parentheses or glowing silver pentagrams, I dunno, but the squarebrackets look ... amateurish.

3606:

Is there a template that can be used when there is a citation but when one thinks it to be somehow "deficient" or "not adequate" ? Like for stating that there is well a citation but an additional one (or more) would be pertinent? Regards.

1264:

Well, I'm repeating myself here, but no serious type designer has ever used superscripted, italicized, small font to format whole words, to indicate an editorial insert or anything else. They always use square brackets for this purpose.

959:

I disagree that it is not being removed. I've placed this template on newly-made contributions by both anons and registered users, and have seen them immediately find sources and replace the template with that source. So it does work. —

1000:

It's been placed about 280 more times than it's been removed over the 4-1/2 months of its existence. As more people find it, the accretion will accelerate. So it should made to look as professional as most other things on Knowledge.

746:

Clear distinction from article text, i.e., understanding that this is a kind of markup, similar to {{cleanup}}. (Simply square brackets are bad, since it implies familiarity with our conventions. For untrained, any of (...), <...:

3409:) and always kept ugly even though other superscripts are typographically correct. Javascript code and/or css needs a title or class to distinguish between this template and normal superscripts, regardless of a skin customization. -- 1221:

The square brackets are appropriate, since this is an editorial remark. The formatting is definitely over-emphasized, having square brackets, a raised baseline, a smaller font, and italicized font all drawing attention to it. Any

2449:

that allows you to replace the current template with whatever you want. At the moment I am using, (the commented-out line will replace it with my image if you are interested,) and to me it looks nicer than the whitespace-ridden,

3321:. The title tool-tip only appears when mousing over the brackets, because the link's tool-tip overrides it. And anyway, what's the point of adding the label "needs citation" to the text "citation needed"? This helps no one. 3636:

What I'm looking for is a "This citation is interesting enough that I'm not going to delete it, but it probably isn't trustworthy." The particular case I'm looking at is an article which cites a rumor site (specifically,

3199:

There may be a gotcha I'm not thinking of at first glance for making this template sensitive to styles in this way, but before any implementations are attempted it would be useful to know if the idea has merit. Thanks.

101:, in all types of writing. Small superscript ("superior text") is reserved for footnote or endnote references using symbols or figures (cite, another ), mathematical expressions (E=mc), and sometimes ordinals (1, 2). 2318:

I'm fine with that, although I can't imagine how you see a italic or small-cap insertion in square brackets as more appealing than a superscript insertion in square brackets. The superscript has the advantage of being

2266:

Some kind of official declaration on the matter would be greatly appreciated, as the competing templates are sowing confusion (not to mention the actual confusion caused by {{fact}}). And if not here, then where.

109:

after a period, it looks like the beginning of the next sentence rather than a note. and in many browsers superscripts also add line space above, which confuses the reader by masquerading as a paragraph break.

758: 581: 96:

in an article. For reference, here are examples of the conventional form of an editorial note , and the version of this template before I changed it. This is an editorial comment, and editorial comments go in

3270:

No one says people have to remember when to use every last template. People can put in a more generic template, and others can refine it if they so prefer. "Anyone can edit" can apply to template usage, too.

1294:, which is currently facing AfD. It just seems a bit odd to me - I thought the preferred way to deal with unsourced claims was to remove them to the Talk page until citations were/could be provided. Thoughts? 2388: 1678:

There is no "draft" distinction on Knowledge. All articles are open to readers, are being actively edited, and are republished on various sites. If an article has a serious problem, then it should have a

573:

is OK, but if people object and revert, then sorry, you have to back off. The priority is for the original version, since for a long time no one objected. And if you feel change needed, wait for consensus.

1629:

There are two problems: 1 lack of citations, and 2 the poor typographic formatting of this template. The second problem does not help with correct the first. So please let's correct the second problem.

112:

I'm going to change this back to a normal editorial note in brackets; please don't pick an arbitrary and unsuitable formatting style, like superscripted text—please stick to conventional editorial style.

703:— which are as small as possible: a tiny asterisk, dagger, or number. They're never a sentence fragment or even a single word. They don't leave a big white gap following the x-height of a line of text. 1329: 716:

Many Knowledge articles do have actual footnote references in them, but this is not one. It is an editorial comment; it's not part of the text, but a statement about the text. An editorial comment.

2160:

reads to the average editor as "not a fact", and it has been just as inflammatory as accusing the submitter of the corresponding statement of vandalism. Henceforth, I feel that we should not endorse

773:

is in a blue box, to show that it is not part of the text. That would be better than the weird superscripted fragment between sentences—a completely novel convention. The white space under it is

1531:

wikipedia, and to a degree, we serve them. That's why we don't have discussions on article pages, and this whole Citation needed business goes a little too far in that direction for my taste.

179:

I have been bold and added the square brackets back in so that this template is clearly distinguished from the text. Alternatives are welcome, but this appears to me as the best current choice.

2336:

The dense, tiny text and the long break in the baseline underneath the superscript draw the eye from across the page and interrupt the flow of reading, much more than a simple change of font.

682:

You just finished arguing that this is not an editorial comment because it is not "a normal element in the book or article. and live 'forever', so to say." Now you're telling me a footnote, a

1471:

first, i.e. assume that the statement is correct, and that the editor who added it can provide a source. If you really want to question the validity of the statement, you should probably use

740:

Nonobtrusiveness (no bold or bright colors), so that the eye would not be unnecessariny attracted to bright spots, breaking the the normal reading (ufortunately, it is just physiology of eye)

1597:

somehow prompt the correcting of missing citations. If this is at all true, it's not true enough: this template is being added about 1,000 more times per month than it is being removed!

2257:(My reasoning behind step 2 is so that the process isn't interrupted part-way.) Whatever the case, we need more discussion on this, albeit not so far as requesting a move just yet. -- 1245:

The brackets are unnecessary because of the superscript, the italics, and the smaller font, all of which I think are a good idea, and which make it obvious it's an editorial insert.

2364: 1431:

Oh right. Well, my main complaint is that the template takes up too much space atm. Also "citation needed" says only that - it doesn't question the validity of the statement.

2523:

professional looking, and more obtrusive, distracting the reader's eye from across the page and disrupting the flow of reading. It lowers the visual quality of an article.

