Template talk:Dubious

1809:

disputed it a first time and it was changed by someone else to something closer to the truth, in fact the error is minor now and they have again quoted a source suggesting they have greater familiarity with the field than I, yet my computation shows it is wrong - again - just less so than before. Rather than go and delete the work of someone who is likely more expert than I, I'd like to flag it dubious and show my proofs so people can see it, decide if I am right or not and then (hopefully) fix it, or remove the dubious flag and show why my proof is wrong. You could say "that should just go in the discussion" but the unfortunate truth is on many articles, putting things in discussion means they will simply be ignored, and in the alternative, a user could rely on dubious information that was only disputed in the discussion pages in the interim. This (inline dubious) flag brings an issue to attention. So long as the person adding it shows their reasoning it serves it's purpose well.

5431: 5358: 4494: 3700: 22: 3461:, to start with. Zilch. That is why a tag is needed. What I do with tags when I meet them, is google to see if I can supply the evidence. The deleter refuses to google and come up with a confirmatory source (I tried and failed). Without the tag, the reader may be susceptible to accepting an extraordinary claim simply on the basis of a unique source in a mainstream but distinctly tilted newspaper, which may have, as often happens, slipped up due to sloppy editing. 616:

counterevidence, but I'm suspicious of the assertion for various reasons; e.g. it just sounds totally nuts, it's been added by an editor who has added known falsehoods in the past (I have recently run into that), it creates inconsistencies. In any case, it is a flag that should warn the reader of a something misleading, or should capture the attention of an editor who might know better, but who might have missed the addition without the flag.

5314: 4806: 4450: 4371: 4256: 3632: 5877:

page is displayed (it happens to be the first section, but there is nothing to indicate this), which is very confusing. Jumping to the top of the Talk page could be considered correct (I disagree), but displaying to a section (which happens to be the first section) is not. Windows 10/64, up-to-date as of now, Firefox/32 111.0 (current), Knowledge set up to pop up info on hovering mouse over template. Best wishes,

5215: 4420: 4339: 2407: 2063: 845: 731: 689: 519: 453: 403: 217: 152: 115: 3358:, which is mainstream but said something that looks odd, after having searched the net for confirmation of that statement. I found no mainstream source independently containing this information. Thus the RS is a singleton. By placing a tag there, I asked other editors to find further evidence that I can’t find for this, to me, extraordinary claim. It was reverted 2524:- I have de-substituted the above example. Second, the template's argument is used to create a link, and links may not contain square brackets. This is partly because square brackets have special meaning in wiki markup; and partly because square brackets are forbidden in page titles which means that they are also forbidden in section headings - see 2708:

don't wish to cause this sort of thing. Granted, that may not be completely avoidable all the time, but I at least want to be certain I am using such "tools" in the correct manner when I do use them), the Citation needed page shouldn't say that "claims you think are incorrect should use Dubious", but rather, claims you think are incorrect but

1443:. I think the connotations of "disputed" and "dubious" are very different. I tend to use this tag when I doubt the veracity of information but have little in the way of concrete proof to back my argument up; "disputed" says to me that the sources themselves conflict. Is there a reason these can't be separate inline templates? 5876:

as it was just now, there is "within the standard.{{dubious|date=October 2022}}". When I click on the displayed "discuss" in I am taken to the top of the Talk page, which could be considered correct, though not helpful. However, when I hover the mouse over "discuss", an unrelated section of the Talk

5782:

I don't think the discuss should be optional, we should rather encourage removal of templates when others can't, after good faith trying, figure out why it is there. Or if the editor thinks it is a good tag, that editor should generally fill in why they think it is there. I think it would be good to

4937:

I want to give a succinct reason easily seen by anyone reading the page, not just to those very few that edit, look at diffs or at the talk page. Hiding the reason is, to quote Douglas Adams, putting it on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the

3962:

when I moved three citations from deeply buried template documentation pages into this central repository. Two of these were already marked as dubious in the template documentation pages, and a third was merely a bare link in a hidden comment in the respective dataset. If possible, I would change the

3444:

just one source states this, and I verified that it did. The problem is, I can find no other source, re Glick, or re Fatah generally, officially claiming responsibility for murdering Israelis recently. Its funding depends on compliance with multilateral internationally stipulated agreements to desist

3427:

The last I heard of Fatah claiming responsibility for anything violent was during the 2nd intifada. Fatah is part of the PLO which is the ruling power in the West Bank, where the Palestinian National Authority is funded by Israel, EU and the US. Had Fatah claimed it was behind the attempted murder of

1071:

among edidors, e.g. due to conflicting sources. The purpose of this template is a) to warn readers that a statement in the article may not be accurate, and b) to alert editors that additional sources need to be found, to ascertain which of the conflicting views in the dispute is more authoritative.

414:

This tag is "dubious" but the text it inserts is "disputed". I think they should both be "dubious". After all, there is a template for disputed content. When I add this it isn't because I don't believe something is true it's because I am skeptical and think someone else should have a look. If I don't

5160:

That is an improvement, but I don't think it fully addresses the ask here. Seems like what people really want (and I'll include myself among them) is to have a reason parameter as a built-in feature of this template, rather than having to resort to using an additional template. Also I think it would

4227:

The docs say that it's for this purpose, and I use it, but the word "dubious" doesn't really convey that. Is there a variant (or could one be created) which says "sources conflict"? Or similar wording that says that I'm not expressing subjective doubt, but actually have a "deciding which source to

4090:

I agree that this could be useful in some cases. If there's some content issue that's spread over a few related pages, and there's already some discussion of it taking place at the talk page of one of those articles, it could be useful to link to that discussion when applying this template to one of

2458:

Wouldn't this template be better named contested? I often hesitate adding dubious, because it really not clear that the right word. It's not citation needed either because there is sometimes a citation already. The more exact situation is that it is contested. So could the template and it's content

2172:

unlikely, even if there is no clear source claiming its inaccuracy or logical proof to that extent. If we had one of two, we would have to add the opposing statement to the article, or remove the statement altogether. Which is why this tag calls for discussion. In short, I think the present title is

360:

I don't think article pages should be linking to Talk pages. Sites that reproduce our articles rarely reproduce the Talk pages, and certainly any printed version would not. It seems to break the normal rules of namespace boundaries. A simple note that the fact is disputed seems adequate, and readers

278:

calls for. Personally, I would rather have the issue handled only on the article's talk page, but that's neither here nor there. The two templates are used for different purposes -- {{dubious}} is to fairly unobtrusively dispute a statement in an article; {{disputed}} should be used to dispute the

2707:

to only tag something if, for whatever reason, I cannot fix it myself, it still might be potentially irritating or even offend the people that contributed to that article when someone comes along and points out all the problems but doesn't seem to make any effort to improve things themselves, and I

2357:

Considering the clarification made above, would anyone oppose solving this by changing the documentation where it says "It is best to simultaneously try to resolve the dispute on the talk page.", to "If the alleged fact is already disputed, it is best to simultaneously try to resolve the dispute on

424:

I strongly agree with Ben FrantzDale's suggestion, at least as long as no other tag is available--as I don't think there is--to indicate an assertion of which one is suspicious, but which one doesn't necessarily dispute per se, because of a lack of counter-evidence. If the George Bush article were

4126:

Basically, the editor seems to be on the losing end of consensus over a relatively minor (but apparently deeply personal) issue, and has decided to use this template as a statement, pushing to include it as a way of saying that they're not changing the article per se, but they're bucking consensus

1701:

I think "dubious" makes it seem as if editors, or Knowledge, are personally making a judgment about some facts within an article, whereas saying "disputed" would express something more along the lines of "I personally don't have an opinion on this, but just so you readers know, it is under dispute

866:

re: edit by The Cunctator, who writes on the template, `try not to use,' : why? see discussion above. There are lots of situations where one is surprised by an assertion but doesn't +know+ that it's false, and so wants to call the attention of the other editors to it, or to the editor who added it

464:

I am engaged in a dispute over a sourced, scholarly claim in an article. The editor who added the dispute tag, when challenged to directly quote from the cited source and show how it did not prove its point, declared that he felt he did not need to quote from the source as he felt it was entirely

5657:

parameter on the rare occasions it comes up but I totally agree that it's not common by most users. As far as I'm concerned, this template is a bit of a disaster, both in its implementation and its defined usage, which probably arose as a convoluted mess of history and/or group think. The problem

346:

which I am unqualified to verify, but which raises my suspicions. It seems like a decent enough warning to the casual reader, especially since I don't feel able to judge whether or not it should be removed entirely. However, is there another way of bringing this to the attention of a linguist who

256:

disputed). It is generally considered not a good idea to have different two templates for the same purpose. The added advantage of tl:disputed is that it adds a category that is watched by many people, so that people will come in and help with the matter. At least that was the general idea. If it

1808:

one. That's not always possible. For example, I strongly suspect an error in an article I am looking at right now, but it's likely the person who put the knowledge in has greater knowledge in the field than I do, in fact I knew what they put in was wrong but I don't know the right information. I

4035:

I don't see a legit use case for this. If the template is using bad data, that's an issue to raise on the template talk page. If there's something not from a template that's dubious, the discussion should take place at that page's talk page. The "danger" here is fairly broad, the most obvious

2719:

sourced, it's irrelevant whether or not you think they may be inaccurate, the Citation needed tag should be used. For the Dubious template instructions, "claims you think are incorrect" SHOULD use Dubious - but (of course) it's not meant to be based on merely the personal opinion, feelings or

615:

My opinion is that the Dubious template ought to stay, and moreover ought to read on the page as "dubious" rather than disputed. The point here is that they're two different things. I dispute something when I feel I have counterevidence. I am doubtful of something when I don't necessarily have

554:

Personally, I think that the name of the latter is more consistent with other templates, though the former (this page) has more history. Also, I like the idea of a picture separating a line item as a functional element of the page, and not a parenthetical. For the newbie's sake. If

3345: 2099:

What is the real purpose of this template? The documentation starts "Add {{Dubious}} after a specific statement or alleged fact that is subject to dispute (your own or someone else's)". It then goes "It is best to simultaneously try to resolve the dispute on the talk page."

1784:

Either users should FIX THE SODDING ARTICLES or they should actually post their issues on the relevant article's talk: pages. It serves no purpose to keep adding these kinds of template. Please, let's delete this one, and start to consider deleting most of the others too.

326:

My point was basically that "dubious" is a nice tool for telling an user unfamiliar with wikipedia that a sentence he just reads might be false to redirects them on the talk page. I'm new on wikipedia so I do not really know where we could get more opinions on the matter.

1878:

It produces a super that takes me to the Discussion page, but not to the named section, which is way down the page, and the name of which is not visible to the clicker anyway. Is this how it's supposed to work? Seems kinda pointless to use the section title if so.

2797:

To avoid even the question of double-tagging the same statement and reduce the possibility of confusion, my personal preference at this time would be to use CN for unsourced statements and Dubious for statements that are sourced but nevertheless...dubious.

2764:

implies clearly that this template is for all dubious statements, including non-sourced. My experience seems to support this second usage, and logic also dictates that the word "dubious" can pertain to any statement, without any relation to its sourcing.

5745:. What's important to my mind is that the usage is intuitive, unambiguous, and future-proof. It'd take a bit of thought to see if these changes could be made immediately or if a bot would have to assist with translation but this seem doable in any case. 5602:

Why does the "discuss" function of this template even exist? Literally every single time I've encountered it, it's just slapped on in a drive-by tagging and the talk page is completely bereft of any discussion. Can anyone show any proof to the contrary?

1780:

This is yet another template designed to add inline criticisms of an article while allowing the critic to avoid actually doing anything about it. It serves no purpose other than to add to Knowledge's chronic issue with unprofessional inline complaints.

3827:

value, this is a strong indication that the intent is to actually display the content in the tooltip. The labeling of it as a "dummy parameter" was intentionally removed in September 2015. Is there a particular reason you feel it must be suppressed in

4190:

will be temperamental and annoying. We shouldn't add disclaimers and "don't be a bad child" warnings to every template that can be used sarcastically or otherwise pointedly, or we'd spend all of the next month adding such disclaimers to templates.

3978:. If another template or code would be more suitable for this situation please let me know or edit the other template to correct. Or would discussing each instance of inflation citation be preferred to happen on every article it is to be used on? 2826:

It seems a bit redundant to me in this case, but I'm enough of a cynic that I consider unsourced statements inherently dubious. If we can eliminate the "need" for double-tagging I'd like to do so, but I'm certainly open to other possibilities.

2781:

tag could also be added, but that would be up to the editor. After all, we are under no obligation to exhaustively tag articles, and pointing to an issue will usually open the discussion to such an extend that sourcing will also be dealt with.

