Template talk:Italic title/Archive 1

2617:(judging by the age of this template, unless there was some other tool that made it possible that I don't know about) and to my knowledge the idea of doing so has not been discussed. Also, italicizing book titles, species names, etc. IS explicitly stated in the Manual of Style and is not "a particular style" like serial commas or order of month and day in dates. It is unarguably bad style to have book titles, etc. unitalicized in article text, and without a compelling reason otherwise this style should be observed in article titles as they appear on the page as a matter of good style and consistency. – 3498:(outdent)On what grounds do you base this? You are assuming somehow people at Knowledge have some unnatural level of knowledge about italicization that the rest of the world does not? I can't agree. I know a lot of people who aren't regular editors that know mroe than many regular editors on the proper italicization rules. Since the former aren't Wikipedians, they aren't going to know what a template is by default. That's why, if we are to impliment it, it must be in the wiki tools and be done in a similar manner to italicization in an article currently. 31: 1762: 1516:? I know this isn't a deletion discussion, but it fits. A lot of people who are used to seeing scientific names see the use of italics as the only proper way to display them. As I said below, this is not stylistic whimsy. The rules of scientific nomenclature compel us to italicize scientific names anywhere we're able to. We're able to italicize article titles, so why not do it? It doesn't look weird; it looks weird 2524:

easier for new editors to use (I imagine the ability to input markup in the title when creating it or something similar, and perhaps reminders on the create page about what should be italicized, quoted, etc., and that this markup would be ignored by the search/database functions so that article titles wouldn't be affected). Also it appears this particular instance of the template has difficulties with things like

2435: 2546:- This seems to me like the "Go back to old facebook!" phenomenon that occurs every time Facebook changes its interface. They think it's ugly at first because it's new and not what they're used to, but after a few weeks if it's changed again, they're decide that they want it back. I wonder if editors would find this aesthetically displeasing if it had been around when they first started editing.– 516:

adds an extra line of text to articles, or (if it is used in an infobox template or the like) it causes confusion because users can't find what's making the title italicized. To my knowledge, no print encyclopedia does this (although granted, it's been awhile since I really looked at a print encyclopedia). Very few websites have italicized titles... e.g., video game websites almost never have

3585:

it to the tools would make it much more integrated so everyone, even those who are not reading this discussion know about it. Also the more templates you have in a page, the harder for an editor not familiar with coding has at editing a particular page. While 1 piece doesn't have too much, using something that should be done via tools as a template could be seen as template creep.

2725:. I imagine that the reason that article titles in dictionaries and paper encyclopedias are not capitalized is to keep things consistent to facilitate faster searching. However, because people on Knowledge do not search by looking at a list of article titles, this argument is irrelevant. Furthermore, we do not use other websites as a style guide; just because a 1739:. David Fuchs makes a very good point, where does this stop. This has the potential to change thousands of articles, but beyond that it would seem stupid to put quotation marks in the titles of thousands of song an episode articles. What benefit does this bring? I seems to beit just causes disruption along the way where we have inconsistencies between articles. 910:

because then authors could be prompted right away to enter the correctly formatted title when creating an article. As for arguments that encyclopedias in general "should" be this way, or "should" be that way, I'd ask these people to provide links to relevant style guides or real world examples. I know that Encarta for a fact

1770:

our consistancy and conventions. Italisizing taxa won't make us look more "professional", The World Book and the Merriam-Webster dictionary have no title formatting. The fact is we will only look professional when we fix our mass of incorrect and substub articles instead of wasting time arguing about silly stuff like this.--

4619:

I checked, and this doesn't fall uner the Manual of Style...it falls under Naming Conventions. Perhaps that's why we haven't gotten a response there. I've posted a request to have a policy added that would require genus and lower-level taxon articles titles italicized. I requested they review this

4517:

I can't say I have any strong opinion on the matter, but yes, I think "it looks ugly" is a pretty weak argument coming from seasoned WP editors - not because I disagree with it, but because it doesn't mean anything - editors' aesthetic senses have developed to like what they've got used to seeing and

4312:

italicize articles about books, albums, video games, etc.; consensus on the species/genera seems more difficult to determine. I'd be inclined to say that consensus is against it (counting all of the supports for italicization, it's about 65% support for genera/species, which seems to fall pretty much

4279:

Yes, numerically maybe you're right, though those that have actually addressed the specific issue (i.e. realize that the situation with species is not the same as with book titles and so on) seem to support italicization here. It probably ought to be discussed (maybe it is being) at the various flora

4218:

Has any conclusion been reached about when it's appropriate to italicize titles? Looking at the above discussion/poll, it seems there's more support than opposition in the case of species and genera, but more opposition than support in the case of anything else. Would that (i.e. italicize species and

3836:

Actually more fundamentally, it was returning n+1 characters when asked for n characters which was terrible functionality. I fixed it to be a zero-indexed string returning n characters matching the string function routine that may actually be available soon. Sorry if this broke other things, I didn't

3635:

As for the number of articles that go straight to AfD without discussion, I don't know but I've seen several having placed notability tags or unreferenced tags without discussion. Given I've the number of stub articles I've seen on the AfD lists at wikiprojects I'd say the chances of an article going

2231:

This should be a no-brainer, if we have the technical means to do so in titles we should do it. And if mathematicians have similar internationally accepted and standardized rules for their symbols we should also respect those. This is not about making up arbitrary rules for Pokemon characters as some

1676:

There is no governing authority that controls how Knowledge must format titles in our articles. Provided the title is spelled correctly, it is "correct". We could typeset all titles in bold small capitals if we wanted to. There are many published scientific standards that we routinely ignore, such as

1648:

It certainly is an issue with accuracy. Novels, games, films, etc. do not have governing nomenclatural authorities that set rules for their naming and use. There is no chance of a slippery slope argument here; if you look below, you'll find very little support for italicization of novels, etc., since

1630:

There is no issue with accuracy; italicization is purely a matter of style, not correctness. One might as well argue we must italicize article titled after novels, or put quotation marks around article titles for journal articles. We do neither of those things because we recognize that article titles

1051:

Strong Support- The italicization of genus and lower names is more then just a suggestion to be implemented when one feels like it; it is an internationally required rule which applies to all scientific names of all life forms. it is on the same level as capitalizing the first word of a sentence and

854:

In my opinion, this should become 100% Knowledge policy and integrated into Knowledge itself before it is used, rather than merely used as a template. For example, have a checkbox to put the page heading in italics when creating it, or change it to italics, like the "move" command. If that happens, I

775:

italicizing taxa names looks unprofessional, like we're making a mistake in the title, like we don't know what we're doing. The ICBN and the ICZN are not simple "local conventions"; they are the nomenclatural authorities for the taxonomic fields of botany and zoology, respectively. Their rules govern

692:

Stylistically bad? Article titles are titles, but even in titles of scientific articles, the species is still italicized. This is common convention and is stylistically sound. Chapters are only italicized when we're speaking of them elsewhere apart from their context within a book. Species and genera

543:

Technically, an article title is a URL which contains no formatting information, so it's not possible for it to "look" different, since a URL doesn't have a "look". It's up to the user agent to decide how the text is rendered. If a user agent wanted to display URLs in italics or bold text, there'd be

4971:

So, long story short, we throw out the MoS and plump for inconsistent heading formatting, right? Last time I checked, italicisation was a formatting issue, rather than an inherent part of the language. There may well be academics that mark down for failing to press Ctrl+I in the correct places. I

3632:

Doesn't matter how long it will last. If it lasts 10 minutes or 10 months. It's the idea that we set up a baseline that is newbie friendly and not a hierarchy of coding through templates that discourages newbies because concepts that are easy to grasp for these people are denied to them because they

3584:

Good for you. That doesn't help that new editor learn about it and espeically if they are an IP editor going and placing an explanation on their talk page will probably yeild zero return. It's also yet 1 more template every wikipedian must remember to use at all appropriate junctures. Whereas adding

2316:

It should be possible to use italics in any title where it is appropriate. But in such a general situation, a template which attempts to guess how it should be done doesn't make sense. Instead there should be an edit box, such as the one that appears when you move an article, but where standard wiki

1553:

I appreciate you taking another look at the information and arguments presented. I assure you that it doesn't just look weird to me, but to anyone familiar, even on a basic level, with any biological field. All scientific journals italicize species and genera names in journal article titles. Is this

3546:

Actually that is. A lot of editors come by, fix an article they are reading, and don't come back. They will never learn about templates. That's just adding another layer to basically alienate new users to Knowledge by requiring them to learn some of the slightly more advanced tools (ie stuff not on

2523:

with some preference to a mediawiki solution. When I first arrived at Knowledge I was surprised that article titles weren't italicized, not just for zoological names, but for book titles, etc. as well. That being said, I do think that a mediawiki solution would be better, since it would probably be

2331:

This discussion has become confused because two issues are being discussed at the same time. The first issue is "Should italics be allowed in titles?", and the second issue is "If italics are allowed in articles, should they be controlled by a template?". Generally my response is "yes" to the first

2174:

If it is possible to write the names properly, why not do so? Failing to do so just looks unprofessional, so long as the technology exists to make it practical. Not using italics for species and genus names is like writing somebody's name in all lower case; it's just wrong. Whereas, I don't see any

1265:

Per Drilnoth, as well as inconsistent formatting of page titles. Half the encyclopedia would have an italics title, which would be quite confusing for new editors. As well, the difficulty in dealing with disambiguated terminology and the hackish way of changing the the title of the article would be

1214:

Okay; there seem to be three current thoughts: Don't italicized names at all, only italicized genera/species names, but not others, and italicize all appropriate names. To help keep things organized, I'm going to break this into those three sections (plus an "other"). I think that it is fair to say

4922:

does. Any newbie could figure that out, even if they don't understand the categories. No reason to add a field to the main code just for this, as it would be overused and abused quite readily by vandals. Also, you'd have to rewrite the vandalism revert tools, like Twinkle, so that it could also

4855:

I'm missing the point of all this. Surely the template (or magic word, it makes little difference which) produces relatively little clutter in the wikitext (compared with all those categories and interlanguage links, for example), but to introduce a new field in the editor interface especially for

4759:

DISPLAYTITLE doesn't clutter up the page any less than using this template... in fact, it's less clear (although does have more customizability). I think that many users who want integration want, for example, a third field on the "move page" screen for "displayed title". A page could then also be

2047:

The italicization of genus and lower names is not just a suggestion to be implemented when one feels like it; it is an internationally required rule which applies to all scientific names of all life forms. It is on the same level as capitalizing the first word of a sentence and putting the correct

1769:

and has it's own special article layout and design. It has its own unique referencing style and has no throurough standard on English variation, units, or date style. Therefore, it really boils down to how we want it. No standard exists on title formatting and to indroduce such would be to destroy

1533:

not to. I know and you know that italicisation would recognise a proper name rather than emphasis, but a lot of people wouldn't realise this. That said, I am (and was initially) tempted to stray to the middle group. People reading scientific articles may very well know the difference and recognise

937:

Implementing it at the software level would be easier for novice editors and the like, not to mention easier to manage for multiple reasons: 1) The italics won't disappear when editing, 2) It would be less of a waste of article space, and 3) It would be harder to accidentally mess up. The software

515:

My feeling is that this template is a Bad Thing™, for a number of reasons. First, it makes an article's name appear different from its actual title. This is a minor issue, but is present. More importantly, the title isn't italicized when in edit mode, only when viewing or previewing an article. It

115:

You mean why make a default assumption about what part should be italicized? Well, probably because the existing strategy is most often to invoke it from within an infobox template which is usually shared by several articles generally following similar naming conventions. Having something like the

5514:

Oh, I did not see that. The conventions are just so extensive. ;) Would it harm to add this information on the template page as well? This way it should be easy for people that do not know the consensus in which cases they may use the template. In addition, we should cleanup every use that is not

5228:

It's an RFC (above, technically), not RFA. I think LtPowers was just concered that the IP's opinion wasn't being taken seriously. And incidently, speaking of being logged in or not, a good comprimise could be an option to allow the titles to be italic or not based on pref (though that would still

1653:

a matter of style. "...we recognize that article titles are not meant to be formatted" - why? What rule, policy, guideline, etc. governs the formatting of titles? I really do think the entire argument boils down to IDONTLIKEIT, ignoring the need for taxa names to be presented in italics. It looks

1183:

Agreed that a bot can do things either way. I actually started this in part because I saw that BRFA... I've just kind of ignored this whole thing because it really wasn't on many articles, but I couldn't find a discussion which established firm consensus one way or the other and I thought that it

5001:

If there is ever such a consensus in the literature WikiProject, then yes. As it is, ToL was the only one that reached consensus, so the guidelines were added only to the ToL naming convention guidelines, not all of Knowledge. Also, anonymous IPs are rarely regarded with as much respect as you

1925:

Mild oppose. Italicization is a formatting rule, not a fundamental element of a name. We should keep them separate. I am all for providing information within articles indicating the formatting rulers usually/traditionally applied to them, but it should take a user preference + extension to use

560:

Echo Drilnoth in that big, san serif faces are ugly to begin with, but italics just makes them look even worse. If people decide to implement it, I'd much rather see it used as a regular template rather than embedded into infoboxes because of the confusion that may be caused, as well as possible

1910:

italisation. The aesthetic is ugly and most important there is no good reason why books/films/etc. have to be italised. I also don't understand why some people italise the titles in the article. Italisation is only needed in references to distinguish the title of the author, book house, etc. --

1694:

There is no governing authority that says that Knowledge must spell titles correctly, or that the articles must contain any factual information at all. But it would seem that these things are desirable, so that Knowledge has some credibility. For Knowledge to not italicize genera and species in

276:

I haven't run into any examples yet, but I'm guessing that a title including "sp.", "var.", or "ab." most likely be formatted incorrectly. Has anyone run into this yet? If it is not already implemented, would someone with proper privileges modify the code to treat the situation appropriately?