2454:. I have noticed that looks visually pleasing and non-intrusive when I'm browsing, yet is still eye-catching when I'm in "edit mode". Try it out and see what you think. -- 427:

I might get convinced—don't forget the text is linked . Would you mind waiting a day to see how others respond ? We can file a request for comment if that doesn't help.

3204: 3015: 3047:

I understand that the discussion about the italics has gone on for some time, but for my two cents, the italics always made sense to me because "citation needed" is a

3041: 2887:

tag should use this vertical alignment too, because at the moment it also borks line heights, an effect very evident on heavily-cited articles. I'll demonstrate here:

1853:

Somebody surely has a bot/program capable of doing that already. At least a few admins must have access to it. I didn't say it'd be easy for any user like me to do. --

1523:

I think a single ? or a double ?? is the best way to do this. "Citation needed" takes up a lot of room, and sort of ruins the article; We need to remember that while

602:

Hmm yes. But still I am #3 in reverting and I haven't seen anyone yet who definitely supports you. You may try to revert me (I don't object) and see what will happen.

2639: 2610: 2288:

to accept poor typography just because the template's placement is intended to be temporary (the details have been discussed above, so let's not get into that here).

3240:

This is a good point, that in articles with the first two types of references, this template is out of place, in that it doesn't even imitate the reference style.

3596: 3028:, as the old categorization was really not appropriately titled. This template is for articles that do list sources, but have some statements that need citations. 3063:. In my opinion, the purpose of the italics isn't to emphasize the "citation needed" but to visually lessen its effect of breaking up an article's normal text. – 142:

It's bigger, so it may look intrusive in isolation. But when you're reading an article you should find it distracts the eye much less than the other version.

3265: 1909:

Maybe somebody should decide it's deprecated. The extra ease of use of a few letters isn't justification for being incredibly confusing to new users. The name

1661: 838: 3532: 3201: 3134: 2299:

article itself. But it uses conventional typographic techniques and doesn't present as much of a jarring visual element on the page as a long superscript.

1411:

Well, the ?? is pretty challenging, since not only is it saying "citation needed", it's putting the statement in question marks, ie. adding touch of doubt.

1199: 1179: 826:

obtrustive/obscene, would reduce its effectiveness. At the same time, it alerts the casual reader that an assertion is being made that may be inaccurate.

508:

trolls, so much as a tool to warn innocent readers that trolls are at work. This is not what I regard as a "tool of first resort", rather almost as one of

3492: 3435: 3275: 2766: 2397: 2031: 1251: 3649: 3631: 3575: 3566:

I don't know why, but this template is HIGHLY effective. Users often cite things within a single day! Amazing! My thanks to the creators/maintainers :).

2458: 2419: 2261: 2075: 1492: 1425: 1405: 1317: 1189: 1980: 1768: 1535: 3556: 2428: 1943: 1884: 1747: 1461: 1435: 1415: 1382: 1153: 1068:

Evidence like that would take a lot of work to collect. A disadvantage of such a template is that it is difficult to find stale copies. I just added

1031: 900: 667: 524: 463: 389: 372: 351: 283: 2506: 2131: 1857: 1848: 1811: 2424:

I also like the present version, although DavidHOzAu's is not bad. It would be best not to use any sort of image, though, for accessibility reasons.

2277: 1510: 169: 3084: 3067: 2986:

Clearly this template isn't what is at fault here. It appears to me that this layout problem stems from the styles associated with the <sup: -->

2372: 2089: 1453:

to be. The goal is to fix the problem and remove the template, not refine the template so that it detracts less from the appearance of the article.

765:

I think you're now the second one who has argued that it must be both more attention-catching and less attention-catching than any of my proposals.

2803:

successful at getting people to do nothing. Perhaps if it looked better, it would be even more successful at getting people to dig up references.

2327: 1129: 777:

an unnecessary bright spot in the normal typographic "colour" of the page. This eye-distraction is exactly the kind of thing typesetters avoid.

2836:

Too bad we can't measure how successful this template is at getting newcomers to believe that Knowledge suffers from bush-league typography.

2491: 2295:

the template's function: instead of using a superscript, set the text in an italic serif font, like this example , or in small capitals .

1159: 3528:

In know it's a bad idea, but it's the idea for this template: make it look ugly, so other people will want to replace it with a citation. --

1291: 1558:(two question marks are redundant), linking through the phrase "citation needed", which will be visible in the tool-tip, but redirects to 3349: 3163:

If this proposal were accepted, here are examples of how this template's appearance would vary based on an article's style, ignoring any

3025: 1587: 3618: 3139:

I'd like to suggest that this template should render its output based on the style used to render sources in the article. As noted in

1215: 790:

They stand out as "other", without degrading the reader's experience by interrupting the scanning of the eye across the line of text.

1733: 819: 561:

clearly visible with quick eye scan. I am against color conding, since the page are already raibow: bold black, blue, red, magenta.

421: 211: 3570: 3259:

No, this is insane. This multiplicitiy of ever-more-specific templates has to stop. People can't be expected to remember them all.

1728: 1361: 1356: 546: 1175:

The second example pastes (what I think is) the template text directly into the page. Can the template be made to work with lists?

3542: 3505:

PS: purposefully screwing up the line height of text on the page to support the function of this template is a really bad idea.

3010: 2991: 1680: 79: 71: 66: 3413: 1308:) to remove stuff to talk until referenced, but this is a relatively new system which any one is free to use... it's up to you! 1164:

Could someone with more template ability look into the problem that this template adds line breaks on lists? Here's an example:

3444:

It's a bad idea to inject classes which are not used in the style sheets. Knowledge already has classes for this purpose (see

1298: 564:

Unilike "editorial comment", which is a perm part of the finished text, this template will be deleted once the problem fixed.

186: 3001: 2599:

is temporary, and not a serious consideration for actual paper publication. In summary, his entire argument was a fallacious

1133: 1118: 339:

text is way too obnoxious, obviously, but I don't think the fact that a statement is unsourced should be trivialized either.

1421:

It just looks like a rendering error to my eye, like what I get when someone uses Japanese or Chinese characters on a page.--

1352:, but has a very different purpose,notably oin that it can be addedto an already well-sourced article without contradiction. 133: 3104: 2360:. What we really need is a small image like we have for external links, and I have taken the liberty of making a small image 2080:

Any further thinking on whether this redirect should go or not? There's not much point in replacing all the current usages

1620:

have editorial notices pointing out missing information, while still applying some level of professional-looking typography.