72:, 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. 4398:

Please wrap the tfd notice in noinclude tags, so that it doesn't continue to disrupt the numerous articles that use this template. The relevant change I'm requesting is to substitute the first two lines of the template code with the

3280:. This class is hidden on mobile. I have serious reservations about this practice in general, which seems to be aimed at keeping mobile readers as readers and not encouraging them to become editors (it also used to be the case for 243:

Excerpts from the Guidelines: "If you come across a statement which seems or is inaccurate First, insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. Insert {dubious} after the relevant sentence or paragraph."

5099:

is the one who added it—but I think it's the latter. This seems like a workaround that really shouldn't be necessary, however. I'm turning this into a proper edit request. Seems like there are several of us who want this feature.

3322:

It's not been created yet. But there are links to do that; at the bottom of the template's documentation, you will see a green box with three lines of text, the middle one reads "Editors can experiment in this template's sandbox

2608: 3838:

in particular? It actually seems like a very good candidate for display, because the template itself is vague, and too often an actual talk page discussion is not opened about whatever it is that is being flagged as dubious.

3822:

the tooltip content in inline templates, an unbelievably bad idea I'll get into later and elsewhere). When the template's own documentation doesn't state that the display is suppressed, and goes to the trouble of demanding a

3683:

Span tags are used in many maintenance templates. I don't think we should remove them because of a problem with (some?) mobile telephones. In any case, this would be an issue to bring to the attention of WikiMedia developers.

2885:

explanation of the issue"; a fuller description should be left on the article's talk page. Also please note that parameter names are always case-sensitive unless the template has additional code to permit variants, therefore

425:

to say he likes eating houseflies, I would like to flag that as dubious, though I do not dispute it since I have no evidence to the contrary. Is there any reason why the text for this isn't "dubious" instead of "disputed"? --

2628:" section, it states: "The template is intended for use when there is a general question of the verifiability of a statement, or when an editor believes that a reference verifying the statement should be provided. ... 3499:

Thanks. But (a) the source is standard RS (b) contains the statement and (c) the editor refuses to accept the argument there is something odd there. But, I'll take you up on it and use this tag. Let's see, then. Cheers

1911:

No; it's the equal sign that does it: before this parameter even gets as far as the template, the wikicode parser has spotted the first equals sign, and based on that, has decided that you are trying to pass a value of

1611:

This particular template can be categorized differently, but to change how it displays is to alter the intentions of the editors who added it to the articles. That's my point, so I think we're talking past each other.

3947: 3579:", and in this particular case this is not a good advice. Of course, cn doc itself advises against using the template for contentious BLP stuff, but many people who wanted to use "dubious" won't know (or check) that. 4222: 5283:

for linking to the talk page and which use an unnamed parameter. I frequently use the wrong one then have to correct it, especially with this template. Is there any reason not to let it accept both? Something like

4231:

In some cases it's worth describing conflicting reports, as the uncertainty will never be resolved ("what were X's dying words?"), but in others ("what is the height of Mt. Y?") there's clearly one correct answer.

3993:

By default the link is to a section named "Dubious" on the talk page for the page that the template is placed on. You can use the first unnamed parameter to pass the name of a different talk page section, e.g.

1123:

Hmmm - it seems strange that you're proposing that disputable be meged using the word dubius, and then you're proposing dubius should be changed to something like disputable-inline, why don't we just redirect

5161:

be clearer if the hover text attached to the cleanup tag rather than the article text. Whether to highlight a portion of the text associated with the tag is sort of an orthogonal concern, which is handled by

2720:"hunch" of the particular editor - the determination of something being dubious would be based on certain, specific factors relating to the source (e.g. if the source is valid) that's given for that claim. 2281:

that are not being disputed then. Since you already stated that this template is for statements that are being disputed, I suppose you think this template can be used on dubious statements, whether they are

3290:

until several people complained about it being essential navigation material). I do most of my editing on mobile these days and having to switch to desktop view to even see a link to talk is very annoying.

5800: 279:

overall accuracy of an entire article, although many people slap that template on an article because they disagree with part of one sentence. Hmm... maybe {{disputeabout}} should be advertised more.

2672:

is for sourced statements that nevertheless seem dubious, either because of the source itself or because of the source's interpretation by the editor who wrote the statement in the Knowledge article.

1361:(as nominator). The "dubious" name and wording has been subject to dispute here before, is unclear, and has often confused people into thinking that this template is simply an alternative version of 3362:

who habitually reverts me). I have difficulty in explaining the problem to the editor, who says that(after 9 years,) I still need to brush up on policy. Help, re the propriety of asking for further

4403:{{Template for discussion/dated|page=Dubious|link=Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Template:Dubious|type=tiny|bigbox={{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}}}}</noinclude: --> 476:

The question is, is the burden of proof on the editor who adds the dubious tag, or on the editor(s) who defend the cited source? Ie., must he prove the source is wrong, or must I prove it right?

2656: 3622: 2703:

Ah, thank you very much for clearing that up (and for the fast response). So if I understand correctly (I'm still fairly new to doing things like tagging articles and such, and while I would

2251:

two, we would have to add the opposing statement to the article, or remove the statement altogether. Which is why this tag calls for discussion. In short, I think the present title is fit.

4044:

parameter on a few templates like the merge/split ones, because two pages are involved and we need to centralize discussion at one of them. That doesn't really arise with a template like

3375: 2754:. The instructions here state specifically that this template should be used only for sourced statements that are nevertheless dubious. On the other hand, the documentation page of 4241: 5350: 2567:, the dubious-discuss only links to the top of the talk page. Also, anything added to reason= does not display. Are these this intentional? Should the doc be changed? Thank you 5478: 5464: 3866:

Personally I think having the reason displayed is a good idea, and many templates do that. Just that not as a note, like SMcCandlish added it to a few templates recently, but

1575:); there isn't any clear-cut policy/guideline with regard to "dubious" items, whatever that means (i.e., the label is ambiguous), by contrast with things which are subject to 742:

Should the "Dubious" template be used in situations where the relevance, but not the accuracy of a statement is disputed? If not, what template should be used in its place?

4516: 294:

suggests either copying or moving a disputed statement to the talk page, but doesn't mention adding a tag of any sort. That's what I like. Handle it all on the talk page.

3428:

an Israeli in Jerusalem, all hell would have broken out politically, since it would mean Mahmoud Abbas, as a Fatah leader and PNA pm, was behind the attempted assassination.

3251: 5783:

limit it to content, though (although if someone messes up and puts in discuss, 'the source is self-contradictory' or some such, no reason to be bureaucratic about it.) --

5662:

as dubious. Why? The name of the template itself will cause people to use it otherwise because it's not specific enough. A tag template named "dubious" should probably tag

3987: 5575: 5470: 5414: 5400: 5342: 130: 1698:

Seriously, I don't see why this template says "dubious" instead of "disputed", and I can't tell if there was a consensus for change in the little vote right above here.

5840: 2917:

There is an un-sourced claim that I believe to be incorrect. I looked at the description of several templates, and each says to use a different template. Specifically,

877:

That's what talk pages, search engines, and libraries are for. Please try to keep inline disruptions to a minimum. The {{fact}} template serves an identical purpose. --

3207:

That would be a matter of opinion. I myself tend to agree with you. In any case, this is not the correct place to write about that issue. This is the talkpage of the

2846: 5836: 4558: 4515:. If possible, please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. If you cannot edit the article's talk page, you can instead make your request at 3677: 2739: 4440: 4361: 4246: 1751:

is valuable and don't see any discussion that generated consensus to redirect it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert me and start such a discussion. Thanks,

5697:

being a required argument of "dubious". As your observation (and mine) suggests, people tend not to use it this way, probably because it takes too much work. The

5422: 5408: 5391: 1371:(and misusing it as one), which it is not. Go with the nascent convention of using "-inline"; this is much easier to remeber than quirky names like "dubious". — 5304: 793:

about the relevance of a statement, then this template would in fact apply; basically, if it is something that could be addressed by [[Knowledge:Accuracy dispute

5741:

Since the function of both templates would effectively be the same, we'd just ignore any current mismatch in usage. I'm sure there's tons of mis-match in usage

232:

and to my great surprise one little sentence that I had listed as dubious was now a full-blown statement that all the article was disputed. The guidelines here

625:

As noted elsewhere, this isn't what this template is for. If you are doubtful of something unsourced, and it is not already subject to an editing dispute, use

5528: 5486: 4482: 2029: 2004: 1981: 4298: 395: 2642:, as the Citation needed tag is not for this purpose. Then the "Dubious" page says that statements the editor thinks are incorrect should be tagged with 1480:

exists to flag unsourced or inadequately sourced suspicious information, and due to this template's vague name, people have been improperly using it as a

4867:

explanation of the issue. It will only be visible in the coding (e.g. when editing the page). This is the case with most cleanup templates: the few that

4305: 3324: 1252: 1146: 182: 5241:

The current form of the template does not allow linking to archived sections of the talk page, as it assumes a non-archived talk section is linked to.--

3875: 3042: 5583: 5579: 3237: 3190: 886:

Indeed; the very issues raised by CHE are not at all what this template is for, though its previous incarnation of documentation made it sound like it

2851:

When I try to use the reason parameter it doesn't show up. Example. The reason "She would have been his fifth grandmother" doesn't show up. How come?

1640:

clone in some instances is kind of inescapable, no matter what is done with it. That cleanup will take time does not militate against cleanup. :-) —

5119: 5101: 5044: 5006: 4973: 4486: 419: 2867: 2731: 2694: 1863: 5474: 5418: 5404: 5346: 4478: 4412: 2040: 1999: 4330: 1986:

This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at

704: 4212: 3411:

By the way, what do you find dubious about the statement that two organizations claimed responsibility for an attack? That happens all the time.

1344:(and its wording edited from "dubious" to "disputed" to conform), in keeping with other inline variants of page/section-level box templates like 1296: 511: 2744:

After all that is said and done, I still think there is an issue here. The above explains the issue according to the documentation page here on

3751:

in mobile.css - there are two fixes, one id to remove the declaration from the style sheet, the other is to remove the class from the template.

5154: 4780: 4747: 3532:"to challenge a contentious unsourced or poorly sourced statement about a living person - remove such statements from the article immediately" 3163: 5850:. I've tried this in desktop Firefox, logged in and logged out, and on mobile Firefox, logged out. What device and browser are you using? -- 5268: 4796: 4182: 4161: 2912: 2071: 1824: 911: 678: 5705:, not required. So rather than a red link for "discuss" appearing if the parameter is not used, the "discuss" link should only appear if it 5250: 4853: 1218: 718: 201: 5180: 4578: 1891: 429: 5026: 4981: 4355: 3300: 1837: 1602: 1532: 374:

There is code that will prevent the talk-page-related content from showing up on mirrors, but I misremember what that code is at present.

5903: 5645: 4963: 4932: 4907: 4883: 3937: 3923: 3890: 3731: 3230: 2563:

The specified format is: {{Dubious |Talk section name |reason=Summary of problem |date=June 2013}} It seems that whatever I put into the

1431: 76: 5766:

How do you propose this be fixed? This template is fundamentally flawed, and every time I bring it up, discussion just fizzles out. Not

5690:

which is a very close concept. As currently documented, a case could be made that "dubious" and "Better source needed" should be merged!

4096: 3770: 3693: 2478: 2055: 1651: 1621: 1501: 784: 389: 5299: 5089: 4643: 4532: 3784: 3509: 3494: 3470: 3420: 2973: 2906: 2552: 2385: 2147: 1973: 1906: 1272: 868: 617: 505: 426: 185: 620: 5236: 5109: 4972:

here. Displaying the reason is a useful feature of several inline templates and that functionality should be added to this template.

4142: 4120: 4085: 3807: 3612: 3588: 3564: 2836: 2821: 2807: 2602: 2437: 2399: 2340: 2326: 2295: 2262: 2228: 2210: 2196: 2182: 2131: 1630:

My counter would be that this template had an intended purpose, and a mistaken one, and that the fact that it has been misused as as

881: 832: 439: 5754: 5230: 3122: 3097: 3073: 3036: 2998: 2463: 5279:

I've only recently become more active on Knowledge, but I can't be the only person who has trouble remembering which templates use

5202: 4028: 4014: 2576: 2558: 2423: 2367: 2163: 1794: 670: 5193:. Flipping edit request back to unanswered. If the change is merged, I'll be happy to go ahead and also update the documentation. 4434: 2086: 746: 4108: 4040:

wikiproject people directly all dispute/cleanup template talk regarding "their" articles to the wikiproject talk page. We have a

3346:

Help re rules. When is it not legtimate to place a dubious tag to signal request for further sourcing for an extraordinary claim?