985:

Unequivocally support the use of italics for the names of species and genera. Just like the use of diacritics on foreign words - we do it because it's the correct way to write those words in English. And being accurate matters when you're trying to write a compendium of all human knowledge.

964:

be emphasized, whether typewritten, typeset, or displayed on screen; I was even taught to underline them in handwriting. We even italicize scientific names in reference titles, and rightly so. Article titles should be no different—if it is technically possible for them to comply with our style

909:

As I said in WP:VG, I support the use of italics in article titles. However, I don't think anyone should be doing it automatically. Either editors should have to input the desired rendering explicitly, or not have the option at all. Native support within MediaWiki software would be a big plus,

2555:

First off, you can't refute an argument based in aesthetics, since that's personal preference. Secondly, sans serif fonts are used on the web because they work better on computer displays due to a lack of 'jaggies' and the relative ease they can be shrunk without malforming the text or making

1320:

I have not read the comments above (TLDR), but I see no reason why an article title, which is intended only to be a signpost, should be italicized. Even things that would be italicized in running text can be set in roman in titles. I don't see any potential for confusion unless there were two

3329:

I don't think so... the people who want to have italics to be custom for articles like these two discussed have had their questions answered satisfactorily (I'd think), but the people who want this integrated into the MediaWiki software probably wouldn't be satisfied with this, because using

1853:

to "C# (programming language)" or fixing the name of anything which would include square brackets in the title. Until we have a real method of fixing cases like those, pretending that the title is something other than an identifier is inconsistent, and attempting its implementation leads to

5499:

I think most of the discussion took place higher up on this page, in fact, though more probably happened at the flora and fauna project page somewhere. I don't believe italics should be used for films, as in those examples (well, personally I wouldn't mind, but consensus is probably still

1460:

all italics. It is ugly, inconsistent, confusing, limited, and excessive. There is no need to have the burdon of dealing with italics; it's not broken. If at all, it should be for taxonomic names ONLY, and absolutely NOT for the hundreds of thousands of books, films, foreign phrases, etc.

1554:

not similar? Is it not an easy assumption to believe our readers would see the italicization in the article title and then immediately below it in the lead and throughout the rest of the article and realize this is standard biological style and not be confused with "emphasis"? Cheers, --

605:

Beyond the aesthetic issue, which I for one find /really ugly/, as I mentioned on WP:VG is that these aren't technically titles themselves, but the titles of the article -- within the encyclopedia. I dunno if others (print or online) do it or not, but I believe that's a consideration.

1949:

This is not an issue of stylisitic whimsy; this is the only correct way to display a taxon title at the rank of genus and below. The other titles considered for italicization (novels, games, etc.) seem to have less support and indeed isn't part of a larger nomenclature like taxa (see

770:

external manuals of style (Chicago, MLA, etc.) that I'm aware of advise on the use of italics for taxa. It's not comparable to your Pokemon example because external authorities have not recognized a color scheme for Pokemon names, nor is there a long-standing tradition of doing so.

4431:

Going by the results of the poll, it is safe to say that the Tree of Life WikiProject may proceed with italicization of titles. (Believe it or not, the debate there is not "should we use it?", it's "which way works best?".) (I know, I just used four punctuation marks in a row.)

1567:

why the species name isn't italicized. I can only assume she/he meant the article title, since the rest of the uses of the scientific name are properly formatted in that article. Evidence that it's a widespread convention that astounds editors when they come upon our articles.

892:

The amount of work it would require would be the same regardless of whether it is implemented at the software or page level. Implementing it at the software level wouldn't remove the need for human intervention to make sure the titles are actually what they are supposed to be.

730:

in italics. While one can be understanding of limitations of technology (e.g. old manuscripts that used hand-set type with one font), we're able to comply with our manual of style and convention on italicization of genera, subgenera, sections, species, etc.; why not use it?

4532:"It looks ugly" may be a weakish argument (so is "It's required by the MOS", IMO, since the MOS was written before this was even possible), but I personally oppose this as much because of the inconsistencies that it will inevitably create as because I think it looks ugly. – 1066:

Comment. Using italics for books, games, albums, etc. also raises the issue of how chapters, songs, poems, etc. should be formatted. Normally these should be contained in quotes without italics. If the template were to allow custom input, then this should also be possible.

5458:

This was discussed quite a lot some time ago; I believe the conclusion reached was that genera/species names should be italicized in titles, but most other things not. This is what the naming conventions you link to say, as well. Are you proposing any change to

2677:. If you are referring to the fact that some articlea that should be italicized wouldn't be, I'd think that that could be easily taken care of with a bot script. It might be messy for the first few days/weeks, but after that I bet it would mostly subside. Also, 1967:

I have no opinion about the other uses, but it's about time we had a method to correct the display of scientific names. I remember when I first started editing in 2005 thinking how stupid it was that scientific names couldn't be italicized in titles. Now it's

1677:

the ones about binary prefixes. Since the purpose of article titles is just to be signposts, and since there is no possibility of both an italic and non-italic version of the same title, there is no compelling reason I can see to italicize any of them. — Carl

1036:

Strongly support the titles of genera, species, etc. being in italics. It looks unprofessional not to have them italicised and as we can do it we should. I'm not sure about other articles - I sway towards saying no as they are often not written in italics.

669:

I strongly oppose this idea. It has no value at all, and is stylistically bad. As others not, this also is not done with any other print encyclopedia. Article titles are titles, and do not need italics, anymore than we italicize chapter titles in books. --

4349:. Opinions were read word for word, and tallied up accordingly. If an editor expressed italics should always be allowed, I took that to mean they would support literary works, genus and species articles, mathematical topics, and foreign phrase articles. 1501:

It just doesn't look right. You can italicise if necessary in the first line, but page titles should all follow the same format, otherwise it gets messy. A lot of people see italics as just adding emphasis to something, which we don't want to be doing.

877:

I'll be in the vocal majority here, but I like the idea, and feel it has potential. However ZXCVBNM has the right idea, this template is a poor execution and there are to many articles to work on at once. If the execution could be done better there you

2781:. If there is a compelling reason not to have quotation marks that doesn't also apply to italics, then I'm sure community consensus would recognize that and we'd make an exception. (Although personally I would support quotation marks in titles, too.)– 5435:. It is desirable that there is consistency between consensus reached at individual WikiProjects, the implementation of that consensus throughout articles, and a convention that explains when this template is to be used and when it is to be avoided. — 4875:

The problem is that it would add unneeded additional complexity for new editors. Categories and interwikis are simple enough, and even though they take up a lot of room they are more or less intuitive for new users. Magic words and such, not so much.

4825:, which doesn't even display properly and is an invalid page title? That just doesn't make sense. Even if it worked, we'd have millions of redirects taking up valuable server space just to do what could be done with a word in double curly braces. 2958:

for example? Otherwise it will end up causing more inconsistency and improper application of the MOS than just ignoring the MOS for the article title. Even then, I'm a little suspect about it ... but if the will is there ... --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid

561:

instances where infoboxes are not used. It also sets up a rather odd precedent—if we italicize books, games, and movie titles, shouldn't we add quotes around television episodes and short stories? It's selective formatting that adds nothing. --

2473: 520:

italicized in "Interview with designers of Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate". And, to put it simply, I think that having the main title in italics just plain looks ugly (ditto for section headers, but to a slightly lesser extent).

3379:

Basically, having a way to directly edit the appearance of the article title. Or something like a checkbox that turns italics on</off and lets you specify formatting. Something like that could be put into the software itself (in theory).

1812:—while on the one hand it's an interesting idea, we don't have proper technical support for it. This lack of technical support means that it cannot consistently provide the correct title across all articles. Consistency is important here. {{ 3633:

don't have knowledge of advanced techniques. First impressions are key, especially when you want to show someone how easy it is to edit and create a new article. This kind of template goes against that. If requires specialized knowledge.

3447:. I don't think it could be any simpler. Besides, if you do like I've been doing (place the template on the closing line of the taxobox), it takes up relatively no space in the text area, and does not even interfere with editability. 209:, and it turns out it's a script conflict. However, I just found out that if the italictitle element is placed not at the top of the page, but lower (say below the taxobox), it doesn't interfere and the edit button is present. See 5371:

In the first and second outputs, why aren't bar and baz itatlicized? And in the third output, why isn't Foo italicized? (It's also a bit confusing that parentheses are incorrectly referred to as brackets in the documentation.)

2143:

The Manual of style insists that specific and generic names are italicised wherever they appear. Every scientific convention insists the same. Arguing against italicising these things is equivalent to arguing that the 2 in

1123:

There is nothing in any MoS that says page titles aren't italicized (unless like currently at Knowledge it can't support it) if they would be in prose. Also you have things like foreign words, which are also italisized, like

5218:

Actually the reason it upset me was because I had a feeling it was LtPowers, although I could be mistaken. This is an RFA, though, isn't it? Sorry to both the IP and LtPowers if I assumed wrongly, no harm was meant by it.

2899:

Having watched this discussion unfold, I'm still opposed to having another template between the top of the edit box and the lead paragraph, especially one there for stylistic reasons as opposed to a "red flag" template like

1373:

Encyclopedia page titles have no need for italicization, because they are already set-off from surrounding text. This particular implementation also has significant problems because it can only italicize the entire title.

827:

should be italicized per MOS. Now, pray tell me why the plain text title looks offending, while plain url is not? Treat them alike, and the problem disappears. These are system headings; formatting belongs to article text,

5394:

In the second and third (1st & 2nd in your numbering) example, the terms in parentheses (bar, baz) are not italicized because the documentation says: "Titles which contain brackets are italicised before the first open

4696:

I think the meaning was that it would be something like having a button somewhere on the edit screen which, if checked, makes the title italic; therefore, it wouldn't clutter up the page even more with another template.

4340:

It's been just over a week since the last comment in the polling area, so I've gone through and read the entire page and also rounded up opinions from the Tree of Life Wikiproject page. I did not find opinions in

1695:

article titles because of a technical limitation is understandable. For Knowledge to continue to do so, with no technical constraint, just because some people don't like it or understand the reason is just lame.--

375:

None of the discussions linked above seem to show a strong consensus for using this template one way or the other, because they weren't really advertised enough. So, what is the community's view on this template?

1321:

different articles whose titles differed only in italicization, which would be impossible with the current Mediawiki setup. Moreover, italics are always a matter of style, never a matter of "correctness". — Carl

4741:. DISPLAYTITLE would allow custom italics that explicitly state how the title will appear instead of a template that guesses (in the case of a disambiguating parenthetical). However, the command's concerns at 180:

I think that something in this template is interfering with the option to edit only the lead section, as the dinosaur pages where it has been implemented have lost the button for that section (see for sample

3219:

Also, I do not wish to have in-article coding (except for cases where there truly is a wrong title that needs correction, like lowercase 1st latter). That imo is cruical to not make it overly complex for new

2256: 3689:, which doesn't match and consequently fails to work. I double-checked that this is not the result of my recent modifications to the template; it was a pre-existing problem. Good luck finding the bug! — 2924:

This I agree with. It would be nice to place all templates in separate pages. There could even be "article top" or "article bottom" pages to store all the template/categories that then get transcluded.

2884:

magic word seems to work better, IMO. It accepts standard wiki markup as input, so editors will have an easier time getting used to it than they would if they had to learn multiple templates' syntaxes.