3227: 2247:

all occurrences that are not the final name of this template with the proper name using AWB, a bot, or similar (somebody?)

2282: 2137: 1123:

You know this is perhaps a useless template. Next thing you know we weill have a template that only contains the link to

569: 504:, but I guess, "baiting" isn't probably that non-understandable an interpretation. I don't use it as a tool intended to 262:

Well, for me what you describe as "very unprofessional" is, I guess, what has always, in retrospect, drawn me to it. It

3445: 660:

Sorry, that's plain wrong. Superscripting has long been used for footnoting. As for prominent, too bold is bad either.

477:

change the text to "citation requested", but there may be some push-back when other editors spot the colour. Cheers.

3021: 2125: 1467:"Citation needed" seems clearer to me. I agree by the way that it doesn't question the validity of the statement. We 1069: 587:

Hm, but no one reverted after reading this ongoing discussion about the format, that is until you just came along.

377:

I guess the different-colored background (possibly even set off with square-brackets) is the most appealing to me.

3051:. Pretty much all self-references in the article text (as opposed to boxes) are supposed to be italicized, such as 3382: 3362:

so the server won't have to re-cache a good chunk of article space if and when {{tl}} is ever modified or touched.

3230: 788:

they are a standard English-language typographic convention for an editorial remark that stands outside the text!

2550:

Next time mZajac makes such a sweeping generalization, he might specify what publisher he has experienced that

2170:

by leaving the official title of this template as it is. (Unfortunately somebody went and moved the page from

1401:). This template needs to provide a glaringly obvious indication that a citation is needed, not an obscure .-- 3179: 3150: 1653:

The way I look at it, an article that is missing citations or needs cleanup, etc., is not "finished". It's a

47: 17: 2633:

It's meant to be obtrusive to some extent, because the point of it is to encourage editors to find sources.

3060: 3109: 309:? None of these are normal typographic conventions like the square brackets, but the superscript is just 3561: 2379:

tag, it really shouldn't take so much work to get the citation link pointing through the image. Like this

1919:

is pretty much the opposite of what that template is used to mean. If ease of use is the main reason for

1468: 3355:

I moved the brackets outside of the link, for what I feel is a cleaner appearance, but I won't argue it.

2760:

Adding these citation requests is in fact remarkably successful at getting people to dig up references.

3290:

Why are these templates being shuffled around? Needlessly transcluding templates, such as was done in

2607: 2291:

Here's an idea to improve the template's appearance, without compromising the typography of an article

1996: 1209:

I see someone has added square brackets to this. I preferred it without. Does anyone mind if I revert?

38: 3406: 243:

unprofessional. I don't believe you'll find a single example of a similar usage in any publication.

3601: 2095:

Well, it's not a redirect anymore. It is actually the template name now. as you can see. As for if

1372: 1367: 2799:

That may be so, but it is impossible to quantify. But we do know that it is 92 occurrences per day

3291: 3183: 2171: 1559: 2446: 2387: 2036: 2001: 1398: 1346: 1204: 2382: 2356: 2026: 1323: 191: 3628: 2452:

provided the verticalAlign style gets changed to 'top' so text actually stays within the line

2120: 1878:

Who has decided that fact is deprecated? It's much easier to type "fact" than "cite needed".

1336: 409:, but that might run into just a little bit more opposition than I care to fight off... :-p 2138:

Very recently, use of "fact" led to a misunderstanding between editors in a feature article.

1787:

to add to articles. Is it really that much trouble to replace them all with something like

1484:"uncited" or even something as simple as "cite" might be OK, though, as long as it links to 3263: 3102: 2764: 2637: 2504: 2011: 2006: 1882: 1584: 1543: 1516:

How about a single ? like so to match the style of ? ManaUser] 21:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

1249: 1213: 816: 8: 3192: 3156: 2896: 2016: 1834: 1791: 1143: 1108: 1021: 967: 890: 850: 830: 516: 455: 413: 381: 364: 343: 275: 203: 161: 3424: 3309: 3285: 2323:, so it's not as obtrusive, for those who object to this template being too obtrusive.-- 3624: 3608: 2882:, because at the moment it is seriously borks up the line heights. In my opinion, the 2416: 2195:(for example, or something else that actually tells editors why this template was used) 1744: 1151: 1116: 1029: 898: 755: 664: 606: 578: 183: 686:

normal element in a book or article than a proofreader's mark or an editorial comment.

2869: 2665:

disruptive to readers than the phrase "", coloured blue, in brackets and italic font.

1505: 1295: 544: 87: 2178:

before we could truly reach consensus. :p) Therefore I propose the following steps:

1397:

that the statement is subject to deletion unless someone is able to back it up (per

1328:

I think it would be pertinent t rename the cat for this article with something like

3627:. Not exactly what you describe, but could be adjusted to include 'more needed'. -- 3547:

How about we use correct typography (remove the sup tag altogether) and :gasp: use

3511: 3454: 3391: 3327: 3300: 3246: 3125: 3056: 3052: 3037: 2842: 2727: 2529: 2476: 2342: 2308: 2275: 2108: 2052: 2041: 1707: 1636: 1568: 1475: 1313: 1271: 1232: 1078: 1007: 950: 874: 806: 796: 770: 722: 649: 621: 593: 483: 433: 319: 249: 148: 119: 1304:

Well, there's more than one way to skin a cat :-). Yes, it's common (and accepted

492:

Like I said, I'm content to wait a week for others to comment. That said, I take

3593: 3553: 3529: 3489: 3432: 3410: 3272: 3260: 3164: 3099: 3007: 2988: 2761: 2634: 2501: 2455: 2394: 2369: 2258: 2072: 1879: 1610: 1556: 1532: 1246: 1210: 3402: 1388:

The double line version is ugly. The ?? version is unacceptable. The goal is to

46:

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

3140: 3048: 2324: 1845: 1765: 1725: 1658: 1489: 1485: 1458: 1432: 1422: 1412: 1402: 1379: 1305: 1196: 1186: 1176: 962: 845: 268: 231: 1549:

full-time in your local library finding references or removing this template.

922:

ugliness doesn't help it go away, it just helps Knowledge get steadily uglier.