3134: 2921: 2768:

In short, I propose to change the documentation here to reflect that this template can be used for unsourced statements as well.

2625: 1769: 4920:

explanation for those editing the source or viewing a diff. If you need to be verbose, the relevant talk page should be used. --

1987: 3747:

devices which use the mobile interface, and the problem is not the span tags but the metadata class, which has the declaration

2453: 723: 68: 53: 4123:

entirely too lengthy discussion on ANI, I wonder if some brief clarification might be helpful on the Incorrect Usage section.

3381:

That editor was wrong to revert you with the edit summary "don't tag w/o discussion - the source states this explicitly". The

2812:

If a statement is dubious and unsourced, I see no problem with double tagging, but in actual practice this is not often done.

5859: 5610: 4477:

The original copy of the Sean J. Conlon page was edited to remove the claim that he was "a leading real estate entrepreneur"

3860: 3549: 3078:

Thanks - done. That still leaves the general question of how to tag an unsourced statement that you know to be incorrect. If

3127:

I've just encountered the same conflict. What if I don't know for certain that the claim is incorrect, but think that it is?

1858: 5792: 5274: 4662:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1775: 305:

I do agree that disputes are handled better on a talk page. That's what talk pages are for. But it seems to me that either

5777: 5593:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4792:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4716: 3201: 1310:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

5832: 5290:

at the appropriate point would do it, I think. (Assuming I've understood the syntax correctly.) NB I've not tested that.

4554: 4233: 3794: 1831: 1816: 1720: 871: 4562: 1189:

except perhaps for some wording to add to the documentation (and even that is iffy). This is really more of an informal

291: 5547: 3523: 3218: 2498: 1671:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1328:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

837: 5886: 5719:

and the documentation should be changed to match. The discuss parameter should become optional and only appear if set.

4092: 2638:

It appears that the "Citation needed" page says that statements the editor thinks are incorrect should be tagged with

2528:. Since they have apparently been used in a section heading, you need to workaround this by using a technique such as 1741: 4203: 4076: 3914: 3851: 3196: 2247:

unlikely, even if there is no clear source claiming its inaccuracy or logical proof to that extent. If we had one of

2154:

Thanks. So, if we're going that way, would anyone oppose changing the text from "dubious - discuss" to "disputed"? --

1786: 1706:

just now, not intending to call something into question but just to mark a passage that is the subject of a dispute.

1382: 365: 4686:, which indicates a potential dispute, most often a question about reliable sourcing for the statement/fact at issue 3593:

It is not bad advice either. Also note that not all statements on BLP are contentious. So I think the advice to use

2116: 1688: 5450: 5377: 4114: 3713: 2727: 2652: 1995: 1719:

into a new template that actually says "disputed"? I see that that template did say "disputed" for a while but was

1404: 480: 252:

The reason for the redirect was that the contents of this template were identical to those of tl:disputed (it even

1452: 5460: 4528: 3881:

By the way, what is "nonfactual"? Perhaps replace that by "factually incorrect" or even just simply "incorrect"?

3485:

again. It is not for checking the statement in the article with the source, but for checking the source itself.

2646:, as the Dubious tag is not for this purpose. Which is correct? Which should I use under such circumstances? 2469:

Not really. If a dubious tag is added, it means precisely that: dubious. That is less than actually contest it.

1939:

is intended to contain equal signs, you need to put it through a named parameter, or fake the parameter number.

5506: 4019:

Yes, I am aware of this, that's why I was suggesting allowing changing which talk page the template refers to.

3005:

IBM also developed, but never officially released, TSS/360, a time-sharing system for the System/360 Model 67.

5825:, {Dubious|1=Biomass}, and {Dubious|discuss=Biomass} but all three syntax formats resulted only in a link to 5684: 3359: 3355: 3339: 2791: 1263: 1157: 818: 1115: 175: 5641: 4130:

Seems like there could be some gently worded clause, reminding editors that this template is not a weapon.

3008: 1851: 1764: 1736: 1693: 1576: 1465: 1014: 491: 306: 275: 233: 33: 5670:

as dubious, that's a different concept and should have a separate tag, and there happens to be one called

2682:

is for statements that are unsourced, regardless if you agree with it or think the statement is incorrect.

1283: 1231: 5597: 5534: 3315: 3268: 3179: 3106:

that it is incorrect, remove it and explain why in the edit summary. If you are reverted, direct them to

2723: 2648: 1300: 1236:

Well while I can't really see much of a difference in functionality, that's probably because I don't use

4771:

already is an inline tag. Sorry for the inconvenience, must have a short circuit in my head :-) Cheers!

548: 378:. There is at least one other template with a talk link like this that will also need this treatment. — 5736:

should be recommended. And that template should be beefed-up to also have a optional discuss parameter.

5456: 5190: 4776: 4727:-enclosed template name into an actual link, you will see that we already have it; it is a redirect to 4712: 4002:

however that section still needs to be on the talk page for the page that the template is placed on. --

3964: 3159: 2986:

It would help if you told us which article this is in, and which is the unsourced claim in question. --

2484: 1580: 1469: 1276: 1018: 645:. If it is allegedly sourced, but you doubt that the source says what the article claims it does, use 560: 556: 544: 5014: 3555:

It already says "to flag unsourced statements". No need to specify all sorts of unsourced statements.

1464:. That's pretty much my entire point (for both the rename, and the related merge, above). This is a 1072:

If this usage correction is not made, it is very likely that this template will simply be merged with

5855: 5788: 5295: 5246: 5151: 4351: 2138:

Also, I object to your removal of a much needed warning from the documentation, and will restore it.

2094: 1679: 487: 355: 121: 2046:

I support this request. Such is the standard for all maintenance templates, and for obvious reason.

5186: 4671: 4610: 4602: 4594: 4586: 4167: 4058: 3597: 3573: 3144: 2957: 2945: 2775: 2758: 2676: 2372:

Perhaps keep it closer to the wording of the template and say "It is best to simultaneously try to

1872:

I used the following tag: {{Dubious|Larger rotors == greater stopping power ?|date=February 2010}}

1844: 1713: 1709:

Would it be beneficial to change the way this template appears? Or would it be better just to turn

1559: 1549: 1517: 1338: 473:

correct. Note that I did not add this source to the article; it has been there for a long time.

445: 5846:

Hmm. This is working for me - when I click on the "discuss" part of the "" message, I am taken to

4842:

instead to put my reason into a tooltip, but this has the baggage of needing a reflist somewhere.

3970:

However, I suppose there is potential for mild misuse, if for example someone does something like

2614: 5730: 5674: 5443: 5370: 5320: 4812: 4702: 4538: 4456: 4377: 4262: 4237: 3638: 2011: 1869: 1820: 1584: 1473: 1086:, the next time someone who likes XfD processes notices that this template is being misused as a 4591:, you can omit the date and a bot will later fill it in. But, provided that you subst it, as in 757:). There is no template I know of for relevance, at least not an inline one. More a matter for 4651: 4171: 4131: 4099:. (What I ended up doing instead was just mentioning the talk page in the "reason" parameter.) 3818:. Heh. In many cases we've moved toward actually displaying it (though some want to use to to 3479: 3434: 3402: 3312: 3265: 1314: 1257: 1151: 649: 2878: 1057:

is not for flagging items that an editor thinks might be incorrect or unsourced (this is what

209: 5750: 5165: 5022: 4959: 4903: 4849: 4772: 4708: 4200: 4073: 3956: 3911: 3848: 3193: 3155: 2529: 1790: 1588: 39: 5873: 4896:

less useful than it could be then I’ll replace my usage of it with my less elegant solution.

3445:

from such violence or terror. Had Fatah claimed responsibility, it would have been noted in

1169:: The merge isn't about the template name, but rather about the code and its functionality. 753:

No, it's for sourcing/reliability/factuality/interpretation disputes (i.e. stuff covered by

5851: 5784: 5629: 5571: 5291: 5242: 5139: 5105: 5074: 5055: 5010: 4977: 4550: 4347: 3719: 3673: 3296: 2617:" section, it states: "This template is not to be used: to flag unsourced statements, and 2525: 1812: 1528: 236:

haven't changed. So I do not see why someone would change this to a redirect unilaterally.

2168:

The strength of the present title "Dubious" is that it allows for tagging statements that

1179:

has useful, standardized code, while there really isn't anything salvageable at all about

8: 5666:

as dubious as that's the most obvious interpretation to most people. If we wish to tag a

5438: 5365: 5264: 5226: 4928: 4892:

would be more useful if displayed the reason parameter in a tooltip. If you want to keep

4879: 4743: 4639: 4574: 4524: 4310: 4010: 3933: 3886: 3780: 3766: 3707: 3689: 3608: 3560: 3537: 3505: 3490: 3466: 3416: 3371: 3335: 3226: 3118: 3069: 2994: 2902: 2861: 2817: 2787: 2690: 2598: 2548: 2494: 2474: 2433: 2381: 2322: 2206: 2178: 2143: 2127: 2051: 1969: 1902: 1887: 1197: 1183: 1138: 1028: 1004: 970: 947: 5637: 4615:. I suspect that 71.167.60.171 is asking for a similar feature here, i.e. when you use 3870:|title = {{{reason|The material near this tag is possibly inaccurate or nonfactual.}}} 2953:

to flag unsourced statements, including those which you think might be incorrect – use

1897:

Yep, that seems to have fixed it. Does the template parse the title for heading tags?

1616: 1447: 878: 592: 568: 436: 416: 317: 261: 171:. Shouldn’t there be a {{{1}}} thing to the actual section name (however that works)? — 144: 1875:

Here's the section title declaration: == Larger rotors == Greater stopping power ? ==

5387: 5198: 5176: 4694: 4517:

Knowledge:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page

4409: 4157: 4104: 3584: 3545: 2832: 2803: 2572: 2419: 2395: 2363: 2336: 2291: 2258: 2224: 2192: 2159: 2112: 1703: 1348: 299: 284: 5658:

starts with the very idea that the template is only supposed to be used to tagged a

5882: 5820: 5761: 5746: 5563: 5555: 5542: 5127: 5096: 5085: 5064: 5018: 4969: 4955: 4899: 4893: 4889: 4845: 4834: 4766: 4730: 4680: 4626: 4618: 4510: 4430: 4323: 4194: 4067: 4048: 3997: 3973: 3905: 3842: 3832: 3758:

along the theme of "why does (insert name of template here) not show on mobile?" --

3385: 3306: 3211: 3107: 3093: 3082: 3048: 3032: 2969: 2933: 2748: 2666: 2585: 2535: 2519: 2507: 2390:

That's even better. Does anyone oppose adapting the documentation in such a way? --

1942: 1923: 1643: 1594: 1493: 1423: 1394: 1374: 1210: 1173: 1128: 1107: 1051: 1038: 994: 980: 957: 903: 824: 811: 801: 776: 765: 710: 662: 540: 497: 381: 348: 193: 3895: 3664:

tags. This prevents the link to talk from showing up on mobile, with consequences

1747:

Actually, on second thought, I have BOLDly undone the redirecting because I think

1416:: Oh definitely; we certainly don't want to break present deployment! That would 5560:

is meant to be suggestive rather than objective. Also to be consistent with and

5524: 5185:

Actually, turns out this was rather straightforward. I've made the change in the

4024: 3983: 3669: 3292: 2685:

I'll try and rewrite that sentence in the documentation to make this more clear.

2513: 2460: 2034: 1990: 1685: 1524: 761:

cleanup, or talk page discussion at this point. A more general cleanup tag (even

697: 656: 1882:

Hmmm. Maybe the double equals is confusing it. Let me try changing the title.

5257: 5222: 5131: 4921: 4872: 4838: 4757: 4736: 4632: 4570: 4520: 4292: 4187: 4091:

the related pages. I faced this situation when I went to apply the template to

4003: 3929: 3882: 3801: 3776: 3759: 3738: 3685: 3604: 3556: 3501: 3486: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3412: 3367: 3328: 3245: 3222: 3111: 3062: 2987: 2895: 2856: 2813: 2783: 2686: 2591: 2541: 2490: 2470: 2429: 2377: 2318: 2202: 2174: 2139: 2123: 2081: 2047: 1962: 1898: 1883: 1401: 1280: 1228: 758: 5455:

template. Please do not reopen a request until consensus exists for the edit.