1958:). Like I said above, my only concern is for taxa; perhaps the other types of articles could be considered at length. Our taxa articles titled at the scientific name, however, should be a no-brainer. -- 3805:

which changes its functionality. The template has been altered such that the starting position in the substring is one index to the right of what it used to be. Therefore, the "start" position in

2485: 1836:

a programmer, after all. The only thing I'm lacking is privileges to make the edits myself, but I can request the change from an admin once it's debugged, and they'll have it done in a day or so.

5182:

If there is some sort of issue here with a not-logged-in user adding his or her comments, allow me (someone who is logged in) to back them up. I agree completely with what 81.111.114.131 wrote.

1849:

do not have proper support for titles. The DISPLAYTITLE code is a wonderful hack for certain cases, but it doesn't cover everything, and we shouldn't pretend that it does. Try fixing the title of

3732:

00:28, 16 June 2009 Remember the dot (talk | contribs) m (1,074 bytes) (switched to cleaner DISPLAYTITLE, shouldn't break anything but please feel free to revert if you find something that does)

4452:

Hold the phone, Bob! There is no clear consensus to allow individual WikiProjects to decide to italicize their titles contrary to the manual of style. Of course the Tree of Life folks would

3261:

I'm talking more about no need for special in-article code. A noob could just create a new article and italicize it the same way they could italicize a word in the body...or very near to that.

2599:

Saying that a particular style is bad form and expecting others to rate this opinion highly while the relevant policy guideline on the subject fails to mention it seems kind of suspect, IMO.

2588:

Last time I checked the MoS did not explicitly guide article title formatting. There's no policy to discuss here, rather extensions of one with the advent of new tools in the architecture. --

1586:

The point is that the IP editor wasn't confused about the supposed "emphasis" being placed on the title, but understood the scientific convention and wondered why it wasn't being followed. --

5284:

Agreed... any logged in user can set the preference themselves, this is more about the readers. If this is standardized, I probably would just hide it with a style (perhaps a new gadget?) –

4835:

Sorry, just figured out what you meant. So there would be two fields, one to type the edit summary and one for the alternate title. Nice idea, although the template sure makes it easier.

1280:

As I said above. While I can understand the issue with scientific names, there's still the problem with the fact that it just looks /really bad/ and may induce confusion on various levels.

4494:

to write a species/genus name without italics). General editors just saying it looks ugly (which translates to "it's not what I'm used to") are probably not the people to make the call.--

4107: 4270:

I don't see how you get "more support than opposition in the case of species and genera". If there is (it's unclear because of several conditional opinions), it's very close to even.

3570:

I don't buy your reasoning. If a new editor creates an article without a taxobox, I fix it, without complaining. Why should I do any different for an article needing an italic title?--

1088:

be used for titles in general (book titles, album titles, etc.). Titles are only italicized in prose to distinguish them from normal text, and are never italicized when used as titles.

796:" was published invalidly, it is still known as the subspecies until that error can be fixed in the literature. Italicization is important to these authorities; it is nomenclaturally 4782:

I do now see that the concern with cluttering pages seems to outweigh any concerns with underlying implementation and the "move page" approach seems like a good potential solution. —

5432: 4682:

Seems a bit weird; why should this function have a button when so many more common ones don't, and why would that be a significant condition for allowing the function to be used?--

4936:

No new lines even need to be added if it is placed on the same line as the taxobox opening or closing braces. I prefer placing it behind the closing braces so it is more hidden.

4313:

into the "no consenus" range, defaulting to "keep it the way its been", a.k.a. no italicization), but for obvious reasons I wouldn't be able to call that because of NPOV issues. –

2556:

elements indistinguishable. Serifs are often thought to be easier to read in large forms or on paper where there's high contrast. Large-form italic san serif typefaces just look

1423:

I believe that in cases where more flexibility is required, it is possible to use something like {{DISPLAYTITLE:Lucy ''(Australopithecus)''}} etc. to achieve the desired format.

3361:

I can't see here or elsewhere a proposal how this ("All appropriate italicizations but only if MediaWiki can do this rather than a template") could possibly work. I understand

3091:, without in-article code and for everthing appropriate as well as coming up with clear rules for what to italicize and what not to that is beyond the species/genera articles. 1621:

Why is article title consistency more important than nomenclatural accuracy and consistency with our own MoS and every single external MoS on the issue of scientific names? --

175: 1765:

Knowledge has no obligation to follow any style manual or convention or ISO standard, those that we do follow we follow because we so choose. Knowledge distinctively ignores

1174:

to all genus and species articles. Obviously I won't run it unless it's clear there's consensus. But whatever the consensus is, it would be easy to run a bot to implement. –

2010:. Appropriate italicisation, whether in the title or elsewhere, is required if wikipedia is going to appear at all professional in subjects with defined nomenclature rules. 704:

No. Unnecessary. Yes, I checked the archives and still there's no compelling reason to italicize title. Taxa? What makes them stand out against the rest of human knowledge?

206: 5431:

Presently, this template is being used to italicize the titles of some articles that fall under certain WikiProjects, but there has not been a corresponding change to the

3958: 230: 200: 4187:

That's just a normal part of various required follow-up edits after a page move (adapt article body, fixing double redirects, possibly fixing links in WhatLinkshere). --

2246:

At least for species and genera names (where it already used for at least 9,000 articles)! What other general rules should we toss out just because we do not like it. --

2203:

Support for genera and species. I don't edit in other areas very frequently, but if editors from other areas where this could be used decide to implement it, I'm for it.

2534:, but if those kinds of problems could be fixed, I would only show slight preference to a mediawiki solution. I respond to the major objections to italicization here: – 4839: 4127: 3819: 3771: 3217:' would not really address the issue as you wouldn't by the way its implimented from what I've seen be able to get the correct italicization on such combination titles. 1102:

springs to mind. I have no opinion on taxonomy (species names and all that), but if it's true that this generally done in scientific publishing, I see no reason not to.

5402:) does not contain the term "quok". This leaves the theoretical case where everything, including terms in parentheses, should be italicized, untreated by the template. 5073: 4205: 3910: 3703: 3374: 1437:

The quotes should be inside the parenthesis, but thanks for that approach. I had unsuccessfully tried tweaking the template in my sandbox to account for that case. —

5031: 5011: 4898:

How is {{italic title}} less simple and intuitive than any of the other thousands of template calls we use in articles? I think this is just an imaginary problem.--

3846: 5148: 5103: 3881: 4822: 348: 620:

I this should only be done with article titles that are non-English words brought into the language in the manner of latin species names, or words/phrases like

4251: 4196: 1873: 1840: 362: 5420: 5223: 4940: 4628: 4503: 4481: 4460: 4148: 3356: 3347: 2785: 2733: 2713: 2689: 2279:). However, I also support the italicization for titles of those works(games, plays, books, etc.) that are italicized throughout their respective articles. -- 263: 249: 5405:

On the whole, and this has been pointed out by some above, it seems to me the usage of this template is more complicated and less flexible than simply using

5238: 5473:

Could you provide a link to this specific discussion page? I am not able to find it and I do not understand when this template is used or not (for example:

4954: 4829: 4719:

No, I don't think that would work. There must be a template or magic word or something in the wikitext somewhere (particularly since sometimes it's not the

4691: 4677: 4569: 4263: 4118: 3451: 3422: 3397: 3324: 2869: 2855: 2550: 5533: 5120:

The Manual of Style does not limit its rules to prose; this is unsurprising and without bearing on this discussion because it was written before the tools

2594: 2583: 2566: 2538: 4254:

against italicizing the titles of operas in their article names (as opposed to italicizing them in the body of articles, which is of course standard). --

4086: 4062: 3952: 3315: 3301: 2495: 2491:

On second thoughts this would imply songs and poems and Simpsons episodes would have to have quotes in the title, which is a senseless bind. Ducking out.

956:

Italicizing article titles (as rendered, that is) is most certainly a good idea, however we choose to do it behind the scenes. There are no provisions in

980: 308: 139:, however {{italictitle}} seems to override {{lowercase}}. A template for italics and lowercase together would be useful for gene names in some species. 5322: 5279: 5192:

I'll echo LtPowers' statement. So what if the user isn't logged in? That only matters at RFA, and there only to prevent massive sockpuppetry attempts. –

5170: 2341: 2095:

I agree that it is essential to have all article names that are taxa at the level of genus and below in italics. This is an inflexible rule in biology.

1017: 687: 628:. Using it for names of works (even if those names are foreign to start but are not used as proper nouns, say, Naruto) is going to be very difficult. -- 96: 4444: 2635: 2515: 1215:

that everyone can re-!vote... some of the comments above are unclear as to whether they are "species/genera only" or "all appropriate italicization". –

1031: 887: 567: 120: 110: 5452: 3603: 3579: 2808: 2747: 2621: 2363: 938:

would have to have the same functionality as the template, so maybe a series of text boxes could be used for disambiguations, or that kind of thing.--

697: 169: 2661: 2608: 2463: 2425: 2311: 2247: 2152:

should not be lowercase. (I have no opinion on other articles, because there is no universal convention to italicise book, film, pokemon etc names.)

1590: 1581: 995: 902: 5301: 5209: 4907: 4893: 4732: 4714: 4549: 4527: 4512: 4298: 4289: 4274: 1558: 1548: 1524: 1418: 538: 480: 454: 2287: 1704: 1625: 1432: 1201: 1178: 1046: 951: 872: 800:

to leave taxa names unitalicized; it is not, to my knowledge, nomenclaturally incorrect to not color Pokemon names in shades of pink and purple. --

615: 4811: 4791: 4777: 4754: 4737:

I think many concerns for integration were dispelled with DISPLAYTITLE, as that command is integrated into MediaWiki and not a template viewed as

4594: 3238: 3206: 3154: 3135: 3052: 2326: 1118: 1076: 1061: 932: 923: 600: 553: 505: 5524: 5509: 5501: 5494: 5468: 5460: 4899: 4861: 4724: 4683: 4650: 4519: 4495: 4281: 4220: 4219:

genera only) be a reasonable basis for a guideline, or do people want to discuss this further (or are they still discussing it somewhere else?)--

4053: 4039: 1802: 1446: 662: 640: 4021: 4007: 3983: 3654: 3627: 3565: 3541: 3516: 3473: 3279: 3256: 3179: 3000: 2934: 2919: 2894: 2765: 2109:

Appropriate italicisation of species is a must. If the use of italicisation is confined just to species, then a template is perhaps adequate. --

2042: 1572: 1564: 1148: 5426: 1161: 713: 2453: 2394: 2198: 2467: 1959: 1689: 1671: 1668: 1643: 1622: 1587: 1569: 1555: 1521: 929: 841: 804: 801: 761: 735: 732: 723: 719: 694: 281: 4435:

Mathematics and foreign phrases were hardly touched upon, so it would be wise to discuss these two topics further before making a decision.

2081:

way for species names. I'm not opposed to other uses, I just don't know enough to have an educated enough opinion to weigh in yea or nay.

1667:

F.Muell.) as opposed to zoological authorities, which require the year. This, too, is governed by the nomenclatural authorities for taxa. --

417: 294:

will certainly benefit from the usage of this template. However, I attempted to bring the template over but with not much luck. I have also

2459: 5022:

Last time I checked, the following two things were true: anonymous IPs are editors too; and WikiProjects do not get to overrule the MoS.

3693: 2752:

I have yet to find a Britannica article about an actual book, so I can't comment further on it. I'm not sure whether the others listed in

1977: 1752: 5381: 4044:

That seems like kind of a silly stipulation given that editors have considered it necessary to create templates to get around it anyway.

2226: 2072: 726:) require italicization of all taxa ranks of genus and below. To a taxonomist or academic in any field, it's jarring to see these titles 286: 4574: 2250: 2212: 2118: 748:. Main encyclopedia space must reject most of these local conventions simply to remain readable. If wikipedia (not wikispecies!) indeed 4869: 4658: 4026:

DISPLAYTITLE requires the replacement title to be essentially the same as the original title after formatting etc is stripped out, see

3744:

23:20, 15 June 2009 Remember the dot (talk | contribs) m (1,107 bytes) (moved Template:Italictitle to Template:Italic title: two words)

2104: 2090: 1920: 1902: 1496: 1130:, when its not common to use in English. This just opens a can of worms if we just allow one or 2 groups to italicize and not the rest. 752:

use fancy titles for taxa, than the fans of Pokemon are entitled to their own, in shades of pink and purple. Aren't they? If not, why?

2261: 2169: 1988: 1368: 148: 4181: 4106:

I got it to work. However, I do not have the proper privileges to edit the template. All anyone needs to do is copy the content of

2967: 2241: 2184: 2138: 2019: 1508: 101:

Why do things automatically at all? You're required to type out formatting explicitly in article text, so why not in the page title?