3646: 3615: 2593: 2425: 2413: 2235: 2215: 2175: 2164: 2154: 2144: 2099: 2065: 2021: 1977: 1970: 1923: 1913: 1841: 1824: 1801: 1781: 1757: 1740: 1285: 1148: 1140: 1113: 1105: 1026: 1018: 895: 887: 884: 835: 827: 752: 661: 603: 575: 521: 513: 460: 452: 418: 410: 386: 378: 369: 361: 348: 340: 280: 272: 208: 200: 180: 166: 158: 2554:

ocurred, and the number of years that he worked professionally in the field.

1449:

of space, and are a glaring distraction at the top of the article. They are

3093: 3064: 2998: 1499: 1353: 541: 1552:

Let's make it look like a small single question mark, either superscripted

129:

I find the new style much more intrusive, but your arguments compelling.

3642: 3638: 3508: 3451: 3359: 3324: 3297: 3243: 3122: 3078: 3033: 2839: 2724: 2721:

articles look worse, and not the massive addition of useful references.

2526: 2473: 2354:

There is also a change of color too, you have to take that into account.

2339: 2305: 2269: 2205: 2189: 2049: 1940: 1933: 1854: 1808: 1704: 1657:. The appearance of a draft version of an article is not so important. -- 1633: 1565: 1309: 1268: 1229: 1075: 1004: 947: 871: 793: 719: 646: 590: 537: 480: 430: 333:

the contents of square brackets...and I use the template for exactly the

316: 246: 145: 130: 116: 811:

The best way to remove the ugliness of the template in an article is to

2488: 3143:, as of 19:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC) there are three "acceptable" styles: 3006:

It happens on IE and Mozilla, and that's 95% of the browser market. --

2695:

an article today, regardless of whether it will remain there tomorrow.

2378:

Note: Although the version I posted ealier only used one <span: -->

3401:

so that this template can be customized on a skin-by-skin basis (see

3098:

Does anyone know why the fact template is being changed to this one?

2519:

Typesetters never set whole words in superscript; it is particularly

2086: 1124: 1616:

multiple times on the page. It makes Knowledge look home-made. We

743:

Still noticeable for a person whose goal is to fish out these marks.

512:

resort. That said, I too am hoping to go to bed soon myself... :-p

2600: 496:

exception to your characterization of my statements as evidence of

405:

Obviously, the way I'm accustomed to using it, it would be best as

3339: 2997:

Note that this separation of lines only happens in some browsers.

2363: 3567: 226: 98: 2891:

First, the present style of superscripting in both <ref: -->

230:

reference, and it's also slightly pushing Knowledge's rule of

3378: 3220: 1739:

someone provide an explanation for how this has evolved? --

3427:(besides others) to quickly censor this template by setting 3211:

I've got a better idea. Convert all articles to <ref: -->

3077:

won't insist on it but it seems like they should be there. –

1578:

Can't agree. If you are concerned it looks like an eyesore,

234:, I think this appearance may help prompt editors to action. 1185:

I'm seeing the same problem. Template needs to be fixed. --

1527:

here to edit Knowledge, a lot of other people are here to

3448:), and it's also a bad idea to duplicate their function. 3294:

is bad practice, and may affect Knowledge's performace.

3195:

for references would mark unsourced statements like this

2470:

Since there has been no objection, I'll implement this.

1072:

to the template, to help with the search & destroy.

3213:

syntax and stop troubling ourselves with this matter. —

2368:

and it should suffice for verbatim use in Knowledge. --

2302:

Would anyone object to such a change in the template?

157:

Wonderful, and whatever. Get rid of the extra then.

3348:

I didn't think we really needed three inline links to

1764:

see fewer and fewer calls to fact in the wikimarkup.--

1441:

This is getting close to the discussion above under

556:

an "editorial comment": it is a "proofreader's mark"

3016:

Changing the category associated with this template

2140:Clearly, there is and always was a good reason why 748:, {...}, , /... /, - ... - , etc, are all the same. 699:It's true that superscripts are used for footnote 3471:For the record, there is no class definition for 2226:all double-redirects (if not done automatically) 540:. Now in the text it looks much uglier (IMHO).-- 329:enough, since people easily train themselves to 3580:Make it possible to use the template like this 2253:after a week so that editors can get used to it 407:This statement made without any notable support 1609:will be removed from the page any faster than 1226:of those would be sufficient or two at most. 536:I liked the template much better as , i.e. as 500:. I prefer to think of my rationale as troll- 3135:Aligning with existing source citation styles 2393:. There has to be a better way to do this. -- 3423:to the template. Note that this allows the 1966:A few minutes ago, there were 5152 links to 239:And in contrast, the long superscript looks 3576:Suggestion for an optional second parameter 3350:Category:Articles with unsourced statements 3182:would mark unsourced statements like this ( 3026:Category:Articles with unsourced statements 1332:. Currently, it feeds into the same cat as 1290:I just noticed this template being used on 225:outside of the actual text altogether, and 3175:would mark unsourced statements like this 3172: 2150:is deprecated. From what I have observed, 1992:This template has at least ten redirects: 3344:I've made a few changes to the template: 1929:then why not make and use something like 1330:Category:Article needing specific sources 2500:Ditto. The superscript is neat looking. 1104:Ah. Kudos for an excellent idea! :-) 786:imply familiarity with our conventions; 14: 3614:I'm looking for one of these, too. -- 2407:chance is nobody will ever notice it. 1777:Well, I still see people adding using 883:To what, exactly, are you referring? 638:font. Or as you suggested, be bold. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2878:style of the template was changed to 1368:Double-line "citation needed" version 1160:template adds line breaks with lists. 736:An balance must be stricken between: 542:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 2930:And again, using my suggested style: 1139:That could be really fun too! :-D 25: 3488:. I don't see the problem here. -- 3315:<sup title="Needs citation": --> 1488:. Either would be preferable to .-- 23: 3446:Knowledge:Catalogue of CSS classes 3366:is no longer part of the category. 1171:Most people find him unattractive. 1168:Most people find him unattractive. 24: 3678: 3022:Category:Articles lacking sources 1840:, you are then welcome to submit 1734:Template name {{fact}} misleading 1070:Category:Articles lacking sources 446:unreasonable! :-p I will wait a 3582:{{citeneeded|what-to-reference}} 3110:Viral growth now down to 100/day 2386: 2362: 1481:, or just be bold and delete it. 1362:Two new versions of the template 29: 3543:Yet another typography proposal 3419:In line with this I have added 2886:class used for the <ref: --> 1195:Thanks to whomever fixed this. 3660: 3592:would be replaced quicker.) -- 3352:, so I got rid of one of them. 13: 1: 3429:sup.uncited { display:none; } 1769:06:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 1748:06:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 1729:17:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 1662:12:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 1588:02:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 1511:02:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 1493:17:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1462:16:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1442: 1436:16:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1426:16:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1416:15:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1406:02:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1383:01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 1318:12:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 1299:05:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 1252:09:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 1216:08:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 1200:17:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 1190:04:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 1180:17:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 313:ugly and disruptive for me. 187:23:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC) 18:Template talk:Citation needed 3399:<sup class="uncited": --> 3020:I changed the category from 2874:I think it'd be good if the 1357:18:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC) 1154:02:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1134:00:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1119:00:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1032:16:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC) 901:07:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC) 839:05:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC) 820:02:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC) 759:21:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC) 668:21:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC) 582:03:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC) 547:01:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC) 525:08:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 464:08:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 422:08:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 390:08:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 373:08:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 352:08:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 284:07:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 212:07:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 170:07:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 134:02:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 7: 2690:The template is definitely 2283:Another formatting proposal 1606:Someone please explain why 271:with controversial edits. 10: 3683: 3317:should be changed to just 2429:02:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2420:02:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 2278:18:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 2076:19:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 1997:template:Citation required 1981:00:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 1944:20:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC) 1885:18:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC) 1858:18:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC) 1849:05:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC) 1812:03:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC) 1701:an article's appearance. 