2877:

parameter is a dummy, which intentionally does not display. It's mentioned in

2103:

So is this for alleged facts which are already disputed, or not yet? See also

5897: 5847: 5813: 4863:

is not a parameter of this template, but you may use it to add an invisible,

4505: 4037: 3755: 3284: 1634: 1613: 1569: 1484: 1477: 1444: 1365: 1190: 1090: 1083: 1076: 1061: 919: 894: 856: 743: 629: 587: 530: 362: 314: 258: 5529:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Add a question mark to Dubious Template

3540:, of course. Is there a reason why the above would not be an incorrect use? 3276:

I certainly agree, and the cause is that the "discuss" link is wrapped by a

415:

get comments here I may just be bold and change the text of this tempmlate.

5383: 5194: 5172: 4599:, the bot will not need to visit since it will be saved as if you had used 4501: 4286: 4153: 4100: 3948:

Suggestion to allow specifying talk page where discussion should take place

3580: 3541: 3528:

Frankly, in the list of incorrect uses, I expected to find something like:

3363: 3351: 2828: 2799: 2568: 2415: 2391: 2359: 2332: 2287: 2254: 2220: 2188: 2155: 2108: 1240: 477: 320: 313:

needs an amendment; maybe we should get some other opinions on the matter?

295: 280: 264: 2239:

The strength of the present title "Dubious" is that it allows for tagging

1955:{{dubious|1=Larger rotors == greater stopping power ?|date=February 2010}} 5878: 5801:

BUG in template? -- first parameter (talk page section name) not working.

5633: 5539: 5123: 5081: 4426: 4314: 3089: 3056: 3028: 2981: 2965: 1753: 1725: 754: 639: 310: 172: 4699:

and it's variants. But could we have a template for a milder formation,

3967:

rather than the talk page of whichever article the citation appears on.

1804:

dubious tag, but I'm sure it's transferable to situations involving the

1682:

that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved.

4020: 3979: 3188:? There is too much space between the s and the closing bracket. —User 2929:

For example, claims that you think are incorrect should be tagged with

1855: 328: 245: 237: 5715:

The stated purpose of this template should be changed to mark dubious

3876:

Template_talk:Contradict-inline#Behavior_of_the_.27reason.27_parameter

3254:. For your display, here's what it actually looks like, in an example: 2609:

Instructions conflict with instructions for "Citation needed" template

5827: 4569:

Which doesn't have that. So I am not sure what you are referring to.

4404:{{ {{{|safesubst:}}}#invoke:Unsubst||$ N=Dubious |date=__DATE__ |$ B= 2077: 635:. If it is sourced and you doubt the source's authoritativeness, use 5807: 1322:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal.

1271:

but also suggest that the template instead transclude articles into

1417: 1104:

as nominator. I'm going to start working on the dox cleanup now. —

465:

incorrect in every particular. He then claimed I should prove why

1665:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.

270:

While I dislike seeing disputes waged in the article itself, that

3446: 3185: 1292: 343: 4223:

Is there a variant that more explicitly says "sources conflict"?

4097:

an existing section of the talk page for the author of that work

3395:, otherwise the statement should simply be removed as unsourced. 5623: 5146: 3623:

Protected edit request: Make the link to talk visible on mobile

2072:

Template talk:Fix/Archive 1#Detection for substituted templates

1850:? Currently clicking on "dubious" in the template takes you to 5308: 4800: 4444: 4365: 4250: 2122:

Yes, this template is for statements that are being disputed.

1279:(the status quo is making that category slightly bloated)... 486:

This question does not belong on a template's talk page; try

257:

conflicts with current practice, this would bear discussion.

229: 114: 3450: 4691:

Therefore, at the moment we do have all the templates for

3626: 2624:

On the page for the "Citation needed" template under the "

5256:

Yes, because archives are not for ongoing discussions. --

5013:

can be used to display the reason, and added this tip to

1920:. Of course, having done that, the value is lost because 659:

for a list of all known inline templates of this sort. —

5770:

have I seen anyone actually use the "discuss" function.

3816:

I'm the one who introduced that convention to begin with

3259:

There's nothing wrong with the current Dubious template!

3051:|TSS/360 never officially released?|date=November 2014}} 1947:

has no suitable named parameter, so the following fudge

705:

Knowledge:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Inline templates

3088:

is appropriate, shouldn't the description so indicate?

3024: 3020: 3016: 3012: 867:

that it needs support. This seems essential to a wiki.

559:

makes it, this page may need to be differentiated from

4623:, without a date, it will be the same as when you use 3743:

The problem is not with some mobile telephones. It is

563:, or merged with it. Again, my opinion, is to merge. 526:

Moot: Templates merged, and other issues addressed by

3874:

as a silent parameter, like SMcCandlish suggested at

3130:

For now, I've made this documentation harmonise with

2237:

I believe this is what Debresser intended to write: "

2030:

Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates

1838:

Knowledge:Village_pump_(proposals)#Dubious_v_disputed

1702:

right now". I used it in that sense, for example, on

1510:

If we have two meanings, then we need two templates.

821:, so my recommendation to use it is now obsolete.) — 771:

could be used and the issues raised on the talk page.

435:

I see you just made the change yesterday. Very good.

228:

I do not agree with this. I used the template on the

5712:

Here are how things I think should be done ideally:

5505:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

4299:

Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 10

4170:, which preempts predicable misuse of the template. 2277:

I guess you're saying this template is for statement

1854:, and the meaning of "dubious" is not really clear. 934:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

852:

Moot; issue raised is not relevant to template; see

5515:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4841:

does? I’ll have to use <ref group="Dubious": -->

4306:

Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 March 9

3140:, because it has always been my understanding that 2070:in a slightly different way to that suggested. See 797:Knowledge:Disputed statement]] more narrowly, then 342:I have used this template to flag off a section on 167:? The relevant Talk section would have to be named 75:Some discussion of this template may take place at 5618:I can't speak for others, but I've certainly used 4095:. I would have liked the "discuss" link to go to 3264:Someone just needs to erase a space, that's all. 410:Requested change made, and undisputed for a year. 347:could speak to the cited author's credentials? -- 5895: 4545:{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} 4441:Template-protected edit request on 21 March 2017 4362:Template-protected edit request on 13 March 2017 4247:Template-protected edit request on 10 March 2017 3221:. If you do, let me know, and I'll support you. 2619:those which one simply thinks might be incorrect 2104: 5305:Template-protected edit request on 8 April 2022 5136:usage has been clarified in the documentation. 3398:The most appropriate tag in this case would be 2847:The reason parameter doesn't do anything for me 707:. I've been meaning to do this for a while. — 1723:in September 2008...does anyone remember why? 292:Knowledge:Verifiability#Checking_verifiability 5518:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 4837:display the reason parameter in a tooltip as 3135:Citation needed#When not to use this template 3061:can't be linked to a talk page discussion. -- 2922:Citation needed#When not to use this template 2026: 2005:Edit request from Cymru.lass, 4 February 2011 1982:Editprotected request involving this template 1334:It is proposed that this template be renamed 361:can consult the Talk page if they so desire. 4629:|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}} 4605:|date={{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}}} 2489:I get for {{dubious|K is NOT integral}}. ᛭ 2018:{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{<includeonly: --> 1275:(month/year timestamp optional) rather than 1047:Final documentation will be clarified, that 5693:The usage problem is further compounded by 5525:start the same discussion on multiple-pages 3217:template only. Perhaps write about this at 163:Should the link to the Talk page really be 5396: 2771:In such a case it seems reasonable that a 2715:use the Citation needed tag - and if they 1273:Category:Articles with disputed statements 2613:On the page for this template under the " 32:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 5124:Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul 5082:Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul 4127:anyway by tagging the line as dubious. 3665: 3090:Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul 3029:Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul 2966:Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul 1523:. Sometimes one wants to say "dubious". 1295:is a much, much better representation. - 1000:(i.e., in agreement with itself, unlike 807:could be relevant. (Also, some consider 5531:where is has received much more input. 4166:Of course not, but compare guidance at 3311:Where's the sandbox for this template? 3150:is for statements that appear at least 2881:, as "a dummy parameter, used to add a 512:DisputedAssertion and Dubious templates 5896: 5709:used. I feel very strongly about this. 5576:2603:7080:DA3C:7A33:F4FF:3B44:570:60A8 5471:2603:7080:DA3C:7A33:F4FF:3B44:570:60A8 5415:2603:7080:DA3C:7A33:F4FF:3B44:570:60A8 5401:2603:7080:DA3C:7A33:F4FF:3B44:570:60A8 5343:2603:7080:DA3C:7A33:F4FF:3B44:570:60A8 5287:{{#if:{{{talk|}}}|{{{talk}}}|{{{1}}}}} 5049:The added text is unclear. Do you use 4148:Is there any case in which a template 4000:|Inconsistent values|date=April 2016}} 3868:instead of the usual text, like this: 2298:, corrected 16:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 1864:Is this the way it's supposed to work? 86:Knowledge:WikiProject Inline Templates 4797:Reason parameter display in a tooltip 4676:is a more strongly worded version of 4631:. This feature is already present. -- 4543:This should have the same pre-filled 3710:for this alteration before using the 2913:Which template description is correct 1034:documentation will be added into the 1021:, which is for article-wide disputes) 89:Template:WikiProject Inline Templates 66:This template is within the scope of 21: 19: 4938:door saying “Beware of the Leopard.” 4871:display something are exceptions. -- 4658:The following discussion is closed. 3814:is undisplayed in many cases, since 3775:So this is an issue for developers? 3250:I agree. I noticied it when editing 1840:, how about redirecting this tag to 1067:is for), but for tagging statements 928:The following discussion is closed. 109: 15: 4504:for discussing improvements to the 2630:claims that you think are incorrect 2028:? This will categorize the page in 1069:that are subject to ongoing dispute 38:It is of interest to the following 13: 5904:WikiProject Inline Templates pages 5811:and added a discussion section at 3219:Knowledge:Village pump (technical) 2635:Have I misunderstood something? 2459:be changed to Contested. Regards, 159:Template changed to resolve issue. 125: 120:This template was considered for 14: 5915: 5653:I also use the template with the 5568:on Wikiquote has a question mark. 5237:Linking to Archived talk sections 4188:Temperamental and annoying people 3475:Please read the documentation of 3043:a talk page thread on that matter 789:I take that back. If there is an 549:WP:TFD#Template:DisputedAssertion 5589:The discussion above is closed. 5429: 5356: 5312: 5213: 4804: 4788:The discussion above is closed. 4735:and has been for a few years. -- 4492: 4448: 4418: 4369: 4337: 4254: 3698: 3630: 3011:. It is unsourced; according to 2559:Talk link redirect does not work 2405: 2061: 2020:NAMESPACE}}|<includeonly: --> 1928:does not have a parameter named 1306:The discussion above is closed. 843: 729: 687: 517: 451: 401: 215: 150: 113: 20: 5015:Template:Dubious/doc#Parameters 4859:As noted in the documentation, 4093:Projet de communauté philosophe 2662:The explanation is as follows: 2526:Help:Link#Disallowed characters 990:Language to remain the same at 5805:I just added a dubious tag at 5300:00:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC) 5027:10:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 4982:16:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC) 3902:, but "incorrect" would work. 3661:<span class="metadata": --> 3278:<span class="metadata": --> 3164:20:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC) 2553:12:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC) 2499:22:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC) 2454:Contested rather then dubious? 2032:if it is substed. Thanks! --- 176:04:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC) 1: 5793:11:27, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 3123:21:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 3098:21:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 3074:19:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 3037:19:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC) 2999:00:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC) 2974:21:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC) 2837:17:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 2822:17:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 2808:16:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 2792:01:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC) 2732:21:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC) 2626:When not to use this template 2582:Which pages have you added a 2374:discuss the dubious statement 2024:in the template, right after 2000:20:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 1825:09:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 1284:02:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 819:Knowledge:Clarify the cleanup 376:Someone does need to fix this 366:17:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 190:Yeah, you can specify now. — 186:07:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 5823:|Biomass|date=January 2023}} 5817:as intended. I tried to use 5701:parameter should clearly be 5275:Parameter for talk page link 4722:Now that I have turned your 4547:as template:citation needed. 4242:03:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC) 3754:This is a frequent issue at 3613:11:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC) 3603:is the best general advice. 3589:07:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC) 3565:13:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC) 3550:18:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC) 3301:18:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC) 3009:History of operating systems 2907:10:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 2868:01:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC) 2695:16:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC) 2657:16:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC) 2590:to, that are not linking? -- 2105:#Redirect to disputed-inline 2087:18:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 2056:10:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC) 2041:02:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC) 1914:"= greater stopping power ?" 1859:17:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC) 1852:Knowledge:Disputed statement 1800:This argument refers to the 1776:Can we delete this template? 1577:Knowledge:Disputed statement 1466:Knowledge:Disputed statement 1015:Knowledge:Disputed statement 680:Wikiproject Inline templates 492:Knowledge:Disputed statement 307:Knowledge:Disputed statement 276:Knowledge:Disputed statement 234:Knowledge:Disputed_statement 69:WikiProject Inline Templates 7: 5860:07:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC) 5841:19:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 5831:with no section qualifier. 5335:to reactivate your request. 5323:has been answered. Set the 4964:23:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 4933:14:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 4908:02:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC) 4884:10:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 4854:20:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC) 4827:to reactivate your request. 4815:has been answered. Set the 4471:to reactivate your request. 4459:has been answered. Set the 4392:to reactivate your request. 4380:has been answered. Set the 4277:to reactivate your request. 4265:has been answered. Set the 3653:to reactivate your request. 3641:has been answered. Set the 3440:is not appropriate because 3366:with a dubious tag, anyone? 3318:7:40 AM EST April 22, 2015 3316:User talk:AKA Casey Rollins 3252:Draft:The Lego Movie Sequel 2538:|K%5BX%5D is NOT integral}} 2019:subst:</includeonly: --> 1832:Redirect to disputed-inline 1203:than it is merge proposal, 1024:Anything salient about the 10: 5920: 5887:17:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC) 5868:I confirm what is perhaps 5646:02:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC) 5611:18:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC) 5231:00:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC) 5203:20:06, 23 April 2021 (UTC) 5181:19:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC) 5155:19:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC) 5110:13:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC) 5090:13:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC) 5060:or do you wrap the entire 4781:16:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC) 4748:09:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC) 4717:21:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC) 4644:09:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC) 4579:04:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC) 4563:01:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC) 4533:14:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC) 4487:14:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC) 4435:15:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC) 4413:15:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC) 4356:13:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC) 4331:12:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC) 4213:19:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 4183:14:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 4162:13:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 4143:22:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 4086:19:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 3965:Template talk:Inflation-fn 3340:14:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC) 3271:7:37 AM EST April 22, 2015 3231:13:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC) 3202:05:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC) 2438:20:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC) 2424:17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC) 2400:16:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 2386:05:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 2368:02:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 2341:16:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 2327:05:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 2296:02:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 2263:02:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 2229:02:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 2211:16:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 2197:16:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 