3957:

I don't understand why it doesn't seem to work at times, but I got it to italicize the words inside the parentheses in the title of

2057: 1962: 1827: 1731: 1616: 2033: 1469: 1397: 1315: 1260: 744:

existing typographic conventions. Every branch of knowledge is free to invent its own standards, each wikiproject may promote them

83: 1788: 1779: 1289: 5275:

Trust me, if the primary objection was that I personally didn't want to see the italics, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

1303: 3547:

the wiki tools they can click a button with). That is not what we should be doing for something so basic as title italicization.

1105:

And I completely agree that this is a slippery slope that should be very carefully managed. I don't want to see fully formatted

4923:

revert a custom title. Keeping it simple with a 15-character template is the easiest to implement and the easiest to maintain.

1275: 4995: 4330: 4228: 1577:

Or perhaps this IP had seen the italic title elsewhere, and merely wondered why it wasn't present on that particular article?

1393:)". However, I would likely still oppose the proposal even without that technical limitation, for the reasons stated above. 1357: 1333: 3906:

Um...is anyone with the proper privileges going to fix this? I'm only a "user" and an "autoconfirmed user" and can't do it.

2375:- This particular template might not be the best solution. However, fully customized italicization can be achieved using the 1937: 928:

Unequivocal support for italic titles (of species, genera, subgenera, etc., as that's the only horse I have in this race). --

5263: 2024:

Italicization of the scientific name in the title is the only correct way to display taxa at the level of genus and below.

5095: 5045: 5023: 4987: 2962: 2430: 1232: 777: 66: 4649:

Sorry to be lazy, but to save me searching the debates, what does "after website integration" mean in the above results?--

3073: 1784:

Oppose. Titles are merely an identifier of where we've put something. They should not follow any sort of style rules. ---

1000:

Support italic titles of genera, species, etc. In another unrelated discussion, someone once pointed out that this is not

4860:

unnecessary clutter and complexity when we consider what a small percentage of articles this would ever be needed for. --

2411: 2403:

for genus and species names, and I think it is appropriate to use in certain other titles, such as book titles, as well.

2306: 975: 5186: 4976:

rendering issues, rather than to make an arbitrary title fit your chosen standard. Next, you'll be suggesting that the

1654:

unprofessional not to italicize them, the same way it's unprofessional to include a year in a botanical authority (e.g.

1344:

and in text per MOS, the title (as said before me) is a signpost. Knowledge is not an extension of ICZN and cannot heed

79:

The title is only changed when JavaScript is enabled - why not just implement this template entirely in JavaScript? ---

4335: 3030: 2738:

Encarta does use italics in article titles, however. Not sure about Britannica, since it requires a subscription IIRC.

1898: 957: 683: 3109: 2985: 2846: 2062:

As I also work at Wikispecies, I 100% endorse this implementation and trying to get this to work in Wikispecies also.

4346: 2649: 370: 116:"titleparts" function but which recognizes the significance of disambiguatory parentheses would be a big help too. — 4438:

Literary works seem to lean away from italicization unless it is integrated with the website. No further comments.

4171:

Is there a way so that the bot will scan the article later on once in a while to check for abnormalities like this?

960:

saying that formatting should only be used in the article body. I, for one, was taught that scientific names should

645:

Wouldn't that be inconsistent, though? Having some things italicized and some not when, within articles, both are? –

4342: 4029: 3989: 2729:(the example I saw) doesn't italicize game titles in their article titles doesn't mean that we shouldn't, either.– 1998:. Italics are not decorative, they are important to show what the italicised text actually refers to: for example 1943: 3699:

After some quick sandbox tests, I've decided that most likely, one of the templates referenced has been altered.

2860:

No sense enforcing consistency in an inconsistent fashion. And no, that isn't my only concern, see part B above.

2756:

are worth citing. A lot of them use MediaWiki, so they're more likely to follow Knowledge's lead in such things.

1869: 1823: 4508:

In other words, you're dismissing the arguments against allowing italicization because you disagree with them.

2851:

I think there's a "wrong title" template that does this, Nifboy. Use that instead if that's your only concern.

2682: 2576: 1926:

these rules or not when displaying the name a) as article title, or b) as a link to the article from elsewhere.

295: 5293: 5201: 4885: 4769: 4706: 4586: 4541: 4322: 3389: 3339: 2355: 1850: 1252: 1224: 1193: 654: 530: 472: 445: 409: 4169: 4166: 2481:

a template is a bad idea given the number of pages this would affect, another magic pebble to trip innocents.

1996: 1477:

to all italics article titles. Shouldn't an encyclopedia try to be the most consistent and uniform possible?

1209: 809:

Is it possible to have two different articles with the same name, but differing only in italicization - say,

5407: 3608:

How long would these editors' contributions even last before they are removed given that they can't use the

3460:, so a more experienced editor is most likely going to need to come along at some point and do some cleanup 1982:

Absolutely for the scientific names of genera and species. It would be incorrect to write them otherwise. --

1237: 5338: 4644: 3647: 3596: 3558: 3509: 3415: 3272: 3231: 3102: 2753: 1141: 593: 130: 4123:

Well...saying so here apparently isn't working. I'll go put in an edit request at the admin noticeboard.

823:

looks, the URL line will still be in plain text. And no matter how the title looks, the name of the taxon

5444: 5387:

You mis-numbered the examples – there are four, and you misrepresented the behaviour of the first (Foo →

4235: 2193: 1993:

Italicisation is essential for taxa names as appropriate, and also for gene names in some organisms e.g.

5398:

In the fourth (3rd in your numbering) example, nothing is italicized because the template's invocation (

1994: 314:

I've just copied/pasted several templates to WikiSpecies, but it doesn't look like it's helping. Added

5416: 5144: 5069: 4673: 4259: 4192: 3437:

is only 14 characters, and doesn't even involve retyping the title unless it's complex, which requires

3370: 3297: 3197:

supposed to do? As far as I can tell, all it does is display a text message at the top of the article.

2701:- it seems that we do, considering all the text in all of our articles is expected to conform with the 2292:

Unconditional support for italicizing titles of all articles whose subjects fall under the criteria of

1745: 449: 47: 38: 17: 4560:

Has this RfC been advertised at MoS to determine the position of the editors that watch those pages? —

1534:

its worth. But I'm half-way between and slightly more this side at the moment purely because, indeed,

5474: 5048:

got his argument exactly the wrong way round: the Manual of Style demands italics for certain terms.

1492: 1096: 776:

the way we name taxa. Not italicizing a scientific name is as incorrect as insisting on referring to

74: 4518:

producing, and would change after a while if they got used to seeing and producing something else.--

3679:

Hi all, I noticed that this template is broken for articles containing parenthesis. For example, on

5099: 5027: 4991: 4490:

be allowed to, and the specialists are probably the people best placed to make the judgement (i.e.

3842: 1376: 318: 271: 5530: 5448: 5220: 5008: 4937: 4836: 4826: 4802:

Something like the Move Page dialogue might work too. I.e. you type the title into a form field.

4625: 4478: 4441: 4202: 4160: 4124: 4115: 4012:

Crap. I was hoping to be able to specify an arbitrary title. I guess JavaScript is the only way.

3907: 3816: 3768: 3700: 3674: 3448: 3353: 3321: 2852: 2418: 2302: 2039: 1837: 1386: 1299: 971: 572:

I also believe the fact it tries to do things automatically will cause problems with titles like

345: 278: 117: 93: 3082: 2824: 1563:

A timely edit on a talk page I watch is pertinent to this debate. An innocent 2-edit IP address

1542:. Nyeh. I'll look through things again tomorrow and see if I feel like moving to middle ground. 1338:

As a precaution against uncontrolled proliferation of "me too", random italicization. Italicize

5318: 5259: 4136: 3940: 3575: 3404:

Yes, something that is user-friendly, especially to newbies who do not know what a template is.

2778: 2560:

to me and many others; it's not that Knowledge would be changing its design, it's pure form. --

2190: 1973: 1916: 1892: 1854:

inconsistencies beyond the original problems. Problems with the string-parsing hacks (see also

1700: 1484: 1013: 677: 819:(different!) on the actual plant? No. One title = one URL = one article. So no matter how the 5412: 5140: 5139:

You don't expect a phrase like "I believe it is widely accepted …" to be taken seriously? --

5129: 5065: 5057: 4669: 4255: 4188: 4177: 4059: 3968: 3933: 3926: 3878: 3690: 3441: 3366: 3293: 3164: 2904: 2878: 2492: 2482: 2379: 2222: 2123:

I'm not really trying to say that italics shouldn't be used for other types of articles, but

2068: 1855: 1740: 1578: 1535: 1513: 1027: 883: 304: 246: 239: 164: 2385:

magic word, so I don't see a reason why articles shouldn't be italicized where appropriate.

90: 5377: 5297: 5205: 4916: 4889: 4773: 4710: 4590: 4545: 4326: 4111: 3962: 3809: 3738: 3726: 3431: 3393: 3343: 3069: 3015:, it is integrated into Wikimedia software and not just templated above a million articles. 2525: 2359: 2337: 2322: 2208: 2114: 1256: 1228: 1197: 1168: 658: 573: 534: 476: 413: 259: 226: 196: 4742: 4240: 4077:

actually changed the titles. What they in fact do is alert the reader with a text prompt.

4027: 3988:

Is it possible the that title needs to be the same in plain text? I was also able to get

3362: 8: 5480: 4213: 3998:

to work, but adding characters or changing capitalization seems to stop the formatting. —

3838: 3214: 3191: 3115: 2100: 2086: 1865: 1819: 1727: 1612: 1488: 1106: 991: 358: 3815:

needs to be moved one to the left and the "length" parameter needs to be incremented 1.

5505: 5464: 5289: 5197: 5007:

This page is depressing. I'm removing it from my watchlist so I can move on with life.

4903: 4881: 4865: 4765: 4728: 4702: 4687: 4654: 4582: 4537: 4523: 4499: 4318: 4285: 4224: 4143: 3636:

to AfD without discussion are higher than you think. However, this is getting a bit OT.

3385: 3335: 3129: 2511: 2474:

All appropriate italicizations but only if MediaWiki can do this rather than a template

2404: 2351: 2297: 2163: 1467: 1362:

Species names and such is not my business. But for everything else... (what I said). --

1312: 1248: 1220: 1189: 966: 650: 526: 468: 441: 405: 328: 3618:

tag? How many new articles by anons have gone straight to AfD with little discussion?

2814: 1109:

as titles. But I think italics are a reasonable step to make that won't hurt anyone. —

5314: 5255: 5234: 4738: 4665: 4035: 3871: 3571: 3046: 3024: 2802: 2782: 2730: 2710: 2705:. And it is not a preference; having book titles, etc. unitalicized is stylistically 2686: 2631: 2618: 2580: 2547: 2535: 2237: 2180: 2134: 2015: 1969: 1912: 1886: 1775: 1696: 1479: 1428: 1407: 1285: 1042: 1009: 945: 866: 788: 671: 611: 291: 144: 2626:

To ME, consistency would say that all article titles should be uniformly formatted.

1184:

would be important to discuss more fully before a bot changes a bunch of articles. –

298:

and the whole template still looks as confusing as when I started. Can anyone help?

5166: 4950: 4807: 4787: 4750: 4565: 4172: 4082: 4049: 4017: 4003: 3979: 3948: 3799: 3750: 3642: 3623: 3591: 3553: 3537: 3504: 3469: 3410: 3311: 3267: 3252: 3226: 3202: 3175: 3150: 3097: 2996: 2981: 2930: 2915: 2890: 2865: 2842: 2761: 2743: 2722: 2657: 2604: 2589: 2561: 2446: 2390: 2281: 2218: 2063: 2053: 1798: 1656: 1442: 1363: 1136: 1114: 1072: 1057: 1023: 919: 898: 879: 588: 562: 549: 501: 427: 338: 299: 254:

Odd, seems not to have gotten through yet everywhere. Well, that's cache for you.

245:

was recently updated so that it will not cause any more script conflicts, period. —

158: 106: 2910:. Ideally I'd like to get even the infobox the hell out of the way for usability. 2775:"If we do this then we'll have to allow quotation marks, etc. into article titles" 1631:

are not meant to be formatted in the same way as the text of the articles. — Carl

5520: 5490: 5440: 5373: 5307: 4982: 3065: 2333: 2318: 2204: 2110: 2048:

punctuation at the end and just as wrong not to as to not punctuate a sentence.--

2029: 1543: 1503: 636: 395: 391: 255: 222: 192: 4201:

Agreed. Good observation, though. I'll make note of that for future reference.