1536:19:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 1373:Superscripted "??" version 3650:15:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3632:14:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3619:06:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC) 3085:06:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 3068:06:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 3042:05:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 2445:I have made some code at 2398:05:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 2373:00:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 2328:01:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 1816:Go ahead. If you replace 217:But parentheses denote a 3597:09:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 3571:19:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 3557:14:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 3533:01:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC) 3493:01:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC) 3475:, which the <ref: --> 3436:03:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 3414:03:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 3407:m:Gallery of user styles 3292:Template:Citation needed 3276:23:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC) 3266:18:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 3205:19:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 3105:17:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 3011:14:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 3002:08:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC) 2992:13:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2767:18:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 2640:05:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC) 2611:04:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC) 2507:19:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 2492:19:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 2262:14:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 2132:14:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC) 2090:11:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 1560:Knowledge:Citing sources 337:purpose. <blink: --> 232:avoiding self-references 104:Superscript letters are 3549:the evil <blink: --> 3425:Paper Knowledge project 3310:Useless title attribute 3286:Moving and transcluding 2459:02:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 2447:User:DavidHOzAu/citefix 2037:template:Needs citation 2002:template:Citationneeded 1399:Knowledge:Verifiability 338:blinking</blink: --> 3061:the "otheruses" family 2027:template:Need citation 843:I agree completely. — 3641:which references the 3552:to draw attention? -- 2608:William Allen Simpson 219:parenthetic statement 42:of past discussions. 3476:tag uses, in either 2211:and the redirect at 2012:template:Cite-needed 2007:template:Cite needed 1681:maintenance template 92:This template looks 3562:It really does work 3180:Harvard referencing 3173:Embedded HTML links 3151:Harvard referencing 3147:Embedded HTML links 2199:add move protection 2017:template:Citeneeded 782:Square brackets do 221:. This note is an 3625:Template:Citecheck 3515:2006-05-23 13:38 Z 3458:2006-05-23 12:47 Z 3331:2006-05-14 14:50 Z 3304:2006-05-14 14:46 Z 3250:2006-05-14 14:45 Z 3129:2006-05-12 17:53 Z 2846:2006-05-18 19:10 Z 2731:2006-05-18 18:05 Z 2533:2006-05-12 20:50 Z 2480:2006-05-12 17:58 Z 2346:2006-04-03 05:46 Z 2312:2006-04-02 22:27 Z 2056:2006-04-02 22:37 Z 2032:template:Need-cite 1711:2006-02-20 17:08 Z 1640:2006-02-20 04:44 Z 1572:2006-02-20 01:54 Z 1275:2005-12-29 17:10 Z 1236:2005-12-29 09:04 Z 358:Citation requested 123:2005-11-30 22:27 Z 3602:Deficient sources 3516: 3459: 3431:in a css file. -- 3373: 3332: 3305: 3251: 3216: 3130: 3081: 2979: 2978: 2951: 2950: 2923: 2922: 2847: 2732: 2534: 2481: 2359: 2347: 2322: 2313: 2251:remove protection 2057: 1712: 1641: 1614: 1608: 1573: 1554: 1469:assume good faith 1276: 1237: 1132: 1083: 1082:2005-12-5 16:13 Z 1012: 1011:2005-12-4 09:14 Z 973: 972:• 2005-12-4 07:46 955: 954:2005-12-4 07:36 Z 879: 878:2005-12-4 07:18 Z 856: 855:• 2005-12-4 07:16 801: 800:2005-12-4 07:29 Z 727: 726:2005-12-4 07:14 Z 654: 653:2005-12-3 17:40 Z 598: 597:2005-12-3 05:56 Z 552:This template is 488: 487:2005-12-1 08:25 Z 438: 437:2005-12-1 08:10 Z 324: 323:2005-12-1 07:55 Z 254: 253:2005-12-1 07:35 Z 223:editorial remark, 153: 152:2005-12-1 07:19 Z 124: 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3674: 3667: 3666:Sample Reference 3664: 3583: 3514: 3474: 3457: 3430: 3422: 3400: 3388: 3371: 3330: 3320: 3316: 3303: 3249: 3235: 3214: 3128: 3079: 3057:Template:Dablink 3053:Template:Selfref 2966: 2965: 2938: 2937: 2910: 2909: 2901: 2895: 2845: 2730: 2598: 2592: 2532: 2479: 2411: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2384: 2367: 2366: 2355: 2345: 2320: 2311: 2272: 2240: 2234: 2220: 2214: 2210: 2204: 2194: 2188: 2169: 2163: 2159: 2153: 2149: 2143: 2128: 2123: 2115: 2111: 2104: 2098: 2070: 2064: 2055: 2042:template:Uncited 1975: 1969: 1938: 1932: 1928: 1922: 1918: 1912: 1839: 1833: 1829: 1823: 1806: 1800: 1796: 1790: 1786: 1780: 1762: 1756: 1710: 1639: 1613: 1607: 1571: 1553: 1502: 1480: 1474: 1351: 1345: 1341: 1335: 1274: 1235: 1146: 1128: 1111: 1081: 1024: 1010: 970: 961: 953: 893: 877: 853: 844: 833: 813:fix the problem! 799: 771:Template:Cleanup 761:</nowiki: --> 725: 652: 596: 519: 486: 458: 436: 416: 408: 384: 367: 359: 346: 322: 308: 304: 278: 252: 206: 164: 151: 122: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3682: 3681: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3665: 3661: 3604: 3581: 3578: 3564: 3545: 3472: 3428: 3421:class="uncited" 3420: 3398: 3394: 3374: 3342: 3318: 3314: 3312: 3288: 3224: 3217: 3191:Articles using 3185:citation needed 3178:Articles using 3171:Articles using 3137: 3112: 3096: 3087: 3018: 2958:Or even better: 2899: 2893: 2872: 2596: 2590: 2409: 2385: 2381: 2380: 2361: 2285: 2270: 2238: 2232: 2218: 2212: 2208: 2202: 2192: 2186: 2172:Citation needed 2167: 2161: 2157: 2151: 2147: 2141: 2130: 2126: 2121: 2113: 2109: 2102: 2096: 2068: 2062: 1973: 1967: 1936: 1930: 1926: 1920: 1916: 1910: 1844:for deletion.-- 1837: 1831: 1827: 1821: 1804: 1798: 1794: 1788: 1784: 1778: 1760: 1754: 1736: 1585:Ta bu shi da yu 1546: 1500: 1478: 1472: 1364: 1349: 1343: 1339: 1333: 1326: 1288: 1207: 1205:Square brackets 1162: 1144: 1109: 1022: 968: 891: 851: 831: 817:Ta bu shi da yu 809: 558: 517: 456: 414: 406: 382: 365: 357: 344: 306: 302: 276: 227:square brackets 204: 194: 162: 99:square brackets 90: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3680: 3669: 3668: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3645:) website. -- 3603: 3600: 3577: 3574: 3563: 3560: 3544: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3439: 3438: 3393: 3390: 3368: 3367: 3363: 3356: 3353: 3341: 3338: 3336: 3311: 3308: 3287: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3254: 3253: 3237: 3236: 3222: 3202:66.167.141.119 3197: 3196: 3189: 3186: 3176: 3161: 3160: 3154: 3148: 3136: 3133: 3111: 3108: 3095: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3083: 3071: 3070: 3049:self-reference 3017: 3014: 2995: 2994: 2987:tag itself. -- 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2977: 2976: 2971: 2970: 2960: 2959: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2949: 2948: 2943: 2942: 2932: 2931: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2921: 2920: 2915: 2914: 2904: 2903: 2876:vertical-align 2871: 2868: 2866: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2589:Moreover, the 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2495: 2494: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2401: 2400: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2331: 2330: 2284: 2281: 2255: 2254: 2248: 2241: 2227: 2221: 2196: 2135: 2134: 2119: 2071:, it's handy. 