2183:14:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 2164:02:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 1916:through a parameter named 1795:02:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC) 1689:07:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC) 1591:concerns, respectively. — 1581:Knowledge:Accuracy dispute 1470:Knowledge:Accuracy dispute 1277:Category:Accuracy disputes 1121:Pending answer to Question 1019:Knowledge:Accuracy dispute 841: 727: 719:16:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC) 685: 621:18:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 561:Template:DisputedAssertion 557:Template:DisputedAssertion 545:Template:DisputedAssertion 515: 449: 440:00:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 420:06:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 399: 213: 210:Template:Disputed redirect 165:talk:{{PAGENAME}}#Disputed 148: 5778:20:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC) 5755:11:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC) 5680:, which is a redirect to 5584:02:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC) 5548:14:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC) 5479:12:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC) 5465:12:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC) 5423:12:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC) 5409:03:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC) 5392:21:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC) 5351:20:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC) 4109:15:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC) 4029:05:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC) 4015:07:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 3988:06:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 3952:I used this template for 3938:09:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 3924:01:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 3891:07:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 3861:23:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC) 3785:07:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC) 3771:22:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC) 3732:17:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC) 3694:17:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC) 3678:09:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC) 3510:05:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC) 3495:22:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC) 3471:15:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC) 3421:14:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC) 3393:precisely for that reason 3376:20:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC) 2603:18:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 2577:16:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC) 2479:22:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC) 2464:18:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC) 2148:21:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC) 2132:21:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC) 2117:19:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC) 1974:21:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC) 1907:19:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC) 1892:19:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC) 1770:14:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 1742:14:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 1652:14:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1622:02:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1603:14:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC) 1533:17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC) 1502:13:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1453:10:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1432:06:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1405:04:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1383:22:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1301:02:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC) 1264:14:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1232:04:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC) 1219:20:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 1158:23:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 1116:20:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 912:21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 882:20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC) 872:21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC) 833:21:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 671:21:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 506:21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 488:Knowledge:Content dispute 481:18:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 430:16:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC) 390:22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 323:10:59, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) 267:08:32, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) 202:22:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC) 92:Inline Templates articles 59: 46: 5591:Please do not modify it. 5512:Please do not modify it. 4790:Please do not modify it. 4660:Please do not modify it. 4295:invocation, then change 4168:Template:Citation needed 4115:Maybe some clarification 4036:negative use case being 3928:I'd prefer "incorrect". 3003:An example is the claim 2632:should be tagged with " 2016:Will someone please put 1836:Following discussion at 1668:Please do not modify it. 1325:Please do not modify it. 1308:Please do not modify it. 1269:Endorse merge nomination 1082:(probably forcibly, via 931:Please do not modify it. 785:22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC) 396:"Dubious" not "disputed" 351:23:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) 302:10:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) 248:02:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) 240:02:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) 5451:edit template-protected 5378:edit template-protected 5269:18:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC) 5251:15:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC) 3714:edit template-protected 3356:dubious tag on a source 2946:Dubious#Incorrect usage 2512:template should not be 1870:Bicycle braking systems 1585:Knowledge:Verifiability 1474:Knowledge:Verifiability 1390:- with a redirect from 747:04:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 331:15:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) 287:10:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) 77:the project's talk page 4916:is that it provides a 4613:|date=September 2024}} 4309:, per a nomination by 3810:, I'm well aware that 3795:The 'reason' parameter 3569:Yes, but it says "use 2964:. Which should I use? 2724:Paranoid Android 2600! 2649:Paranoid Android 2600! 2074:for details. — Martin 2021:]</includeonly: --> 817:to be deprecated, per 5527:; this is already at 5487:Should we change to 5457:ScottishFinnishRadish 4595:subst:citation needed 2516:- that is, don't use 2201:A source or a proof. 1589:Knowledge:Attribution 1227:Agreed with merge. — 5685:Better source needed 5441:for this alteration 5368:for this alteration 5011:Template:Hover title 5009:– I have discovered 3041:Since you've raised 2522:|K is NOT integral}} 2376:on the talk page."? 1545:have two templates: 966:It is proposed that 890:actually a clone of 724:"Relevance" question 128:. The result of the 5507:request for comment 5437:please establish a 5364:please establish a 4725:...</nowiki: --> 4707:, as well? Cheers! 3963:usage to direct to 3706:please establish a 3391:tag is appropriate 3180:Improve the spacing 3023:I should tag it as 3015:I should tag it as 2892:|date=February 2014 2888:|Date=February 2014 2540:which produces . -- 2358:the talk page."? -- 2187:One of two what? -- 2036:c y m r u . l a s s 1749:{{disputed-inline}} 1013:Tooltip to link to 963:in September 2007. 696:Project active, at 290:Interesting note: 224:Long-settled issue. 79:, rather than here. 4661: 4402:<noinclude: --> 4291:at the top of the 4228:believe" problem. 3659:Please remove the 2532:, so use the form 2485:Breaks on brackets 1996:(background check) 1935:Where a parameter 1472:) template, not a 1468:("subdivision" of 1299:|Señor Lelandro]] 953:was redirected to 34:content assessment 5848:Talk:Paca#Biomass 5814:Talk:Paca#Biomass 5632:comment added by 5586: 5574:comment added by 5538: 5535:non-admin closure 5435:Not done for now: 5362:Not done for now: 5341:Change “” to “". 5339: 5338: 5157: 5117: 4888:My point is that 4831: 4830: 4659: 4565: 4553:comment added by 4475: 4474: 4396: 4395: 4281: 4280: 3662:...</span: --> 3657: 3656: 3313:AKA Casey Rollins 3266:AKA Casey Rollins 3019:and according to 2879:the documentation 2866: 2565:Talk section name 2095:Purpose? Dispute? 2085: 1815:comment added by 1768: 1740: 1704:Suman Ranganathan 1531: 1262: 1156: 609: 585: 356:Link to talk page 142: 141: 108: 107: 104: 103: 100: 99: 5911: 5824: 5775: 5773:Ten Pound Hammer 5765: 5735: 5729: 5700: 5696: 5689: 5683: 5679: 5673: 5656: 5648: 5621: 5608: 5606:Ten Pound Hammer 5569: 5567: 5559: 5532: 5514: 5499: 5498: 5494: 5454: 5433: 5432: 5397:Added discussion 5381: 5360: 5359: 5330: 5326: 5316: 5315: 5309: 5282: 5260: 5217: 5216: 5170: 5164: 5153: 5149: 5142: 5135: 5115: 5079: 5073: 5069: 5063: 5059: 5052: 5048: 4924: 4915: 4894:Template:Dubious 4890:Template:Dubious 4875: 4862: 4835:Template:Dubious 4822: 4818: 4808: 4807: 4801: 4773:Jayaguru-Shishya 4770: 4760: 4739: 4734: 4726: 4709:Jayaguru-Shishya 4706: 4698: 4684: 4670:As we know, the 4635: 4630: 4622: 4614: 4607:which is to say 4606: 4598: 4590: 4548: 4546: 4514: 4496: 4495: 4466: 4462: 4452: 4451: 4445: 4422: 4421: 4405: 4387: 4383: 4373: 4372: 4366: 4345: 4341: 4340: 4321: 4317: 4308: 4301: 4290: 4272: 4268: 4258: 4257: 4251: 4211: 4180: 4177: 4174: 4140: 4137: 4134: 4084: 4063: 4057: 4053: 4047: 4043: 4006: 4001: 3977: 3961: 3955: 3922: 3871: 3859: 3837: 3831: 3820:entirely replace 3813: 3805: 3762: 3750: 3742: 3717: 3702: 3701: 3663: 3648: 3644: 3634: 3633: 3627: 3602: 3596: 3578: 3572: 3524:"Incorrect uses" 3484: 3478: 3439: 3433: 3407: 3401: 3390: 3384: 3331: 3289: 3283: 3279: 3249: 3241: 3216: 3210: 3156:Florian Blaschke 3149: 3143: 3139: 3133: 3114: 3087: 3081: 3065: 3060: 3052: 2990: 2985: 2962: 2956: 2950: 2944: 2938: 2932: 2926: 2920: 2898: 2893: 2889: 2876: 2864: 2859: 2855: 2852: 2780: 2774: 2763: 2757: 2753: 2747: 2681: 2675: 2671: 2665: 2594: 2589: 2544: 2539: 2530:percent encoding 2523: 2511: 2413: 2409: 2408: 2286:puted or not. -- 2075: 2069: 2065: 2064: 2039: 2037: 2027: 2023: 2015: 1965: 1956: 1946: 1931: 1927: 1919: 1915: 1849: 1843: 1827: 1761: 1757: 1750: 1733: 1729: 1718: 1712: 1670: 1646: 1639: 1633: 1619: 1597: 1574: 1568: 1564: 1558: 1554: 1548: 1527: 1522: 1516: 1496: 1489: 1483: 1450: 1426: 1418:double-plus suck 1399: 1393: 1377: 1370: 1364: 1353: 1347: 1343: 1337: 1327: 1260: 1255: 1251: 1245: 1239: 1213: 1202: 1196: 1188: 1182: 1178: 1172: 1154: 1149: 1145: 1143: 1137: 1133: 1127: 1110: 1095: 1089: 1081: 1075: 1066: 1060: 1056: 1050: 1043: 1037: 1033: 1027: 1009: 1003: 999: 993: 985: 979: 975: 969: 962: 956: 952: 946: 933: 906: 899: 893: 863: 861: 855: 847: 846: 838:"Try not to use" 827: 816: 810: 806: 800: 779: 770: 764: 739: 733: 732: 717: 714: 713: 701: 691: 690: 665: 654: 648: 644: 638: 634: 628: 611: 608: 605: 602: 599: 596: 593: 584: 581: 578: 575: 572: 569: 541:Template:Dubious 537: 535: 529: 521: 520: 500: 469:feel the source 461: 455: 454: 446:Burden of proof? 411: 405: 404: 384: 225: 219: 218: 196: 181:I changed this. 160: 154: 153: 127: 117: 110: 94: 93: 90: 87: 84: 83:Inline Templates 61: 60: 54:Inline Templates 48: 47: 25: 24: 23: 16: 5919: 5918: 5914: 5913: 5912: 5910: 5909: 5908: 5894: 5893: 5870:a related issue 5852:John of Reading 5818: 5803: 5785:Alanscottwalker 5771: 5759: 5733: 5727: 5698: 5694: 5687: 5681: 5677: 5671: 5654: 5627: 5619: 5604: 5600: 5595: 5594: 5561: 5553: 5550: 5545: 5544:it has begun... 5510: 5500: 5496: 5492: 5490: 5489: 5469:Your thoughts? 5448: 5430: 5413:Your thoughts? 5375: 5357: 5328: 5324: 5313: 5307: 5292:Musiconeologist 5288: 5280: 5277: 5258: 5243:Ser be etre shi 5239: 5214: 5168: 5162: 5147: 5140: 5114: 5077: 5071: 5067: 5061: 5053: 5050: 5042: 4922: 4913: 4873: 4860: 4820: 4816: 4805: 4799: 4794: 4793: 4764: 4758: 4737: 4728: 4724:<nowiki: --> 4723: 4700: 4692: 4678: 4672:Disputed inline 4664: 4654: 4633: 4624: 4616: 4611:citation needed 4608: 4603:citation needed 4600: 4592: 4587:citation needed 4584: 4544: 4541: 4539:pre-filled date 4508: 4493: 4464: 4460: 4449: 4443: 4419: 4401: 4385: 4381: 4370: 4364: 4348:John of Reading 4338: 4336: 4327: 4319: 4315: 4303: 4296: 4284: 4270: 4266: 4255: 4249: 4225: 4209: 4192: 4178: 4175: 4172: 4138: 4135: 4132: 4117: 4082: 4065: 4061: 4059:citation needed 4055: 4051: 4045: 4041: 4004: 3995: 3971: 3959: 3953: 3950: 3920: 3903: 3869: 3857: 3840: 3835: 3829: 3811: 3799: 3797: 3760: 3748: 3736: 3711: 3699: 3666:discussed above 3660: 3646: 3642: 3631: 3625: 3600: 3598:Citation needed 3594: 3576: 3574:citation needed 3570: 3526: 3482: 3476: 3437: 3431: 3405: 3399: 3388: 3382: 3360:by another user 3348: 3329: 3309: 3287: 3281: 3277: 3269:Talk with Casey 3261: 3243: 3235: 3214: 3208: 3182: 3147: 3145:Citation needed 3141: 3137: 3131: 3112: 3085: 3079: 3063: 3054: 3046: 2988: 2979: 2960: 2958:Citation needed 2954: 2948: 2942: 2936: 2930: 2924: 2918: 2915: 2896: 2891: 2887: 2874: 2862: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2778: 2776:Citation needed 2772: 2761: 2759:Citation needed 2755: 2751: 2745: 2742: 2679: 2677:Citation_needed 2673: 2669: 2663: 2644:Citation needed 2611: 2592: 2583: 2561: 2542: 2533: 2517: 2505: 2487: 2456: 2406: 2404: 2097: 2062: 2060: 2035: 2033: 2025: 2017: 2009: 2007: 1998: 1988:Template talk:! 