46:

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

4246: 4071: 4058:

Such templates should really be discouraged. Which ones are you referring to? —

2096: 2082: 1859: 1813: 1723: 1608: 1271: 987: 493: 379: 354: 4972:

fail to see how this is Knowledge's problem. DISPLAYTITLE should be used for

5285: 5276: 5193: 5183: 4966: 4945:

I think DISPLAYTITLE is more straightforward in its usage than ITALIC TITLE.

4877: 4818: 4761: 4698: 4578: 4533: 4509: 4457: 4314: 4295: 4271: 3787: 3612: 3381: 3331: 3125: 3119: 2834: 2702: 2674: 2507: 2347: 2159: 2153: 1983: 1858:) aren't the concern—the problems with titles are wider-ranging than that. {{ 1684: 1638: 1462: 1415: 1406:, as I re-read the template documentation and that would work. I substitute 1394: 1353: 1328: 1309: 1244: 1216: 1185: 837: 757: 709: 646: 522: 489: 464: 431: 401: 383: 2257:

Species/genera only and only if MediaWiki can do this rather than a template

1538:. It looks messy. And I feel that's a good enough reason in this discussion 207:

Knowledge:Village pump (technical)/Archive 61#Editing lede (or lead) section

5230: 4031: 3042: 3020: 2954: 2798: 2627: 2233: 2176: 2130: 2011: 1930: 1785: 1771: 1424: 1281: 1175: 1038: 941: 862: 607: 387: 140: 80: 4745:

should be considered to ensure it behaves in the manner discussed above. —

2271:

for scientific genera; it shouldn't be a matter of debate, that is simply

2175:

similar need for book names, and so forth, since that's not so universal.

1832:

I beg to differ...I just debugged it the other day when it was broken. I

855:

have no objections, but as it is, it seems unnecessary to update articles

5162: 4946: 4803: 4783: 4746: 4561: 4078: 4045: 4013: 3999: 3975: 3944: 3637: 3619: 3586: 3548: 3533: 3499: 3465: 3405: 3307: 3262: 3248: 3221: 3198: 3171: 3146: 3092: 3012: 2992: 2977: 2926: 2911: 2886: 2861: 2838: 2837:, then I can give my support for added consistency. Otherwise forget it. 2757: 2739: 2653: 2613:

The reason the MoS doesn't mention article italics explicitly is because

2600: 2439: 2386: 2049: 1794: 1438: 1295: 1131: 1110: 1068: 1053: 915: 894: 583: 545: 497: 183: 102: 3756:

22:32, 13 June 2009 Dragons flight (talk | contribs) (5,172 bytes) (fix)

2991:

Changed to support given that my requirements have been met. See above.

2952:... it can be changed to take custom italicisation. How would it handle 5516: 5486: 5436: 4168:, it will stay there and italic the common name until someone fixes it. 3680: 2038:

Strong support for biological use...no opinion on literary works, etc.

2025: 1766: 629: 217: 211: 353:

We're getting string functions soon so the templates won't be needed.

2007: 1761: 1267: 188: 4856:

this situation, and presumably a new column in the database, really

3877:

to be zero-indexed also. I think that's the source of the problem. —

3456:

Such users are unlikely to know how to italicize titles in articles

2502:

I agree with first thought: Why do we need more templates? Keep it

914:

use italics in titles of articles about books, films, and so forth.

4308:

I'd say from the discussion above it is clear that consensus is to

1680: 1660: 1634: 1539: 1349: 1324: 833: 753: 718:

Taxa, by our own MoS and the codes that govern their nomenclature (

705: 2346:

Good point; I'll see if I can do minor reformatting to fix this. –

2189:

Agree that this is an inflexible rule of biological nomenclature.

1004:; Latin is one of the few languages in which scientific names are 4456:

do so, but there's no consensus that they should be allowed to.

1927: 1308:

Per Drilnoth and Stifle's comment above. Unnecessary decoration.

816: 811: 5136:

were available. Nevertheless, it does not support your argument.

4624:

the Tree of Life WikiProject about whether this should be done.

2685:, so having un-italicized article titles is also inconsistent.– 1793:

Then why are they called "titles" and not "links" or something?

4165:

Heads up, if a move from latin name to common name is performed

5306:

Sadly, I can't enable it with a style, since articles such as

5153:"OMG, formatting is inconsistent! Let's get rid of italics in 4912:

I must agree here. It's not too difficult to figure out what

2571:

Personal preference is not a reason to oppose a policy. Also,

1095:

be used for mathematical symbols that need to be in italics —

398:, since this would most affect the articles in those projects. 5347:{{italic title| Foo | bar | baz }} will italicise as follows: 5248:

Wherever one goes to tweak one's own WP stylesheet, just add

3532:

isn't so different that it constitutes a giant learning gap.

3244: 2434: 2293: 136: 4668:

above the edit box should be provided for this function. --

2833:, (mentioned by Jinnai above) and b) Not add a a bunch more 4620:

discussion first, though, since there is clear controversy

4474: 4352:

I am pleased to present to you the results of this debate:

2615:

the ability to do so has only been available for six months

2276: 2149: 2003: 1955: 1951: 1126: 766:

This is not just a local typographic convention for taxa.

3141:

I think there should only be a single template to handle

2823:... you can get it to a) Correctly italicize titles like 135:

I tried to use both {{italictitle}} and {{lowercase}} on

5090:. I believe it is widely accepted that italicising the 4294:

Well we know what result that would produce, don't we?

2077:

As I said above, I support this option because it's the

1022:

Support italicisation of titles for species and genera.

92:

for a more efficient and customizable way to do this. —

4473:

I'm not convinced it violates the MoS. If so, doesn't

2317:

code for formatting can also be entered by the user. --

1885:

per my original comments and general pointlessness. --

4760:"moved" to itself with a change of displayed title. – 3288:(your initial point of objection) would do; same for 2432:— Heh, I thought this wouldn't be so controversial. 2275:

it is written (unless we throw out the rules of the

3243:As for "clear rules", that is the whole purpose of 2458:I'm going to propose this to Wikispecies as well. 544:nothing in the way to prevent them from doing so. 3939:to work, but I don't see any results. I've tried 3330:DISPLAYTITLE is pretty much like this template. – 3320:Then that nulls all the votes in this section... 2683:Gwen Stefani#2004–2006: Love. Angel. Music. Baby. 2577:Gwen Stefani#2004–2006: Love. Angel. Music. Baby. 5229:bring the argument of which should be default). 965:guidelines, why shouldn't they? It's illogical. 693:are always italicized, within a title or not. -- 3427:Not to be rude, but isn't this simple enough? 3081:you can appropriately italicize something like 2719:"World Book/the OED/other websites don't do it" 1162:Knowledge:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 13 3528:then cleanup is going to be required anyway. 3365:, but this seems to ask for mind reading. -- 3286:{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Pokémon Red'' and ''Blue''}} 1160:: I have an open Request for Bot Approval at 1052:putting the correct punctuation at the end.-- 1001: 3292:— existing syntax, nothing new to learn. -- 2695:"Knowledge does not need to conform to some 2648:As for the appearance of Serif fonts, maybe 176:Interferes with "editing lead section only"? 4486:Yes, there's no consensus that they should 4103:Attention anyone with proper privileges!!!! 518:Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate 4067:I misunderstood. I thought templates like 2681:in section and sub-section headings. See: 2575:in section and sub-section headings. See: 2148:should not be subscript, or that the i in 1414:") as an alternative example of failure. 3352:You're right...an oversight on my part. 5515:necessary according to the convention.— 2835:meaningless code at the top of articles 205:There was some conversation on this at 14: 5427:RfC and revision to naming conventions 5002:expect to receive from such a comment. 4664:I think it means that a button in the 3145:titles instead of multiple templates. 2671:"Article titles need to be consistent" 792:, since according to the ICBN rules, " 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 5529:I can add that right now, good idea. 5251:h1 i {font-style:normal !important;} 5064:provide the mechanism to do that. -- 4723:title that needs to be italicized).-- 3867:It'd probably be best if you changed 3064:per rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid and Nifboy -- 2723:Knowledge is not a paper encyclopedia 156:{{wrongtitle|''lowercasepagename''}} 25: 5313:would not be properly italicized.-- 5254:to nuke all italics in the title.-- 2976:... what rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid said. 287:Getting this to work at Wikispecies 23: 5400:{{italic title| Foo | bar | baz }} 4132:Done, as mentioned there. Try the 4108:User:Bob the Wikipedian/test (yup) 3524:of the reason, if they can't type 3118:' can be used in cases like this. 2006:, whereas unitalicised white is a 958:Knowledge:Manual of Style (titles) 382:, and I'll spam the talk pages of 24: 5553: 3530:{{DISPLAYTITLE:''(((GRRRLS)))''}} 3290:{{DISPLAYTITLE:''(((GRRRLS)))''}} 2673:- they would be consistent: with 2332:issue, and "no" to the second. -- 1607:Please keep titles consistent. -- 4234:I presented two examples to the 4114:and save the changes. Thanks! 2433: 2217:Strong support, as per above. -- 1760: 1389:could not be rendered as "Lucy ( 29: 4142:template next time. :) Thanks, 2652:could be used to adjust them? 2521:Strongly support italicization 1851:C Sharp (programming language) 13: 1: 5525:18:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC) 5510:14:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC) 5495:14:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC) 5421:10:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC) 5382:05:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC) 4986:should be rendered in blue. 3795:A major edit has happened at 2262:All appropriate italicization 5534:19:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 5469:10:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 5453:05:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC) 5157:!!! And WTF, Knowledge uses 4250:), and there was a somewhat 3160:There is just such a thing: 2754:List of online encyclopedias 2479:Agree with Geronimo20 above, 2232:people seem to think above. 1529:As I see it, it looks weird 1348:external style conventions. 740:An encyclopedia cannot heed 7: 2679:italics are already present 2573:italics are already present 10: 5558: 4347:WP:WikiProject Mathematics 4336:Yes, there is a conclusion 4280:and fauna project pages.-- 3837:spend much time checking. 2399:I think it is an absolute 1379:could not be rendered as " 1243:Per my original comment. – 170:15:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 149:13:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 89:+1: No shit, eh? See also 84:16:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC) 18:Template talk:Italic title 5343:The usage example reads: 5323:02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 5302:15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 5280:13:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 5264:04:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 5239:22:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 5224:21:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 5210:21:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 5187:19:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 5171:10:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 5149:06:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 5104:05:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 5074:05:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 5032:05:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 5012:04:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 4996:04:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 4955:10:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC) 4941:18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 4908:14:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 4894:14:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 4870:09:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 4840:05:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 4830:05:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 4812:20:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 4792:21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 4778:20:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 4755:16:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 4733:15:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 4715:15:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 4692:15:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 4678:10:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 4659:08:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 4629:19:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 4595:20:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 4570:15:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 4550:15:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 4528:15:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 4513:12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 4504:08:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 4482:03:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC) 4461:23:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 4445:20:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 4425:After website integration 4406:After website integration 4387:After website integration 4368:After website integration 4343:WP:WikiProject Literature 4331:19:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 4299:18:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 4290:16:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 4275:15:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 4264:08:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 4229:07:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 4206:07:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC) 4197:08:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 4182:07:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 4149:21:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 4128:19:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 4119:03:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 4087:09:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 4063:02:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 4054:19:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 4040:11:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 4022:04:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 4008:19:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 3984:19:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 3953:18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 3911:16:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 3882:01:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 3847:17:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 3820:17:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 3772:17:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 3704:16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 3694:05:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 3685:{{DISPLAYTITLE:<i: --> 3604:18:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 3580:05:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC) 3566:23:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 3542:18:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 3517:04:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 3474:17:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 3452:16:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 3423:16:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 3398:04:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 3375:03:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 3357:17:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 3348:16:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 3325:16:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 3316:20:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 3302:04:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 3280:03:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 3257:21:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 3239:01:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 3207:18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 3180:21:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 3155:17:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 3136:14:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 3110:16:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 3074:08:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 3053:21:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 3031:00:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 3001:19:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 2986:23:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 2968:21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 2920:15:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC) 2895:19:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 2870:18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 2856:16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 2847:18:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 2809:21:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 2786:16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 2734:16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 2714:16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 2690:16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 2662:09:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC) 2595:17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 2591:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 2584:16:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 2567:16:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 2563:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 2551:16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 2539:16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 2516:14:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 2496:22:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 2486:22:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 2468:22:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2454:02:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 2426:15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 2395:19:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 2364:00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 2342:00:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 2327:00:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 2312:21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 2288:17:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 2251:16:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 2242:03:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 2227:16:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 2213:18:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC) 2199:22:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 2185:21:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 2170:14:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 2139:02:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 2119:23:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 2105:22:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 2091:19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 2073:01:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 2058:16:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 2043:16:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 2034:15:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 2020:13:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1989:08:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1978:02:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1963:23:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 1938:21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC) 1921:07:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC) 1903:03:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 1874:18:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 1841:15:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 1828:15:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 1803:09:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 1789:02:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC) 1780:04:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 1753:14:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 1732:14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 1705:03:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 1690:01:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 1672:01:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 1644:00:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 1626:22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 1617:22:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 1591:19:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 1582:18:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 1573:18:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 1559:01:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 1549:22:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 1525:21:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 1509:17:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 1497:19:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 1470:15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 1447:19:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 1433:17:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 1419:14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 1398:14:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 1369:18:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1365:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 1358:17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1334:17:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1316:12:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1304:11:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1290:01:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1276:22:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 1261:17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 1233:17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 1202:19:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 1179:14:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 1149:21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1119:03:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 1077:23:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 1062:17:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 1047:16:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 1032:15:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 1018:14:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 996:14:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 981:02:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 952:01:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 933:00:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 924:23:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 903:23:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 888:22:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 873:20:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 842:18:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC) 805:12:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 762:06:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 736:00:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 714:20:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 698:00:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 688:18:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 663:18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 641:18:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 616:18:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 601:17:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 568:17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 564:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 554:23:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 539:16:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 506:20:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 481:19:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 455:19:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 418:16:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 378:I'm going to put this on 371:RFC: Should this be used? 363:13:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 349:05:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 309:04:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 264:03:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 250:02:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 231:02:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 121:21:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC) 111:05:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 3961:. I was unable to get a 3655:05:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 3628:21:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC) 3170:. See the topic, below. 