2045: 2044: 2039: 2034: 2029: 2024: 2019: 2014: 2009: 2004: 1999: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1772: 1771: 1735: 1732: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1591: 1590: 1545: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1518: 1517: 1496: 1495: 1482: 1455: 1454: 1429: 1428: 1409: 1408: 1390:draw attention 1376: 1375: 1370: 1363: 1360: 1347:Primarysources 1325: 1324:Change the cat 1322: 1321: 1320: 1287: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1240: 1239: 1206: 1203: 1193: 1192: 1173: 1172: 1169: 1161: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 860: 859: 858: 857: 808: 805: 804: 803: 779: 778: 767: 766: 750: 749: 744: 741: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 657: 656: 641:Bolder still? 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 622:proofmarks.pdf 612: 611: 610: 609: 557: 550: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 469: 468: 467: 466: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 289: 288: 287: 286: 257: 256: 236: 235: 193: 192:Unprofessional 190: 177: 176: 175: 174: 173: 172: 137: 136: 89: 86: 83: 82: 77: 74: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3679: 3663: 3659: 3651: 3648: 3647:Steven Fisher 3644: 3640: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3617: 3616:Steven Fisher 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609:Cretanforever 3599: 3598: 3595: 3589: 3585: 3573: 3572: 3569: 3559: 3558: 3555: 3551: 3534: 3531: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3517: 3513: 3510: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3494: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3473:sup.reference 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3460: 3456: 3453: 3447: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3437: 3434: 3426: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3412: 3408: 3404: 3403:m:User styles 3389: 3387: 3385: 3384: 3380: 3364: 3361: 3357: 3354: 3351: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3337: 3334: 3333: 3329: 3326: 3307: 3306: 3302: 3299: 3293: 3277: 3274: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3264: 3262: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3252: 3248: 3245: 3239: 3238: 3234: 3232: 3229: 3226: 3212:</ref: --> 3210: 3209: 3208: 3206: 3203: 3194: 3190: 3187: 3184: 3181: 3177: 3174: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3166: 3158: 3155: 3152: 3149: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3142: 3132: 3131: 3127: 3124: 3116: 3107: 3106: 3103: 3101: 3086: 3082: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3069: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3029: 3027: 3023: 3013: 3012: 3009: 3004: 3003: 3000: 2993: 2990: 2985: 2984: 2973: 2972: 2968: 2967: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2957: 2956: 2945: 2944: 2940: 2939: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2929: 2928: 2917: 2916: 2912: 2911: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2898: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2867: 2848: 2844: 2841: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2802: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2768: 2765: 2763: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2733: 2729: 2726: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2693: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2641: 2638: 2636: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2612: 2609: 2605: 2604: 2602: 2595: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2553: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2535: 2531: 2528: 2522: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2508: 2505: 2503: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2493: 2490: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2478: 2475: 2460: 2457: 2453: 2448: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2430: 2427: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2418: 2415: 2412: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2399: 2396: 2389: 2383: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2371: 2365: 2358: 2348: 2344: 2341: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2329: 2326: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2310: 2307: 2300: 2296: 2294: 2289: 2280: 2279: 2276: 2274: 2273: 2264: 2263: 2260: 2252: 2249: 2246: 2242: 2237: 2231: 2230:speedy delete 2228: 2225: 2222: 2217: 2207: 2200: 2197: 2191: 2185:this page to 2184: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2177: 2173: 2166: 2156: 2146: 2139: 2133: 2129: 2124: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2101: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2088: 2083: 2078: 2077: 2074: 2067: 2059: 2058: 2054: 2051: 2043: 2040: 2038: 2035: 2033: 2030: 2028: 2025: 2023: 2022:template:Fact 2020: 2018: 2015: 2013: 2010: 2008: 2005: 2003: 2000: 1998: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1982: 1979: 1972: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1945: 1942: 1935: 1925: 1915: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1886: 1883: 1881: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1859: 1856: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1847: 1843: 1842:template:fact 1836: 1826: 1820:occurence of 1819: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1810: 1803: 1793: 1783: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1770: 1767: 1759: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1746: 1742: 1731: 1730: 1727: 1713: 1709: 1706: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1682: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1663: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1642: 1638: 1635: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1619: 1611: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1589: 1586: 1581: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1570: 1567: 1561: 1557: 1550: 1537: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1509: 1508: 1503: 1494: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1477: 1470: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1460: 1457:How about ? 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1434: 1427: 1424: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1414: 1407: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1391: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1381: 1374: 1371: 1369: 1366: 1365: 1359: 1358: 1355: 1348: 1338: 1331: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1297: 1293: 1277: 1273: 1270: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1253: 1250: 1248: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1238: 1234: 1231: 1225: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1214: 1212: 1202: 1201: 1198: 1197:LloydSommerer 1191: 1188: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1178: 1170: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1155: 1152: 1150: 1147: 1142: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1131: 1126: 1121: 1120: 1117: 1115: 1112: 1107: 1084: 1080: 1077: 1071: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1033: 1030: 1028: 1025: 1020: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1009: 1006: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 971: 966: 965: 958: 957: 956: 952: 949: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 902: 899: 897: 894: 889: 886: 882: 881: 880: 876: 873: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 854: 849: 848: 842: 841: 840: 837: 834: 829: 824: 823: 822: 821: 818: 814: 802: 798: 795: 789: 785: 781: 780: 776: 772: 769: 768: 764: 763: 762: 760: 757: 754: 745: 742: 739: 738: 737: 728: 724: 721: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 702: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 685: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 669: 666: 663: 659: 658: 655: 651: 648: 643: 640: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 623: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 608: 605: 601: 600: 599: 595: 592: 586: 585: 584: 583: 580: 577: 572: 571: 565: 562: 555: 549: 548: 545: 543: 539: 526: 523: 520: 515: 511: 507: 503: 499: 495: 491: 490: 489: 485: 482: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 465: 462: 459: 454: 451:example)... 