1984: 1963: 1954: 1940: 1930:|Larger rotors= 1929: 1921: 1918:"Larger rotors" 1917: 1913: 1866: 1847: 1845:Disputed-inline 1841: 1834: 1810: 1778: 1767: 1755: 1748: 1739: 1727: 1721:redirected here 1716: 1714:disputed-inline 1710: 1696: 1675: 1666: 1642: 1637: 1631: 1617: 1593: 1572: 1566: 1562: 1560:citation needed 1556: 1552: 1550:disputed-inline 1546: 1525:Septentrionalis 1520: 1518:disputed-inline 1514: 1492: 1487: 1481: 1448: 1422: 1397: 1391: 1373: 1368: 1362: 1351: 1345: 1341: 1339:disputed-inline 1335: 1323: 1317: 1312: 1311: 1258: 1253: 1243: 1237: 1209: 1200: 1194: 1186: 1180: 1176: 1170: 1152: 1147: 1141: 1135: 1131: 1125: 1106: 1093: 1087: 1079: 1073: 1064: 1058: 1054: 1048: 1041: 1035: 1031: 1025: 1007: 1001: 997: 991: 983: 977: 976:be merged into 973: 967: 960: 954: 950: 944: 938: 929: 922: 902: 897: 891: 864: 859: 853: 851: 849: 844: 840: 823: 814: 808: 804: 798: 775: 768: 762: 740: 737: 735: 730: 726: 715: 709: 708: 702: 695: 693: 688: 684: 661: 652: 646: 642: 636: 632: 626: 606: 603: 600: 597: 594: 582: 579: 576: 573: 570: 566: 538: 533: 527: 525: 523: 518: 514: 496: 462: 459: 457: 452: 448: 437:—Ben FrantzDale 417:—Ben FrantzDale 412: 409: 407: 402: 398: 380: 358: 226: 223: 221: 216: 212: 192: 161: 158: 156: 151: 147: 91: 88: 85: 82: 81: 12: 11: 5: 5917: 5907: 5906: 5892: 5891: 5890: 5889: 5863: 5862: 5802: 5799: 5798: 5797: 5796: 5795: 5780: 5739: 5738: 5737: 5731:dubious source 5720: 5710: 5691: 5675:dubious source 5650: 5649: 5616: 5599: 5596: 5588: 5551: 5543: 5522: 5521: 5520: 5501: 5488: 5485: 5484: 5483: 5482: 5481: 5427: 5426: 5425: 5411: 5337: 5336: 5317: 5306: 5303: 5286: 5276: 5273: 5272: 5271: 5238: 5235: 5234: 5233: 5211: 5210: 5209: 5208: 5207: 5206: 5205: 5141:P.I. Ellsworth 5040: 5039: 5038: 5037: 5036: 5035: 5034: 5033: 5032: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5017: 4993: 4992: 4991: 4990: 4989: 4988: 4987: 4986: 4985: 4984: 4946: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4939: 4897: 4839:Template:Vague 4829: 4828: 4809: 4798: 4795: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4783: 4763:. Indeed, the 4751: 4750: 4703:dubious inline 4665: 4656: 4655: 4653: 4652:dubious inline 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4540: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4473: 4472: 4453: 4442: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4410:Uanfala (talk) 4400: 4394: 4393: 4374: 4363: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4325: 4311:TenPoundHammer 4293:Module:Unsubst 4279: 4278: 4259: 4248: 4245: 4224: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4207: 4116: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4088: 4080: 4033: 4032: 4031: 3949: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3918: 3896:Dictionary.com 3879: 3855: 3826: 3821: 3817: 3796: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3752: 3696: 3655: 3654: 3635: 3624: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3534: 3533: 3525: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3459:New York Times 3455:Jerusalem Post 3429: 3409: 3396: 3347: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3308: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3263: 3262: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3181: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3128: 3045:, I would use 2914: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2848: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2741: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2722:Thanks again! 2721: 2698: 2697: 2683: 2647: 2615:Incorrect uses 2610: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2560: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2486: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2455: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2317:then. Sigh... 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2215:Oh, so one of 2151: 2150: 2135: 2134: 2096: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2012:edit protected 2006: 2003: 1994: 1983: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1933: 1865: 1862: 1833: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1777: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1763: 1735: 1695: 1692: 1674: 1673: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1625: 1624: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1536: 1535: 1505: 1504: 1490:substitute. — 1456: 1455: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1408: 1407: 1385: 1333: 1331: 1330: 1318: 1316: 1315:Requested move 1313: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1286: 1266: 1234: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1161: 1160: 1118: 1098: 1097: 1045: 1044:documentation. 1022: 1011: 937: 936: 924: 923: 921: 918: 917: 916: 915: 914: 842: 839: 836: 795: 794: 791:active dispute 787: 728: 725: 722: 686: 683: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 516: 513: 510: 509: 508: 450: 447: 444: 443: 442: 400: 397: 394: 393: 392: 357: 354: 353: 352: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 288: 214: 211: 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 149: 146: 143: 140: 139: 118: 106: 105: 102: 101: 98: 97: 95: 73: 64: 57: 56: 51: 44: 43: 37: 26: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5916: 5905: 5902: 5901: 5899: 5888: 5884: 5880: 5875: 5874:Kilowatt-hour 5871: 5867: 5866: 5865: 5864: 5861: 5857: 5853: 5849: 5845: 5844: 5843: 5842: 5838: 5834: 5833:47.176.71.114 5830: 5829: 5822: 5816: 5815: 5810: 5809: 5808:Paca#Behavior 5794: 5790: 5786: 5781: 5779: 5774: 5769: 5763: 5758: 5757: 5756: 5752: 5748: 5744: 5740: 5732: 5725: 5721: 5718: 5714: 5713: 5711: 5708: 5704: 5692: 5686: 5676: 5669: 5665: 5661: 5652: 5651: 5647: 5643: 5639: 5635: 5631: 5625: 5617: 5615: 5614: 5613: 5612: 5607: 5592: 5587: 5585: 5581: 5577: 5573: 5565: 5557: 5549: 5546: 5541: 5536: 5530: 5526: 5523:Please don't 5519: 5516: 5513: 5508: 5503: 5502: 5495: 5480: 5476: 5472: 5468: 5467: 5466: 5462: 5458: 5452: 5446: 5445: 5440: 5436: 5428: 5424: 5420: 5416: 5412: 5410: 5406: 5402: 5398: 5395: 5394: 5393: 5389: 5385: 5379: 5373: 5372: 5367: 5363: 5355: 5354: 5353: 5352: 5348: 5344: 5334: 5331:parameter to 5322: 5318: 5311: 5310: 5302: 5301: 5297: 5293: 5285: 5270: 5266: 5262: 5255: 5254: 5253: 5252: 5248: 5244: 5232: 5228: 5224: 5220: 5212: 5204: 5200: 5196: 5192: 5188: 5184: 5183: 5182: 5178: 5174: 5167: 5159: 5158: 5156: 5152: 5150: 5145: 5144: 5143: 5133: 5129: 5125: 5121: 5113: 5112: 5111: 5107: 5103: 5098: 5095:I don't know— 5094: 5093: 5092: 5091: 5087: 5083: 5076: 5066: 5057: 5046: 5028: 5024: 5020: 5016: 5012: 5008: 5005: 5004: 5003: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4999: 4998: 4997: 4996: 4995: 4994: 4983: 4979: 4975: 4971: 4968:I agree with 4967: 4966: 4965: 4961: 4957: 4954: 4953: 4952: 4951: 4950: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4930: 4926: 4919: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4905: 4901: 4898: 4895: 4891: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4881: 4877: 4870: 4866: 4858: 4857: 4856: 4855: 4851: 4847: 4843: 4840: 4836: 4826: 4823:parameter to 4814: 4810: 4803: 4802: 4791: 4782: 4778: 4774: 4768: 4762: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4749: 4745: 4741: 4732: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4714: 4710: 4704: 4696: 4689: 4687: 4682: 4677: 4673: 4668: 4663: 4645: 4641: 4637: 4628: 4620: 4619:subst:dubious 4612: 4604: 4596: 4588: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4576: 4572: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4564: 4560: 4556: 4555:71.167.60.171 4552: 4534: 4530: 4526: 4522: 4518: 4512: 4507: 4503: 4499: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4484: 4480: 4470: 4467:parameter to 4458: 4454: 4447: 4446: 4436: 4432: 4428: 4425: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4414: 4411: 4406: 4391: 4388:parameter to 4379: 4375: 4368: 4367: 4357: 4353: 4349: 4344: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4329: 4322: 4312: 4307: 4300: 4294: 4288: 4276: 4273:parameter to 4264: 4260: 4253: 4252: 4244: 4243: 4239: 4235: 4234:71.41.210.146 4229: 4214: 4205: 4202: 4199: 4197: 4189: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4181: 4169: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4141: 4128: 4124: 4122: 4110: 4106: 4102: 4098: 4094: 4089: 4087: 4078: 4075: 4072: 4070: 4060: 4050: 4039: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4022: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4012: 4008: 3999: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3976:|talk=WP:WL}} 3975: 3968: 3966: 3958: 3939: 3935: 3931: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3916: 3913: 3910: 3908: 3901: 3897: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3888: 3884: 3880: 3877: 3873: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3853: 3850: 3847: 3845: 3834: 3824: 3819: 3815: 3809: 3803: 3786: 3782: 3778: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3757: 3753: 3749:display:none; 3746: 3740: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3724: 3715: 3709: 3705: 3697: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3652: 3649:parameter to 3640: 3636: 3629: 3628: 3614: 3610: 3606: 3599: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3575: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3539: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3481: 3480:Verify source 3474: 3473: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3452: 3448: 3443: 3436: 3435:Verify source 3430: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3404: 3403:Verify source 3397: 3394: 3387: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3353: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3326: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3317: 3314: 3302: 3298: 3294: 3286: 3275: 3270: 3267: 3260: 3253: 3247: 3239: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3213: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3199: 3198: 3195: 3192: 3187: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3146: 3136: 3129: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3084: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3058: 3050: 3044: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2983: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2947: 2940: 2935: 2923: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2884: 2880: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2865: 2860: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2777: 2769: 2766: 2760: 2750: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2718: 2714: 2711: 2706: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2678: 2668: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2645: 2641: 2636: 2633: 2631: 2627: 2622: 2620: 2616: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2587: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2537: 2531: 2527: 2521: 2520:subst:dubious 2515: 2509: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2462: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2412: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2280: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2236: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2171: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2152: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2136: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2101: 2088: 2083: 2079: 2073: 2068: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2038: 2031: 2013: 2002: 2001: 1997: 1992: 1989: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1960: 1953: 1952: 1951:have worked: 1950: 1944: 1938: 1934: 1925: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1880: 1876: 1873: 1871: 1861: 1860: 1857: 1853: 1846: 1839: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1817:82.132.139.32 1814: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1782: 1771: 1766: 1760: 1759: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1738: 1732: 1731: 1722: 1715: 1707: 1705: 1699: 1691: 1690: 1687: 1683: 1681: 1672: 1669: 1663: 1662: 1653: 1650: 1647: 1645: 1636: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1623: 1620: 1615: 1610: 1609: 1604: 1601: 1598: 1596: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1571: 1561: 1551: 1544: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1519: 1513: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1503: 1500: 1497: 1495: 1486: 1479: 1478:Template:Fact 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1454: 1451: 1446: 1442: 1439: 1438: 1433: 1430: 1427: 1425: 1419: 1415: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1406: 1403: 1396: 1389: 1386: 1384: 1381: 1378: 1376: 1367: 1360: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1350: 1340: 1329: 1326: 1320: 1319: 1309: 1302: 1298: 1297:User:LelandRB 1294: 1290: 1287: 1285: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1267: 1265: 1261: 1256: 1249: 1242: 1235: 1233: 1230: 1226: 1225: 1220: 1217: 1214: 1212: 1206: 1199: 1192: 1185: 1175: 1168: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1140: 1130: 1122: 1119: 1117: 1114: 1111: 1109: 1103: 1100: 1099: 1092: 1085: 1078: 1070: 1063: 1053: 1046: 1040: 1030: 1023: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1006: 996: 989: 988: 987: 982: 972: 964: 959: 949: 942: 935: 932: 926: 925: 913: 910: 907: 905: 896: 889: 885: 884: 883: 880: 879:The Cunctator 876: 875: 874: 873: 870: 858: 835: 834: 831: 828: 826: 820: 813: 803: 792: 788: 786: 783: 780: 778: 772: 767: 760: 756: 751: 750: 749: 748: 745: 721: 720: 712: 706: 699: 681: 672: 669: 666: 664: 658: 655:. Etc. See 651: 650:verify source 641: 631: 624: 623: 622: 619: 614: 613: 612: 610: 591: 590: 586: 564: 562: 