2935:21:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC) 2766:09:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 2748:21:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC) 2636:03:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 2622:02:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 2609:21:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC) 1377:The Crucible (1957 film) 1294:Unnecessary decoration. 282:22:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 201:03:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC) 97:15:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 5367:Foo (quok) → Foo (quok) 5086:. MoS demands italics 4817:Wait...so for example, 2129:use them for binomens. 1387:Lucy (Australopithecus) 1100:(mathematical constant) 1008:routinely italicized.-- 3683:this template puts in 2779:slippery slope fallacy 3767:Hope this is useful! 1091:However, this should 42:of past discussions. 5339:Example is confusing 5231:♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 4645:Website integration? 4427:: 23 for, 20 against 4421:: 25 against, 18 for 4408:: 28 for, 19 against 4402:: 22 for, 25 against 4389:: 43 for, 16 against 4383:: 38 for, 21 against 4370:: 26 for, 23 against 4364:: 29 against, 20 for 4112:Template:Italictitle 3941:in article namespace 3284:That's exactly what 2697:stylistic preference 2628:♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 1282:♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 1081:Selective support — 608:♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 131:italic and lowercase 4743:WP:VPT#DISPLAYTITLE 3215:Template:wrongtitle 3116:Template:wrongtitle 2267:Italicization is a 1944:Species/genera only 1722:all italicization. 779:Drosera stolonifera 426:I've also informed 5531:Bob the Wikipedian 5476:A Clockwork Orange 5433:naming conventions 5221:Bob the Wikipedian 5009:Bob the Wikipedian 4938:Bob the Wikipedian 4837:Bob the Wikipedian 4827:Bob the Wikipedian 4821:would be moved to 4626:Bob the Wikipedian 4479:Bob the Wikipedian 4442:Bob the Wikipedian 4203:Bob the Wikipedian 4125:Bob the Wikipedian 4116:Bob the Wikipedian 3908:Bob the Wikipedian 3817:Bob the Wikipedian 3769:Bob the Wikipedian 3701:Bob the Wikipedian 3449:Bob the Wikipedian 3354:Bob the Wikipedian 3322:Bob the Wikipedian 3187:Actually, what is 2853:Bob the Wikipedian 2650:this CSS attribute 2040:Bob the Wikipedian 1838:Bob the Wikipedian 346:Bob the Wikipedian 279:Bob the Wikipedian 5408:{{DISPLAYTITLE:}} 4823:''Tyrannosaurus'' 3133: 3050: 3028: 2966: 2806: 2452: 2310: 2248:Kim van der Linde 2167: 1750: 1688: 1642: 1495: 1408:Sources of Hamlet 1332: 1158:Important comment 979: 949: 870: 815:on the genus and 794:Drosera monticola 789:Drosera monticola 508: 462: 457: 453: 399: 75:Js implementation 72: 71: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5549: 5413:Michael Bednarek 5410: 5401: 5141:Michael Bednarek 5135: 5134: 5128: 5123: 5066:Michael Bednarek 5063: 5062: 5056: 5051: 4921: 4915: 4670:Michael Bednarek 4256:Michael Bednarek 4249: 4243: 4189:Michael Bednarek 4146: 4141: 4135: 4076: 4070: 4060:Remember the dot 3973: 3967: 3938: 3932: 3879:Remember the dot 3876: 3870: 3814: 3808: 3804: 3798: 3792: 3755: 3749: 3743: 3737: 3731: 3725: 3691:Remember the dot 3688: 3651: 3645: 3640: 3617: 3611: 3600: 3594: 3589: 3562: 3556: 3551: 3531: 3527: 3526:''(((GRRRLS)))'' 3513: 3507: 3502: 3446: 3440: 3436: 3430: 3419: 3413: 3408: 3367:Michael Bednarek 3294:Michael Bednarek 3291: 3287: 3276: 3270: 3265: 3235: 3229: 3224: 3196: 3190: 3169: 3163: 3123: 3106: 3100: 3095: 3041: 3019: 2960: 2909: 2903: 2883: 2877: 2797: 2592: 2564: 2444: 2437: 2423: 2416: 2409: 2384: 2378: 2300: 2286: 2284: 2196: 2191:Sabine's Sunbird 2157: 1935: 1889: 1862: 1816: 1764: 1746: 1678: 1665:Stylidium debile 1663:1858 instead of 1657:Stylidium debile 1632: 1487: 1465: 1391:Australopithecus 1366: 1322: 1238:No italicization 1173: 1167: 1164:which would add 1145: 1139: 1134: 1107:aphex twin songs 969: 940: 861: 746:in project space 674: 633: 597: 591: 586: 565: 488:Mentioned it on 487: 460: 439: 425: 377: 343: 337: 333: 327: 323: 317: 272:Question/request 247:Remember the dot 244: 238: 157: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5557: 5556: 5552: 5551: 5550: 5548: 5547: 5546: 5429: 5406: 5399: 5341: 5252: 5132: 5126: 5125: 5121: 5094:is overkill. 5060: 5054: 5053: 5049: 4983:House of Leaves 4969: 4919: 4913: 4647: 4492:how wrong is it 4413:Foreign phrases 4338: 4245: 4239: 4216: 4163: 4161:Moving articles 4144: 4139: 4133: 4074: 4068: 3971: 3965: 3936: 3930: 3874: 3868: 3812: 3806: 3802: 3796: 3784: 3753: 3747: 3741: 3735: 3729: 3723: 3684: 3677: 3675:Somewhat broken 3652: 3649: 3643: 3638: 3615: 3609: 3601: 3598: 3592: 3587: 3563: 3560: 3554: 3549: 3529: 3525: 3514: 3511: 3505: 3500: 3444: 3438: 3434: 3428: 3420: 3417: 3411: 3406: 3289: 3285: 3277: 3274: 3268: 3263: 3236: 3233: 3227: 3222: 3194: 3188: 3167: 3161: 3107: 3104: 3098: 3093: 3051: 3029: 2907: 2901: 2881: 2875: 2817: 2807: 2703:Manual of Style 2590: 2562: 2476: 2419: 2412: 2405: 2382: 2376: 2282: 2280: 2264: 2259: 2194: 2147: 1946: 1931: 1887: 1860: 1847:most definitely 1814: 1742:Rambo's Revenge 1536:I don't like it 1463: 1364: 1266:detrimental. -- 1240: 1212: 1171: 1165: 1146: 1143: 1137: 1132: 950: 871: 672: 631: 598: 595: 589: 584: 563: 461:Thanks; my bad. 373: 341: 335: 331: 325: 321: 319:FormattingError 315: 289: 274: 242: 236: 178: 155: 133: 77: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5555: 5545: 5544: 5543: 5542: 5541: 5540: 5539: 5538: 5537: 5536: 5437:Justin (koavf) 5428: 5425: 5424: 5423: 5403: 5396: 5392: 5369: 5368: 5365: 5358: 5351: 5348: 5340: 5337: 5336: 5335: 5334: 5333: 5332: 5331: 5330: 5329: 5328: 5327: 5326: 5325: 5250: 5246: 5245: 5244: 5243: 5242: 5241: 5213: 5212: 5180: 5179: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5151: 5137: 5111: 5110: 5109: 5108: 5107: 5106: 5096:81.111.114.131 5079: 5078: 5077: 5076: 5046:81.111.114.131 5039: 5038: 5037: 5036: 5035: 5034: 5024:81.111.114.131 5015: 5014: 5004: 5003: 4988:81.111.114.131 4968: 4965: 4964: 4963: 4962: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4958: 4957: 4929: 4928: 4927: 4926: 4925: 4924: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4850: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4845: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4794: 4646: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4429: 4428: 4422: 4410: 4409: 4403: 4391: 4390: 4384: 4372: 4371: 4365: 4337: 4334: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4267: 4266: 4252:weak consensus 4215: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4162: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4089: 3986: 3927:messing around 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3839:Dragons flight 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3793: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3745: 3733: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3707: 3706: 3676: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3648: 3634: 3597: 3559: 3510: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3454: 3416: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3273: 3232: 3210: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3114:The template ' 3103: 3076: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3040: 3034: 3033: 3018: 3005: 3004: 3003: 2970: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2816: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2796: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2727:gaming website 2716: 2692: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2518: 2499: 2498: 2475: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2456: 2428: 2397: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2314: 2290: 2263: 2260: 2258: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2244: 2229: 2215: 2201: 2187: 2172: 2145: 2141: 2121: 2107: 2093: 2075: 2060: 2045: 2036: 2022: 1991: 1980: 1965: 1945: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1923: 1905: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1782: 1755: 1734: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1514:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1499: 1472: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1371: 1360: 1336: 1318: 1306: 1292: 1278: 1263: 1239: 1236: 1211: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1142: 1121: 1103: 1089: 1079: 1064: 1049: 1034: 1020: 998: 983: 954: 939: 935: 926: 907: 906: 905: 875: 860: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 832:the headings. 702: 701: 700: 667: 666: 665: 618: 603: 594: 570: 558: 557: 556: 512: 511: 510: 509: 485: 484: 483: 372: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 288: 285: 273: 270: 269: 268: 267: 266: 177: 174: 173: 172: 132: 129: 128: 127: 126: 125: 124: 123: 76: 73: 70: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5554: 5535: 5532: 5528: 5527: 5526: 5522: 5518: 5513: 5512: 5511: 5507: 5503: 5498: 5497: 5496: 5492: 5488: 5484: 5483: 5478: 5477: 5472: 5471: 5470: 5466: 5462: 5457: 5456: 5455: 5454: 5450: 5446: 5442: 5438: 5434: 5422: 5418: 5414: 5409: 5404: 5397: 5393: 5390: 5386: 5385: 5384: 5383: 5379: 5375: 5366: 5363: 5359: 5356: 5352: 5349: 5346: 5345: 5344: 5324: 5320: 5316: 5312: 5310: 5305: 5304: 5303: 5299: 5295: 5291: 5287: 5283: 5282: 5281: 5278: 5274: 5273: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5269: 5268: 5267: 5266: 5265: 5261: 5257: 5249: 5240: 5236: 5232: 5227: 5226: 5225: 5222: 5217: 5216: 5215: 5214: 5211: 5207: 5203: 5199: 5195: 5191: 5190: 5189: 5188: 5185: 5172: 5168: 5164: 5160: 5156: 5152: 5150: 5146: 5142: 5138: 5131: 5119: 5118: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5105: 5101: 5097: 5093: 5089: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5075: 5071: 5067: 5059: 5047: 5043: 5042: 5041: 5040: 5033: 5029: 5025: 5021: 5020: 5019: 5018: 5017: 5016: 5013: 5010: 5006: 5005: 5000: 4999: 4998: 4997: 4993: 4989: 4985: 4984: 4979: 4975: 4956: 4952: 4948: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4939: 4935: 4934: 4933: 4932: 4931: 4930: 4918: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4905: 4901: 4897: 4896: 4895: 4891: 4887: 4883: 4879: 4874: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4867: 4863: 4859: 4841: 4838: 4834: 4833: 4832: 4831: 4828: 4824: 4820: 4819:Tyrannosaurus 4815: 4814: 4813: 4809: 4805: 4801: 4793: 4789: 4785: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4775: 4771: 4767: 4763: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4752: 4748: 4744: 4740: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4730: 4726: 4722: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4712: 4708: 4704: 4700: 4695: 4694: 4693: 4689: 4685: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4675: 4671: 4667: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4656: 4652: 4630: 4627: 4623: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4596: 4592: 4588: 4584: 4580: 4576: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4567: 4563: 4559: 4551: 4547: 4543: 4539: 4535: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4525: 4521: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4511: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4501: 4497: 4493: 4489: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4462: 4459: 4455: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4443: 4439: 4436: 4433: 4426: 4423: 4420: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4414: 4407: 4404: 4401: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4388: 4385: 4382: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4369: 4366: 4363: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4353: 4350: 4348: 4344: 4333: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4320: 4316: 4311: 4300: 4297: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4287: 4283: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4273: 4269: 4268: 4265: 4261: 4257: 4253: 4248: 4242: 4237: 4236:Opera Project 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4226: 4222: 4207: 4204: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4194: 4190: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4180: 4179: 4176: 4175: 4170: 4167: 4150: 4147: 4138: 4137:editprotected 4131: 4130: 4129: 4126: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4104: 4100: 4088: 4084: 4080: 4073: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4061: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4051: 4047: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4037: 4033: 4030: 4028: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4011: 4010: 4009: 4005: 4001: 3997: 3996: 3992: 3987: 3985: 3981: 3977: 3974:to do this. — 3970: 3964: 3960: 3956: 3955: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3942: 3935: 3929:with getting 3928: 3924: 3912: 3909: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3883: 3880: 3873: 3866: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3821: 3818: 3811: 3801: 3794: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3773: 3770: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3752: 3746: 3740: 3734: 3728: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3712:Recent edits: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3705: 3702: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3692: 3686:Aa</i: --> 3682: 3656: 3653: 3646: 3641: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3625: 3621: 3614: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3602: 3595: 3590: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3564: 3557: 3552: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3523: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3515: 3508: 3503: 3497: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3453: 3450: 3443: 3433: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3421: 3414: 3409: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3383: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3355: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3323: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3278: 3271: 3266: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3237: 3230: 3225: 3218: 3216: 3211: 3209: 3208: 3204: 3200: 3193: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3166: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3134: 3131: 3127: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3108: 3101: 3096: 3090: 3089: 3085: 3080: 3079:Oppose unless 3077: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3060: 3059: 3054: 3048: 3044: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3032: 3026: 3022: 3016: 3014: 3010: 3009:Oppose unless 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2974:Oppose unless 2971: 2969: 2964: 2957: 2956: 2951: 2950:Oppose unless 