449: 445: 441: 440: 439: 435: 432: 426: 425: 424: 423: 420: 417: 412: 391: 388: 385: 380: 376: 375: 374: 371: 368: 363: 355: 354: 353: 350: 347: 342: 336: 332: 327: 326: 325: 321: 318: 312: 300: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 285: 282: 279: 274: 270: 265: 261: 260: 259: 258: 255: 251: 248: 242: 238: 237: 233: 228: 224: 220: 216: 215: 214: 213: 210: 207: 202: 196: 189: 188: 185: 182: 171: 168: 165: 160: 156: 155: 154: 150: 147: 141: 140: 139: 138: 135: 132: 128: 127: 126: 125: 121: 118: 110: 107: 102: 100: 95: 81: 78: 75: 73: 70: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3662: 3605: 3590: 3586: 3579: 3565: 3548: 3546: 3506: 3485: 3481: 3478:monobook.css 3477: 3449: 3395: 3377: 3375: 3372:May. 19, '06 3369: 3343: 3340:May 19, 2006 3335: 3322: 3319:<sup: --> 3313: 3295: 3289: 3241: 3218: 3215:May. 13, '06 3198: 3162: 3138: 3120: 3117: 3113: 3097: 3030: 3019: 3005: 2996: 2969:Lorem ipsum 2941:Lorem ipsum 2913:Lorem ipsum 2883: 2879: 2875: 2873: 2865: 2837: 2800: 2722: 2691: 2551: 2524: 2520: 2471: 2469: 2451: 2408: 2357:color change 2353: 2337: 2303: 2301: 2297: 2292: 2290: 2286: 2268: 2265: 2256: 2250: 2244: 2229: 2223: 2198: 2182: 2136: 2112: 2107: 2081: 2079: 2060: 2047: 2046: 1991: 1817: 1737: 1722: 1702: 1654: 1631: 1617: 1579: 1563: 1551: 1547: 1544:Viral growth 1528: 1524: 1506: 1497: 1456: 1450: 1446: 1430: 1410: 1394: 1389: 1377: 1337:unreferenced 1327: 1306:under policy 1296:pfctdayelise 1289: 1266: 1227: 1223: 1208: 1194: 1174: 1163: 1122: 1103: 1073: 1002: 963: 945: 944:attention. 869: 868:interface. 846: 812: 810: 791: 787: 783: 774: 751: 735: 717: 700: 683: 644: 642: 639: 588: 568: 566: 563: 559: 553: 535: 509: 505: 501: 497: 493: 478: 447: 443: 428: 404: 334: 330: 314: 310: 303:a background 299:Underline it 298: 263: 244: 240: 222: 218: 197: 195: 178: 143: 114: 111: 105: 103: 93: 91: 60: 43: 37: 3643:ThinkSecret 3639:SoundJam MP 3360:Template:Tl 3165:User styles 1939:instead? -- 1797:and delete 1683:at the top. 538:superscript 36:This is an 3594:DavidHOzAu 3554:DavidHOzAu 3530:DavidHOzAu 3490:DavidHOzAu 3482:common.css 3433:DavidHOzAu 3411:DavidHOzAu 3358:I substed 3273:DragonHawk 3261:SlimVirgin 3221:freakofnur 3100:SlimVirgin 3008:DavidHOzAu 2989:DavidHOzAu 2897:citeneeded 2884:.reference 2762:SlimVirgin 2635:SlimVirgin 2502:SlimVirgin 2456:DavidHOzAu 2395:DavidHOzAu 2370:DavidHOzAu 2259:DavidHOzAu 2243:gradually 2073:Mangojuice 1880:SlimVirgin 1835:citeneeded 1792:citeneeded 1533:Mangojuice 1378:Comments? 1292:Hugo Kelly 1247:SlimVirgin 1211:SlimVirgin 701:references 444:completely 356:How about 301:, give it 3623:There is 3193:Footnotes 3157:Footnotes 2870:Alignment 2572:overkill. 2325:Srleffler 2114:Quidditch 1846:Srleffler 1766:Srleffler 1726:Infinity0 1659:Srleffler 1490:Srleffler 1459:Infinity0 1443:#Ugliness 1433:Infinity0 1423:Srleffler 1413:Infinity0 1403:Srleffler 1380:Infinity0 1187:Stbalbach 1177:Lsommerer 1125:Knowledge 775:precisely 502:demanding 88:Brackets? 80:Archive 5 72:Archive 3 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 3486:main.css 3392:No print 2601:strawman 2426:Ardric47 1978:Ardric47 1741:Fuzheado 1130:Cool Cat 807:Ugliness 442:I'm not 335:opposite 307:a border 181:Blackcap 94:terrible 3509:Michael 3452:Michael 3325:Michael 3298:Michael 3244:Michael 3141:WP:CITE 3123:Michael 3065:Sommers 2999:Kaldosh 2840:Michael 2725:Michael 2527:Michael 2474:Michael 2340:Michael 2306:Michael 2245:replace 2061:I like 2050:Michael 1753:AFAIK, 1705:Michael 1634:Michael 1566:Michael 1555:or not 1501:Jersyko 1486:WP:CITE 1476:Dubious 1395:warning 1354:Circeus 1269:Michael 1230:Michael 1076:Michael 1005:Michael 948:Michael 872:Michael 794:Michael 720:Michael 647:Michael 591:Michael 570:be bold 498:baiting 481:Michael 431:Michael 317:Michael 269:WP:CITE 247:Michael 146:Michael 117:Michael 39:archive 3080:Tifego 3059:, and 3034:Seqsea 2489:Jayjg 2414:Halibu 2271:Tewfik 2224:update 2082:unless 1941:Tifego 1855:Tifego 1809:Tifego 1310:Dan100 885:WP:AGF 567:While 331:ignore 184:(talk) 131:Jkelly 3484:, or 3386:: --> 3379:freak 3233:: --> 3153:, and 2552:never 2321:small 1830:with 1818:every 1655:draft 1525:we're 1451:meant 1286:Usage 964:BRIAN 847:BRIAN 753:mikka 662:mikka 604:mikka 576:mikka 494:minor 106:never 16:< 3405:and 3383:talk 3376:< 3231:talk 3225:ture 3219:< 3094:Fact 3038:talk 2892:and 2801:more 2594:fact 2236:fact 2216:fact 2183:move 2176:fact 2165:fact 2155:fact 2145:fact 2100:fact 2087:Alai 2066:fact 1971:fact 1924:fact 1914:fact 1825:fact 1807:? -- 1802:fact 1782:fact 1758:fact 1745:Talk 1529:read 1507:talk 1342:and 1314:Talk 969:0918 852:0918 684:more 510:last 506:bait 448:week 264:does 241:very 3629:CBD 3550:tag 3024:to 2880:top 2692:not 2201:to 2174:to 1618:can 1612:or 1562:. 1447:lot 1224:one 1141:Tom 1106:Tom 1019:Tom 888:Tom 828:Tom 784:not 756:(t) 747:--> 665:(t) 607:(t) 579:(t) 554:not 514:Tom 453:Tom 411:Tom 379:Tom 362:Tom 360:? 341:Tom 311:too 305:or 273:Tom 201:Tom 159:Tom 3568:RN 3512:Z. 3480:, 3455:Z. 3370:— 3328:Z. 3301:Z. 3271:-- 3247:Z. 3207:. 3167:: 3126:Z. 3055:, 3040:) 2900:}} 2894:{{ 2843:Z. 2728:Z. 2606:-- 2603:. 2597:}} 2591:{{ 2530:Z. 2521:un 2477:Z. 2417:tt 2410:// 2343:Z. 2309:Z. 2293:or 2239:}} 2233:{{ 2219:}} 2213:{{ 2209:}} 2206:cn 2203:{{ 2193:}} 2190:cn 2187:{{ 2168:}} 2162:{{ 2158:}} 2152:{{ 2148:}} 2142:{{ 2110:WC 2106:-- 2103:}} 2097:{{ 2069:}} 2063:{{ 2053:Z. 1976:. 1974:}} 1968:{{ 1937:}} 1934:cn 1931:{{ 1927:}} 1921:{{ 1917:}} 1911:{{ 1838:}} 1832:{{ 1828:}} 1822:{{ 1805:}} 1799:{{ 1795:}} 1789:{{ 1785:}} 1779:{{ 1761:}} 1755:{{ 1743:| 1708:Z. 1637:Z. 1569:Z. 1479:}} 1473:{{ 1350:}} 1344:{{ 1340:}} 1334:{{ 1316:) 1272:Z. 1233:Z. 1127:-- 1079:Z. 1008:Z. 951:Z. 875:Z. 815:- 797:Z. 723:Z. 650:Z. 594:Z. 484:Z. 434:Z. 320:Z. 250:Z. 149:Z. 120:Z. 76:→ 3507:— 3450:— 3381:| 3323:— 3296:— 3242:— 3228:| 3223:x 3188:) 3159:. 3121:— 3036:( 3032:— 2902:: 2838:— 2723:— 2525:— 2472:— 2338:— 2304:— 2127:✎ 2122:☎ 2048:— 1703:— 1632:— 1580:I 1564:— 1504:· 1312:( 1267:— 1228:— 1149:r 1145:e 1114:r 1110:e 1074:— 1027:r 1023:e 1003:— 946:— 896:r 892:e 870:— 836:r 832:e 792:— 718:— 645:— 624:. 589:— 522:r 518:e 479:— 461:r 457:e 429:— 419:r 415:e 387:r 383:e 370:r 366:e 349:r 345:e 315:— 281:r 277:e 245:— 209:r 205:e 167:r 163:e 144:— 115:— 50:.

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

Index