558: 552: 550: 546: 542: 532: 507: 504: 501: 499: 493: 489: 485: 484: 483: 482: 479: 474: 472: 468: 441: 438: 434: 433: 432: 431: 428: 422: 421: 418: 391: 388: 385: 383: 377: 373: 370: 369: 368: 367: 364: 350: 345: 341: 340: 330: 325: 324: 322: 319: 316: 312: 308: 304: 303: 301: 297: 293: 289: 286: 282: 277: 273: 269: 268: 266: 263: 260: 255: 251: 250: 249: 247: 241: 239: 235: 231: 203: 200: 197: 195: 189: 188: 187: 184: 180: 179: 178: 177: 174: 170: 166: 137: 133: 132: 123: 119: 116: 112: 111: 96: 80: 78: 71: 70: 65: 63: 62: 58: 55: 52: 50: 49: 45: 41: 35: 31: 27: 18: 17: 5869: 5826: 5812: 5806: 5804: 5772: 5767: 5742: 5726:as dubious, 5723: 5716: 5706: 5702: 5667: 5663: 5659: 5628:— Preceding 5605: 5601: 5590: 5570:— Preceding 5552: 5517: 5511: 5504: 5442: 5434: 5369: 5361: 5340: 5332: 5321:edit request 5289: 5278: 5240: 5218: 5189:. Testcases 5166:Dubious span 5138: 5137: 5041: 4917: 4912:The idea of 4868: 4864: 4844: 4833:Why doesn’t 4832: 4824: 4813:edit request 4789: 4690: 4685: 4675: 4669: 4666: 4657: 4549:— Preceding 4542: 4500:this is the 4497: 4476: 4468: 4457:edit request 4423: 4407: 4397: 4389: 4378:edit request 4342: 4289:|type=tiny}} 4282: 4274: 4263:edit request 4230: 4226: 4195: 4149: 4129: 4125: 4118: 4068: 3969: 3957:Inflation-fn 3951: 3906: 3899: 3867: 3843: 3798: 3744: 3726: 3722: 3720: 3703: 3658: 3650: 3639:edit request 3538:WP:BLPREMOVE 3535: 3527: 3441: 3392: 3352:Yehuda Glick 3349: 3310: 3258: 3189: 3183: 3151: 3103: 3004: 2952: 2928: 2916: 2882: 2850: 2770: 2767: 2743: 2716: 2712: 2709: 2704: 2643: 2639: 2637: 2634: 2629: 2623: 2618: 2612: 2564: 2562: 2488: 2457: 2410: 2373: 2314: 2283: 2278: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2238: 2216: 2169: 2102: 2098: 2066: 2008: 1985: 1948: 1936: 1881: 1877: 1874: 1867: 1835: 1805: 1801: 1783: 1779: 1752: 1724: 1708: 1700: 1697: 1677: 1676: 1667: 1664: 1648: 1641: 1599: 1592: 1542: 1511: 1498: 1491: 1461: 1440: 1428: 1421: 1413: 1387: 1379: 1372: 1358: 1332: 1324: 1321: 1307: 1288: 1268: 1247: 1215: 1208: 1204: 1166: 1120: 1112: 1105: 1101: 1068: 965: 940: 939: 930: 927: 908: 901: 887: 865: 829: 822: 796: 790: 781: 774: 752: 741: 703: 679: 667: 660: 588: 565: 553: 539: 502: 495: 475: 470: 466: 463: 460:Wrong venue. 423: 413: 386: 379: 375: 371: 359: 271: 253: 242: 227: 198: 191: 183:67.165.96.26 168: 164: 162: 135: 129: 126:2017 March 9 74: 67: 40:WikiProjects 29: 5762:Jason Quinn 5747:Jason Quinn 5128:Jim Craigie 5097:Jim Craigie 5075:Hover title 5056:Hover title 5019:Jim Craigie 4970:Jim Craigie 4956:Jim Craigie 4900:Jim Craigie 4846:Jim Craigie 4667:Greetings! 4283:Please add 4196:SMcCandlish 4069:SMcCandlish 3907:SMcCandlish 3872:, as usual. 3844:SMcCandlish 3808:this revert 3354:I placed a 3238:User000name 3102:If you are 2710:are sourced 2514:substituted 2504:First, the 2428:Thank you. 2241:a statement 1811:—Preceding 1787:66.149.58.8 1644:SMcCandlish 1595:SMcCandlish 1494:SMcCandlish 1476:template. 1424:SMcCandlish 1400:, right? — 1375:SMcCandlish 1291:the merge. 1246:- but hey: 1211:SMcCandlish 1108:SMcCandlish 904:SMcCandlish 825:SMcCandlish 777:SMcCandlish 711:SMcCandlish 663:SMcCandlish 498:SMcCandlish 490:; see also 382:SMcCandlish 372:Good point! 349:April Arcus 194:SMcCandlish 5722:To mark a 5622:in, e.g., 5540:* Pppery * 5447:using the 5382:template. 5374:using the 5325:|answered= 5120:TompaDompa 5102:TompaDompa 5045:TompaDompa 5007:TompaDompa 4974:TompaDompa 4817:|answered= 4674:template " 4461:|answered= 4408:Thanks. – 4399:following: 4382:|answered= 4267:|answered= 4152:a weapon? 3900:nonfactual 3806:Regarding 3718:template. 3670:Hairy Dude 3643:|answered= 3457:, and the 3293:Hairy Dude 2890:should be 2461:SunCreator 2243:that sound 2219:two. OK -- 1991:cymru.lass 1694:"disputed" 1686:Stemonitis 1529:PMAnderson 1512:Just write 1198:disputable 1184:disputable 1139:disputable 1029:disputable 1005:disputable 971:disputable 948:disputable 145:#Disputed? 131:discussion 5828:Talk:Paca 5699:|discuss= 5695:|discuss= 5655:|discuss= 5620:|discuss= 5598:"Discuss" 5491:to ": --> 5439:consensus 5366:consensus 5223:Jonesey95 5132:Redrose64 5058:|reason}} 4571:Debresser 4521:Train2104 4502:talk page 4498:Not done: 4479:Burfordbw 4287:subst:tfd 4042:|discuss= 4038:WP:OWNish 3930:Debresser 3883:Debresser 3802:Redrose64 3777:Debresser 3739:Debresser 3708:consensus 3704:Not done: 3686:Debresser 3605:Debresser 3557:Debresser 3502:Nishidani 3487:Debresser 3463:Nishidani 3413:Debresser 3368:Nishidani 3246:Debresser 3223:Debresser 3152:plausible 3108:WP:BURDEN 2858:Basemetal 2814:Debresser 2784:Debresser 2713:shouldn't 2687:Debresser 2491:LokiClock 2471:Debresser 2430:Debresser 2378:Debresser 2331:Right. -- 2319:Debresser 2313:Statement 2203:Debresser 2175:Debresser 2140:Debresser 2124:Debresser 2048:Debresser 1899:Dmforcier 1884:Dmforcier 1680:requested 1402:Omegatron 1281:Ranma9617 1229:Omegatron 738:Answered. 5898:Category 5703:optional 5642:contribs 5630:unsigned 5572:unsigned 5118:editors 5051:|reason= 4914:|reason= 4861:|reason= 4756:Thanks, 4695:Disputed 4551:unsigned 4506:template 3812:|reason= 3307:Sandbox? 3184:You see 3053:because 2875:|reason= 2854:Contact 2740:Proposal 2621:– use " 1813:unsigned 1765:contribs 1737:contribs 1614:Dekimasu 1565:(a.k.a. 1445:Dekimasu 1349:disputed 1193:against 862:instead. 848:Resolved 744:CJCurrie 734:Resolved 698:WP:WPILT 692:Resolved 682:proposed 657:WP:WPILT 589:JNDRLINE 522:Resolved 456:Resolved 406:Resolved 220:Resolved 169:Disputed 155:Resolved 122:deletion 30:template 5821:Dubious 5717:content 5664:content 5564:Dubious 5556:Dubious 5384:DonIago 5195:Colin M 5187:sandbox 5173:Colin M 5070:in the 5065:Dubious 4904:If talk 4767:dubious 4731:dubious 4681:Dubious 4627:dubious 4511:Dubious 4173:Timothy 4154:DonIago 4133:Timothy 4101:Colin M 4049:dubious 3998:dubious 3974:Dubious 3833:Dubious 3581:GregorB 3542:GregorB 3536:...per 3447:Haaretz 3386:Dubious 3327:..." -- 3212:Dubious 3104:certain 3083:Dubious 3049:dubious 3021:Dubious 3017:Dubious 2951:states 2934:Dubious 2927:states 2829:DonIago 2800:DonIago 2749:Dubious 2667:Dubious 2640:Dubious 2586:dubious 2569:Jim1138 2536:dubious 2508:dubious 2416:Chealer 2392:Chealer 2360:Chealer 2333:Chealer 2288:Chealer 2255:Chealer 2221:Chealer 2189:Chealer 2156:Chealer 2109:Chealer 1943:dubious 1924:dubious 1806:section 1678:It was 1649:‹(-¿-)› 1600:‹(-¿-)› 1499:‹(-¿-)› 1441:Comment 1429:‹(-¿-)› 1395:dubious 1388:Comment 1380:‹(-¿-)› 1359:Support 1293:Dubious 1289:Support 1248:Support 1216:‹(-¿-)› 1174:dubious 1129:Dubious 1113:‹(-¿-)› 1102:Support 1096:-alike. 1052:dubious 1039:dubious 995:dubious 981:dubious 958:dubious 909:‹(-¿-)› 830:‹(-¿-)› 812:Cleanup 802:dubious 782:‹(-¿-)› 766:Cleanup 759:WP:BOLD 668:‹(-¿-)› 547:. See 543:versus 503:‹(-¿-)› 478:Kasreyn 387:‹(-¿-)› 344:Meluhha 296:SWAdair 281:SWAdair 199:‹(-¿-)› 5879:Pol098 5724:source 5668:source 5660:source 5634:Chatul 5624:Paging 5444:before 5371:before 5281:|talk= 5261:rose64 4925:rose64 4876:rose64 4761:rose64 4740:rose64 4636:rose64 4427:Cabayi 4304:|link= 4297:|link= 4176:Joseph 4136:Joseph 4007:rose64 3763:rose64 3756:WP:VPT 3453:, The 3332:rose64 3325:create 3242:& 3115:rose64 3066:rose64 2991:rose64 2982:Chatul 2941:while 2899:rose64 2717:aren't 2595:rose64 2545:rose64 1966:rose64 1802:inline 1583:or to 1259:folsom 1254:daniel 1205:per se 1167:Answer 1153:folsom 1148:daniel 1084:WP:TFD 941:Result 318:adiant 262:adiant 173:Frungi 36:scale. 5872:: in 5329:|ans= 5319:This 4918:short 4865:short 4821:|ans= 4811:This 4583:With 4465:|ans= 4455:This 4386:|ans= 4376:This 4271:|ans= 4261:This 4021:djr13 3980:djr13 3825:short 3647:|ans= 3637:This 3364:WP:RS 3200:name 2883:short 2173:fit. 2170:sound 2107:. -- 1949:could 1937:value 1856:Rd232 1543:would 1462:Reply 1414:Reply 1017:(not 920:Merge 607:: --> 329:QBorg 300:Talk 285:Talk 274:what 246:QBorg 238:QBorg 230:Ghost 134:was " 28:This 5883:talk 5856:talk 5837:talk 5789:talk 5768:once 5751:talk 5638:talk 5580:talk 5493:edit 5475:talk 5461:talk 5419:talk 5405:talk 5388:talk 5347:talk 5296:talk 5265:talk 5263:🌹 ( 5247:talk 5227:talk 5219:Done 5199:talk 5191:here 5177:talk 5130:and 5106:talk 5086:talk 5023:talk 4978:talk 4960:talk 4929:talk 4927:🌹 ( 4880:talk 4878:🌹 ( 4850:talk 4777:talk 4744:talk 4742:🌹 ( 4713:talk 4640:talk 4638:🌹 ( 4575:talk 4559:talk 4519:. — 4483:talk 4431:talk 4424:Done 4352:talk 4343:Done 4238:talk 4179:Wood 4158:talk 4139:Wood 4121:this 4119:Per 4105:talk 4025:talk 4011:talk 3984:talk 3934:talk 3887:talk 3781:talk 3767:talk 3727:andt 3690:talk 3674:talk 3609:talk 3585:talk 3561:talk 3546:talk 3506:talk 3491:talk 3467:talk 3451:Ynet 3417:talk 3372:talk 3336:talk 3297:talk 3285:main 3227:talk 3186:this 3160:talk 3154:. -- 3119:talk 3110:. -- 3094:talk 3070:talk 3033:talk 2995:talk 2970:talk 2903:talk 2873:The 2863:here 2833:talk 2818:talk 2804:talk 2788:talk 2728:talk 2691:talk 2653:talk 2599:talk 2573:talk 2549:talk 2495:talk 2475:talk 2434:talk 2420:talk 2411:Done 2396:talk 2382:talk 2364:talk 2337:talk 2323:talk 2292:talk 2259:talk 2253:" -- 2225:talk 2207:talk 2193:talk 2179:talk 2160:talk 2144:talk 2128:talk 2113:talk 2082:talk 2078:MSGJ 2067:Done 2052:talk 1970:talk 1903:talk 1888:talk 1821:talk 1791:talk 1758:anaɢ 1730:anaɢ 1635:fact 1570:fact 1555:and 1485:fact 1420:. — 1366:fact 1207:. — 1091:fact 1077:fact 1062:fact 900:. — 895:fact 857:fact 755:WP:V 630:fact 571:< 531:Fact 494:. — 311:WP:V 254:read 136:Keep 5776:• 5743:now 5609:• 5327:or 5259:Red 5148:ed. 4923:Red 4874:Red 4819:or 4759:Red 4738:Red 4688:". 4634:Red 4463:or 4384:or 4346:-- 4302:to 4269:or 4210:ⱷ≼ 4206:≽ⱷ҅ 4083:ⱷ≼ 4079:≽ⱷ҅ 4054:or 4005:Red 3921:ⱷ≼ 3917:≽ⱷ҅ 3898:on 3858:ⱷ≼ 3854:≽ⱷ҅ 3761:Red 3745:all 3723:red 3645:or 3442:one 3350:At 3330:Red 3113:Red 3064:Red 3007:in 2989:Red 2897:Red 2705:try 2593:Red 2543:Red 2249:the 2217:the 2022:|}} 1964:Red 1868:In 1541:We 1241:fix 1191:TfD 1144:?-- 1134:to 943:: 888:was 869:CHE 618:CHE 427:CHE 363:Soo 309:or 124:on 5900:: 5885:) 5858:) 5839:) 5819:{{ 5791:) 5753:) 5734:}} 5728:{{ 5707:is 5688:}} 5682:{{ 5678:}} 5672:{{ 5644:) 5640:• 5626:. 5582:) 5566:}} 5562:{{ 5558:}} 5554:{{ 5509:. 5477:) 5463:) 5453:}} 5449:{{ 5421:) 5407:) 5399:. 5390:) 5380:}} 5376:{{ 5349:) 5333:no 5298:) 5267:) 5249:) 5229:) 5221:– 5201:) 5179:) 5171:. 5169:}} 5163:{{ 5126:, 5122:, 5116:To 5108:) 5088:) 5080:? 5078:}} 5072:{{ 5068:}} 5062:{{ 5054:{{ 5025:) 4980:) 4962:) 4931:) 4906:) 4882:) 4869:do 4852:) 4825:no 4779:) 4769:}} 4765:{{ 4746:) 4733:}} 4729:{{ 4715:) 4705:}} 4701:{{ 4697:}} 4693:{{ 4683:}} 4679:{{ 4642:) 4625:{{ 4621:}} 4617:{{ 4609:{{ 4601:{{ 4597:}} 4593:{{ 4589:}} 4585:{{ 4577:) 4561:) 4531:) 4527:• 4513:}} 4509:{{ 4485:) 4469:no 4433:) 4390:no 4354:) 4313:. 4285:{{ 4275:no 4240:) 4193:— 4160:) 4150:is 4107:) 4066:— 4064:. 4062:}} 4056:{{ 4052:}} 4046:{{ 4027:) 4013:) 3996:{{ 3986:) 3972:{{ 3960:}} 3954:{{ 3936:) 3904:— 3889:) 3841:— 3836:}} 3830:{{ 3783:) 3769:) 3716:}} 3712:{{ 3692:) 3676:) 3668:. 3651:no 3611:) 3601:}} 3595:{{ 3587:) 3577:}} 3571:{{ 3563:) 3548:) 3508:) 3493:) 3483:}} 3477:{{ 3469:) 3449:, 3438:}} 3432:{{ 3419:) 3406:}} 3400:{{ 3389:}} 3383:{{ 3374:) 3338:) 3299:) 3288:}} 3282:{{ 3229:) 3215:}} 3209:{{ 3162:) 3148:}} 3142:{{ 3138:}} 3132:{{ 3121:) 3096:) 3086:}} 3080:{{ 3072:) 3059:}} 3057:cn 3055:{{ 3047:{{ 3035:) 3027:. 3025:Cn 3013:Cn 2997:) 2972:) 2961:}} 2955:{{ 2949:}} 2943:{{ 2937:}} 2931:{{ 2925:}} 2919:{{ 2905:) 2894:-- 2835:) 2820:) 2806:) 2790:) 2779:}} 2773:{{ 2762:}} 2756:{{ 2752:}} 2746:{{ 2730:) 2693:) 2680:}} 2674:{{ 2670:}} 2664:{{ 2655:) 2601:) 2588:}} 2584:{{ 2575:) 2551:) 2534:{{ 2518:{{ 2510:}} 2506:{{ 2497:) 2477:) 2436:) 2422:) 2414:-- 2398:) 2384:) 2366:) 2339:) 2325:) 2294:) 2282:di 2261:) 2227:) 2209:) 2195:) 2181:) 2162:) 2146:) 2130:) 2115:) 2080:· 2054:) 2014:}} 2010:{{ 1972:) 1961:-- 1945:}} 1941:{{ 1926:}} 1922:{{ 1905:) 1890:) 1848:}} 1842:{{ 1823:) 1793:) 1785:-- 1717:}} 1711:{{ 1684:-- 1638:}} 1632:{{ 1618:よ! 1573:}} 1567:{{ 1563:}} 1557:{{ 1553:}} 1547:{{ 1521:}} 1515:{{ 1488:}} 1482:{{ 1449:よ! 1398:}} 1392:{{ 1369:}} 1363:{{ 1354:. 1352:}} 1346:{{ 1342:}} 1336:{{ 1250:-- 1244:}} 1238:{{ 1201:}} 1195:{{ 1187:}} 1181:{{ 1177:}} 1171:{{ 1142:}} 1136:{{ 1132:}} 1126:{{ 1094:}} 1088:{{ 1080:}} 1074:{{ 1065:}} 1059:{{ 1055:}} 1049:{{ 1042:}} 1036:{{ 1032:}} 1026:{{ 1008:}} 1002:{{ 998:}} 992:{{ 986:: 984:}} 978:{{ 974:}} 968:{{ 961:}} 955:{{ 951:}} 945:{{ 898:}} 892:{{ 860:}} 854:{{ 850:– 815:}} 809:{{ 805:}} 799:{{ 773:— 769:}} 763:{{ 736:– 694:– 653:}} 647:{{ 643:}} 640:rs 637:{{ 633:}} 627:{{ 567:— 551:. 534:}} 528:{{ 524:– 471:is 458:– 408:– 321:_* 298:| 283:| 272:is 265:_* 222:– 157:– 138:". 5881:( 5854:( 5835:( 5787:( 5764:: 5760:@ 5749:( 5636:( 5578:( 5537:) 5533:( 5497:] 5473:( 5459:( 5417:( 5403:( 5386:( 5345:( 5294:( 5245:( 5225:( 5197:( 5175:( 5134:: 5104:( 5084:( 5047:: 5043:@ 5021:( 4976:( 4958:( 4902:( 4848:( 4775:( 4711:( 4573:( 4557:( 4529:c 4525:t 4523:( 4481:( 4429:( 4350:( 4328:y 4326:r 4324:e 4320:p 4318:p 4316:P 4236:( 4208:ᴥ 4204:¢ 4201:☏ 4198:☺ 4156:( 4103:( 4081:ᴥ 4077:¢ 4074:☏ 4071:☺ 4023:( 4009:( 3982:( 3932:( 3919:ᴥ 3915:¢ 3912:☏ 3909:☺ 3885:( 3878:. 3856:ᴥ 3852:¢ 3849:☏ 3846:☺ 3804:: 3800:@ 3779:( 3765:( 3741:: 3737:@ 3725:g 3721:f 3688:( 3672:( 3607:( 3583:( 3559:( 3544:( 3504:( 3489:( 3465:( 3415:( 3408:. 3370:( 3334:( 3323:( 3295:( 3248:: 3244:@ 3240:: 3236:@ 3225:( 3197:0 3194:0 3191:0 3158:( 3117:( 3092:( 3068:( 3031:( 2993:( 2984:: 2980:@ 2968:( 2939:, 2901:( 2831:( 2816:( 2802:( 2786:( 2726:( 2689:( 2651:( 2597:( 2571:( 2547:( 2493:( 2473:( 2432:( 2418:( 2394:( 2380:( 2362:( 2335:( 2321:( 2315:s 2290:( 2284:s 2279:s 2257:( 2245:s 2223:( 2205:( 2191:( 2177:( 2158:( 2142:( 2126:( 2111:( 2084:) 2076:( 2050:( 1993:⁄ 1968:( 1932:. 1901:( 1886:( 1819:( 1789:( 1762:/ 1756:ʨ 1754:r 1734:/ 1728:ʨ 1726:r 1587:/ 1579:/ 1010:) 716:ツ 700:. 604:K 601:L 598:A 595:T 583:K 580:L 577:A 574:T 536:. 467:I 315:R 259:R 42::

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

Index