2948: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2906: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2880: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2854: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2831: 2827: 2822: 2821:Oppose unless 2819: 2818: 2810: 2804: 2800: 2794: 2791: 2787: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2773: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2717: 2715: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2698: 2693: 2691: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2669: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2593: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2565: 2559: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2549: 2545: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2537: 2533: 2532: 2528: 2522: 2519: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2500: 2497: 2494: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2484: 2480: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2455: 2450: 2449: 2443: 2442: 2436: 2431: 2429: 2427: 2424: 2422: 2417: 2415: 2410: 2408: 2402: 2398: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2381: 2374: 2371: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2315: 2313: 2308: 2304: 2299: 2298:Fvasconcellos 2295: 2291: 2289: 2285: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2265: 2252: 2249: 2245: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2230: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2200: 2197: 2192: 2188: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2173: 2171: 2168: 2165: 2161: 2155: 2151: 2142: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2127: 2122: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2074: 2071: 2070: 2067: 2066: 2061: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2046: 2044: 2041: 2037: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1995: 1992: 1990: 1987: 1986: 1981: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1966: 1964: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1948: 1947: 1939: 1936: 1934: 1929: 1924: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1909: 1906: 1904: 1900: 1897: 1894: 1890: 1884: 1881: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1857: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1811: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1787: 1783: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1768: 1763: 1759: 1756: 1754: 1751: 1749: 1744: 1743: 1738: 1735: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1718: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1686: 1682: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1659: 1658: 1652: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1640: 1636: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1624: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1592: 1589: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1580: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1571: 1566: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1557: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1547: 1546: 1541: 1537: 1532: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1507: 1506: 1500: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1481: 1476: 1473: 1471: 1468: 1466: 1459: 1456: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1417: 1413: 1410:("Sources of 1409: 1405: 1402:Striking out 1401: 1400: 1399: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1382: 1378: 1372: 1370: 1367: 1361: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1342: 1337: 1335: 1330: 1326: 1319: 1317: 1314: 1311: 1307: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1264: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1241: 1235: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1177: 1170: 1163: 1159: 1156: 1155: 1150: 1147: 1140: 1135: 1129: 1128: 1122: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1101: 1099: 1094: 1090: 1087: 1083: 1082: 1080: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1065: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1050: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1035: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 999: 997: 993: 989: 984: 982: 977: 973: 968: 967:Fvasconcellos 963: 959: 955: 953: 947: 943: 936: 934: 931: 927: 925: 921: 917: 913: 908: 904: 900: 896: 891: 890: 889: 885: 881: 876: 874: 868: 864: 858: 853: 843: 839: 835: 831: 826: 822: 818: 814: 813: 808: 807: 806: 803: 799: 795: 791: 790: 785: 784: 780: 774: 769: 765: 764: 763: 759: 755: 751: 747: 743: 739: 738: 737: 734: 729: 725: 721: 717: 716: 715: 711: 707: 703: 699: 696: 691: 690: 689: 685: 682: 679: 675: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 648: 644: 643: 642: 638: 634: 627: 623: 619: 617: 613: 609: 604: 602: 599: 592: 587: 581: 580: 576: 571: 569: 566: 559: 555: 551: 547: 542: 541: 540: 536: 532: 528: 524: 519: 514: 513: 507: 503: 499: 495: 491: 486: 482: 478: 474: 470: 466: 459: 458: 456: 451: 447: 443: 438: 437: 436: 429: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 415: 411: 407: 403: 397: 393: 389: 385: 381: 364: 360: 356: 352: 351: 350: 347: 340: 330: 320: 313: 312: 311: 310: 307: 306: 303: 302: 297: 293: 284: 283: 280: 265: 261: 257: 253: 252: 251: 248: 241: 235: 234: 233: 232: 228: 224: 220: 219: 214: 213: 208: 203: 202: 198: 194: 190: 186: 185: 171: 168: 167: 162: 161: 153: 152: 151: 150: 146: 142: 138: 122: 119: 118:CharlotteWebb 114: 113: 112: 108: 104: 100: 99: 98: 95: 94:CharlotteWebb 91: 88: 87: 86: 85: 82: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5481: 5475: 5430: 5388: 5370: 5361: 5360:Foo (baz) → 5354: 5353:Foo (bar) → 5342: 5315:Curtis Clark 5308: 5256:Curtis Clark 5253: 5247: 5181: 5158: 5154: 5130:Italic title 5122:DISPLAYTITLE 5091: 5087: 5058:Italic title 5050:DISPLAYTITLE 4981: 4977: 4973: 4970: 4857: 4854: 4816: 4720: 4666:edit toolbar 4648: 4621: 4491: 4487: 4453: 4440: 4437: 4434: 4430: 4424: 4418: 4412: 4411: 4405: 4399: 4393: 4392: 4386: 4380: 4375:Tree of Life 4374: 4373: 4367: 4361: 4355: 4354: 4351: 4339: 4309: 4307: 4217: 4178: 4173: 4164: 4102: 4101: 3994: 3990: 3969:italic title 3934:DISPLAYTITLE 3786: 3785: 3678: 3572:Curtis Clark 3521: 3461: 3457: 3442:DISPLAYTITLE 3212: 3186: 3165:DISPLAYTITLE 3142: 3140: 3122: 3087: 3083: 3078: 3061: 3039:See above.-- 3008: 3007: 2973: 2972: 2955:(((GRRRLS))) 2953: 2949: 2905:unreferenced 2879:DISPLAYTITLE 2829: 2825: 2820: 2795:per above.-- 2792: 2783:DroEsperanto 2774: 2731:DroEsperanto 2726: 2718: 2711:DroEsperanto 2706: 2696: 2694: 2687:DroEsperanto 2678: 2670: 2619:DroEsperanto 2614: 2581:DroEsperanto 2572: 2557: 2548:DroEsperanto 2543: 2536:DroEsperanto 2530: 2526: 2520: 2503: 2478: 2477: 2447: 2440: 2420: 2413: 2406: 2400: 2380:DISPLAYTITLE 2372: 2272: 2268: 2156: 2125: 2124: 2078: 2069: 2064: 1999: 1984: 1970:Curtis Clark 1932: 1913:Magioladitis 1907: 1895: 1888:AnmaFinotera 1882: 1846: 1833: 1809: 1757: 1747: 1741: 1736: 1719: 1697:Curtis Clark 1664: 1655: 1650: 1544: 1530: 1517: 1504: 1478: 1474: 1457: 1411: 1404:The Crucible 1403: 1390: 1383:(1957 film)" 1381:The Crucible 1380: 1375: 1345: 1340: 1339: 1213: 1157: 1125: 1097: 1092: 1085: 1084:This should 1010:Curtis Clark 1005: 1002:la.wikipedia 961: 911: 856: 829: 824: 820: 810: 797: 793: 787: 782: 778: 772: 767: 749: 745: 741: 727: 680: 673:AnmaFinotera 625: 621: 578: 574: 517: 434: 432: 374: 305: 300: 296:asked around 290: 275: 240:italic title 216: 210: 204: 182: 179: 165: 159: 134: 78: 60: 43: 37: 5500:against).-- 4917:italictitle 4394:Mathematics 4214:Conclusion? 4174:OhanaUnited 3810:italictitle 3739:italictitle 3727:italictitle 3432:italictitle 3363:magic words 3084:Pokémon Red 2826:Pokémon Red 2544:"It's ugly" 2527:Pokemon Red 2493:Flowerparty 2483:Flowerparty 2219:NoahElhardt 2065:OhanaUnited 1968:possible.-- 1579:Flowerparty 1341:in the lead 1169:italictitle 1024:mgiganteus1 880:Kung Fu Man 825:in the lead 575:Pokemon Red 301:OhanaUnited 292:Wikispecies 184:Spinosaurus 36:This is an 5374:Robert K S 4356:Literature 3959:my sandbox 3925:I've been 3681:Aa (plant) 3522:Regardless 3192:wrongtitle 3066:Cybercobra 2334:Geronimo20 2319:Geronimo20 2205:J. Spencer 2111:Geronimo20 1767:title case 1545:Greg Tyler 1505:Greg Tyler 1093:absolutely 256:J. Spencer 223:J. Spencer 218:Allosaurus 212:Pteranodon 193:J. Spencer 5395:bracket." 5350:Foo → Foo 3943:as well. 3788:Eureka!!! 3306:Exactly! 2721:: First, 2097:Invertzoo 2083:Guettarda 2008:phenotype 1861:Nihiltres 1815:Nihiltres 1724:Ironholds 1609:MZMcBride 988:Guettarda 798:incorrect 783:monticola 428:WP:ALBUMS 355:Rocket000 329:str index 189:Dinosaurs 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 5502:Kotniski 5461:Kotniski 5286:Drilnoth 5194:Drilnoth 5159:headings 5088:in prose 5044:I think 4900:Kotniski 4878:Drilnoth 4862:Kotniski 4762:Drilnoth 4725:Kotniski 4699:Drilnoth 4684:Kotniski 4651:Kotniski 4579:Drilnoth 4534:Drilnoth 4520:Kotniski 4496:Kotniski 4315:Drilnoth 4282:Kotniski 4221:Kotniski 4145:Amalthea 3872:str find 3687:plant)}} 3382:Drilnoth 3332:Drilnoth 3126:Smith609 3011:... per 2508:Ssilvers 2348:Drilnoth 2160:Smith609 2126:at least 1985:Eleassar 1899:contribs 1856:bug 6455 1661:F.Muell. 1464:Reywas92 1310:Garion96 1245:Drilnoth 1217:Drilnoth 1210:Reformat 1186:Drilnoth 857:en masse 684:contribs 647:Drilnoth 622:en masse 523:Drilnoth 465:Drilnoth 446:contribs 402:Drilnoth 396:WP:FILMS 392:WP:BOOKS 5482:Titanic 5459:this?-- 5311:(genus) 5309:Morelia 5161:??!!!" 4739:hackish 4622:outside 4454:like to 4032:Celefin 3963:revised 3800:str sub 3751:str sub 3043:ZXCVBNM 3021:ZXCVBNM 2799:ZXCVBNM 2793:Support 2421:Shalott 2373:Support 2234:Cacycle 2177:Anaxial 2131:Abyssal 2079:correct 2012:Celefin 1786:RockMFR 1772:Ipatrol 1565:asks us 1425:Celefin 1176:Quadell 1039:Smartse 942:ZXCVBNM 863:ZXCVBNM 817:Opuntia 812:Opuntia 781:subsp. 626:in situ 494:WP:MOST 380:WP:CENT 339:str sub 187:versus 141:Celefin 81:RockMFR 39:archive 5277:Powers 5184:Powers 5163:SharkD 4947:SharkD 4804:SharkD 4510:Powers 4458:Powers 4296:Powers 4272:Powers 4079:SharkD 4046:SharkD 4014:SharkD 3945:SharkD 3650:Jinnai 3620:SharkD 3599:Jinnai 3561:Jinnai 3534:SharkD 3512:Jinnai 3466:SharkD 3462:anyway 3458:either 3418:Jinnai 3308:SharkD 3275:Jinnai 3249:SharkD 3247:, no? 3234:Jinnai 3220:users. 3199:SharkD 3172:SharkD 3147:SharkD 3120:Martin 3105:Jinnai 3062:Oppose 3013:Nifboy 2993:SharkD 2978:SharkD 2927:SharkD 2912:Nifboy 2887:SharkD 2862:Nifboy 2839:Nifboy 2758:SharkD 2740:SharkD 2654:SharkD 2601:SharkD 2506:. -- 2504:simple 2441:Animum 2387:SharkD 2283:Spotty 2154:Martin 2050:Kevmin 1960:Rkitko 1908:Oppose 1883:Oppose 1810:Oppose 1795:SharkD 1758:Oppose 1748:(talk) 1737:Oppose 1720:Oppose 1669:Rkitko 1623:Rkitko 1588:Rkitko 1570:Rkitko 1556:Rkitko 1531:to you 1522:Rkitko 1518:not to 1489:Beaste 1485:epraix 1475:Oppose 1458:Oppose 1416:Powers 1412:Hamlet 1395:Powers 1385:, and 1313:(talk) 1296:Stifle 1144:Jinnai 1111:Werson 1069:SharkD 1054:Kevmin 962:always 930:Rkitko 916:SharkD 895:SharkD 802:Rkitko 733:Rkitko 695:Rkitko 596:Jinnai 546:SharkD 498:SharkD 490:WP:VPP 450:e-mail 394:, and 384:WP:TOL 334:, and 103:SharkD 5517:Totie 5487:Totie 5411:. -- 5364:(baz) 5357:(bar) 5155:prose 5092:title 4978:House 4967:TL;DR 4721:whole 4419:As is 4400:As is 4381:As is 4362:As is 4072:pound 3245:MOS:T 2963:coṁrá 2815:Other 2707:wrong 2460:Pzrmd 2294:MOS:T 2026:JoJan 2002:is a 2000:white 1870:edits 1824:edits 1649:that 1493:praix 1480:Locos 878:go.-- 821:title 433:Twas 388:WP:VG 166:melon 160:Happy 137:oskar 16:< 5521:talk 5506:talk 5491:talk 5479:and 5465:talk 5417:talk 5378:talk 5319:talk 5260:talk 5235:talk 5167:talk 5145:talk 5100:talk 5070:talk 5028:talk 4992:talk 4974:real 4951:talk 4904:talk 4866:talk 4808:talk 4788:talk 4751:talk 4729:talk 4688:talk 4674:talk 4655:talk 4575:Ayup 4566:talk 4524:talk 4500:talk 4475:eBay 4286:talk 4260:talk 4225:talk 4193:talk 4083:talk 4050:talk 4036:talk 4018:talk 4004:talk 3995:Blue 3993:and 3980:talk 3949:talk 3843:talk 3624:talk 3613:cite 3576:talk 3538:talk 3470:talk 3371:talk 3312:talk 3298:talk 3253:talk 3203:talk 3176:talk 3151:talk 3130:Talk 3088:Blue 3086:and 3070:talk 3047:TALK 3025:TALK 2997:talk 2982:talk 2931:talk 2916:talk 2891:talk 2874:The 2866:talk 2843:talk 2830:Blue 2828:and 2803:TALK 2762:talk 2744:talk 2658:talk 2632:talk 2605:talk 2579:. – 2531:Blue 2529:and 2512:talk 2464:talk 2448:talk 2407:Lady 2401:must 2391:talk 2338:talk 2323:talk 2277:ICZN 2269:must 2238:talk 2223:talk 2209:talk 2195:talk 2181:talk 2164:Talk 2150:iPod 2135:talk 2115:talk 2101:talk 2087:talk 2054:talk 2030:talk 2016:talk 2004:gene 1974:talk 1956:ICBN 1954:and 1952:ICZN 1917:talk 1893:talk 1866:talk 1820:talk 1799:talk 1776:talk 1728:talk 1701:talk 1685:talk 1639:talk 1613:talk 1520:. -- 1443:talk 1429:talk 1354:talk 1329:talk 1300:talk 1286:talk 1272:talk 1268:Izno 1127:miko 1115:talk 1073:talk 1058:talk 1043:talk 1028:talk 1014:talk 992:talk 946:TALK 920:talk 912:does 899:talk 884:talk 867:TALK 838:talk 758:talk 750:must 724:ICZN 722:and 720:ICBN 710:talk 678:talk 632:ASEM 612:talk 579:Blue 577:and 550:talk 502:talk 492:and 442:talk 430:. — 359:talk 260:talk 227:talk 197:talk 154:Try 145:talk 107:talk 5485:).— 5389:Foo 5362:Foo 5355:Foo 5124:or 5052:or 4980:in 4784:Ost 4747:Ost 4577:. – 4562:Ost 4488:not 4345:or 4310:not 4247:two 4241:one 4110:to 4000:Ost 3991:Red 3976:Ost 3143:all 2709:.– 2675:MOS 2558:bad 2273:how 1928:+sj 1872:}} 1845:We 1826:}} 1681:CBM 1635:CBM 1439:Ost 1350:NVO 1346:all 1325:CBM 1086:not 1006:not 859:.-- 834:NVO 830:not 786:as 773:Not 768:All 754:NVO 742:all 728:not 706:NVO 624:or 435:Now 215:or 191:). 5523:) 5508:) 5493:) 5467:) 5451:☯ 5419:) 5391:). 5380:) 5321:) 5300:) 5296:• 5292:• 5262:) 5237:) 5208:) 5204:• 5200:• 5169:) 5147:) 5133:}} 5127:{{ 5102:) 5072:) 5061:}} 5055:{{ 5030:) 4994:) 4953:) 4920:}} 4914:{{ 4906:) 4892:) 4888:• 4884:• 4868:) 4858:is 4810:) 4790:) 4776:) 4772:• 4768:• 4753:) 4731:) 4713:) 4709:• 4705:• 4690:) 4676:) 4657:) 4593:) 4589:• 4585:• 4568:) 4548:) 4544:• 4540:• 4526:) 4502:) 4477:? 4329:) 4325:• 4321:• 4288:) 4262:) 4244:, 4227:) 4195:) 4140:}} 4134:{{ 4085:) 4075:}} 4069:{{ 4052:) 4038:) 4020:) 4006:) 3982:) 3972:}} 3966:{{ 3951:) 3937:}} 3931:{{ 3875:}} 3869:{{ 3845:) 3813:}} 3807:{{ 3803:}} 3797:{{ 3754:}} 3748:{{ 3742:}} 3736:{{ 3730:}} 3724:{{ 3626:) 3616:}} 3610:{{ 3578:) 3540:) 3472:) 3464:. 3445:}} 3439:{{ 3435:}} 3429:{{ 3396:) 3392:• 3388:• 3373:) 3346:) 3342:• 3338:• 3314:) 3300:) 3255:) 3205:) 3195:}} 3189:{{ 3178:) 3168:}} 3162:{{ 3153:) 3128:– 3072:) 3017:-- 2999:) 2984:) 2933:) 2918:) 2908:}} 2902:{{ 2893:) 2882:}} 2876:{{ 2868:) 2845:) 2777:: 2764:) 2746:) 2660:) 2634:) 2607:) 2514:) 2466:) 2414:of 2393:) 2383:}} 2377:{{ 2362:) 2358:• 2354:• 2340:) 2325:) 2296:. 2240:) 2225:) 2211:) 2183:) 2162:– 2144:CO 2137:) 2117:) 2103:) 2089:) 2056:) 2032:) 2018:) 1976:) 1919:) 1901:) 1834:am 1801:) 1778:) 1730:) 1703:) 1683:· 1651:is 1637:· 1615:) 1568:-- 1540:=P 1483:~ 1445:) 1431:) 1356:) 1327:· 1302:) 1288:) 1274:) 1259:) 1255:• 1251:• 1231:) 1227:• 1223:• 1200:) 1196:• 1192:• 1172:}} 1166:{{ 1117:) 1075:) 1060:) 1045:) 1030:) 1016:) 994:) 922:) 901:) 886:) 840:) 760:) 731:-- 712:) 686:) 661:) 657:• 653:• 639:) 614:) 552:) 537:) 533:• 529:• 504:) 496:. 479:) 475:• 471:• 448:• 444:• 440:( 416:) 412:• 408:• 390:, 386:, 361:) 344:. 342:}} 336:{{ 332:}} 326:{{ 324:, 322:}} 316:{{ 262:) 243:}} 237:{{ 229:) 221:. 199:) 147:) 109:) 5519:( 5504:( 5489:( 5463:( 5449:M 5447:☺ 5445:C 5443:☮ 5441:T 5439:❤ 5415:( 5376:( 5317:( 5298:L 5294:C 5290:T 5288:( 5258:( 5233:( 5206:L 5202:C 5198:T 5196:( 5165:( 5143:( 5098:( 5068:( 5026:( 4990:( 4949:( 4902:( 4890:L 4886:C 4882:T 4880:( 4876:– 4864:( 4806:( 4786:( 4774:L 4770:C 4766:T 4764:( 4749:( 4727:( 4711:L 4707:C 4703:T 4701:( 4697:– 4686:( 4672:( 4653:( 4591:L 4587:C 4583:T 4581:( 4564:( 4546:L 4542:C 4538:T 4536:( 4522:( 4498:( 4327:L 4323:C 4319:T 4317:( 4284:( 4258:( 4238:( 4223:( 4191:( 4081:( 4048:( 4034:( 4016:( 4002:( 3978:( 3947:( 3841:( 3644:内 3639:陣 3622:( 3593:内 3588:陣 3574:( 3555:内 3550:陣 3536:( 3506:内 3501:陣 3468:( 3412:内 3407:陣 3394:L 3390:C 3386:T 3384:( 3380:– 3369:( 3344:L 3340:C 3336:T 3334:( 3310:( 3296:( 3269:内 3264:陣 3251:( 3228:内 3223:陣 3213:' 3201:( 3174:( 3149:( 3132:) 3124:( 3099:内 3094:陣 3068:( 3049:) 3045:( 3027:) 3023:( 2995:( 2980:( 2965:) 2961:( 2929:( 2914:( 2889:( 2864:( 2841:( 2805:) 2801:( 2760:( 2742:( 2699:" 2656:( 2630:( 2603:( 2510:( 2462:( 2451:) 2445:( 2438:— 2389:( 2360:L 2356:C 2352:T 2350:( 2336:( 2321:( 2309:) 2307:c 2305:· 2303:t 2301:( 2236:( 2221:( 2207:( 2179:( 2166:) 2158:( 2146:2 2133:( 2113:( 2099:( 2085:( 2052:( 2028:( 2014:( 1972:( 1933:+ 1915:( 1896:· 1891:( 1868:| 1864:| 1822:| 1818:| 1797:( 1774:( 1726:( 1699:( 1687:) 1679:( 1641:) 1633:( 1611:( 1491:~ 1441:( 1427:( 1352:( 1331:) 1323:( 1298:( 1284:( 1270:( 1257:L 1253:C 1249:T 1247:( 1229:L 1225:C 1221:T 1219:( 1198:L 1194:C 1190:T 1188:( 1138:内 1133:陣 1113:( 1098:e 1071:( 1056:( 1041:( 1026:( 1012:( 990:( 978:) 976:c 974:· 972:t 970:( 948:) 944:( 918:( 897:( 882:( 869:) 865:( 836:( 756:( 708:( 681:· 676:( 659:L 655:C 651:T 649:( 637:t 635:( 630:M 610:( 590:内 585:陣 582:. 548:( 535:L 531:C 527:T 525:( 521:– 500:( 477:L 473:C 469:T 467:( 463:– 452:) 414:L 410:C 406:T 404:( 400:– 357:( 258:( 225:( 195:( 163:‑ 143:( 105:( 50:.

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

Index