16024:(quite strongly), because it this would prevent all translation of articles from wikipedias that accept general referencing (which, incidentally, still technically includes our own). (1) Yes, the translator ideally will get the original source, track down the information, and convert general referencing into inline referencing. But often it's impossible to track down all the sources, and we have to assume at least some good faith that the original author did use the sources they provide. A translation is still a starting-point for later editors to convert the general references to inline, and to find new references. Knowledge articles aren't expected to be complete at first appearance. (2) We promise our readers that everything in Knowledge can be traced back to a source. We don't promise how much leg-work it will require. Even an inline reference can require work, if it's just a book with no page number. Or a book that's really hard to track down. Sometimes an article here is quite short, and has a couple of general references that themselves are either quite short, or have a clear section obviously on the subject (e.g. references to Grove in biographies of musicians), and general referencing is straightforward and reasonably helpful to the reader. We are also not obliged to pander to hypothetically incredibly lazy readers who want to be told that the information is in the third word on the fourteenth line on page 37. There are circumstances when general referencing isn't evil, and we should trust AfC and the new page patrol to use their discretion to accept such articles even if not inline-referenced.
9451:. The current central banner system is somewhat sufficient for this purpose. Even if we want to work on the sister projects, one has to be cognizant that every project has different levels of maturity and sets of social norms. We shouldn't be the ones pushing ourselves and sensibilities over to the other projects. If so, can the targeted project take on an influx of editors who are bringing a foreign set of norms and sensibilities over to their projects? As one who occasionally straddles between English and Chinese Wikipedias, as well as commons, I can say that it takes awhile to pick up the norms of the individual projects, an effort that would likely be significantly longer than the run on the banner. If the other projects would like to have us and other projects to contribute, have them to come up with their own campaigns, banners through the central banner system, and processes. If anything, I think improvements in other parts of the interface may be more feasible, for example a better call-out to translate the article if it is known that the viewer is good in a certain language, or call outs somewhere to contribute to wikivoyage if somehow we know if the viewer is actively editing in geographic based articles, Wikisource if one is editing articles related to manuscripts or other types or texts and printed materials.
6939:
information about policy is non-trivial. 3) Because our policies are wiki articles themselves, they too are constantly evolving; without constantly updated training, the AI would forever be operating from an outdated understanding of what our policies actually are. 4) This is not really within the purview of a single project to pursue nor is it likely to gain broad consensus across a wide variety of projects and languages necessary to make it worth the effort and cost. The scenario you're describing is better suited as part of the MediaWiki interface. 5) I suspect there are also non-trivial concerns about license compatibility as well as ensuring an open-source software/tools stack for this. 6) Where is this model going to be hosted? Who is paying for the compute time? The foundation? Some foundation-adjacent entity? Donations? A private research institution? There are too many unanswered questions and this proposal addresses none of them in a way that shows sufficient time and thought was put into making this a realistic suggestion. AI is not a "magic bullet" solution to problems that you haven't validated actually exist; nor that it is a product fit for what this community actually wants.
7259:. Happy to be invited to join this discussion. By way of introduction, I am a new editor who has done some deep diving into AI as well as algorithmic and data biases. As a newcomer, I can say that navigating Knowledge's trove of policies and guidelines can feel very daunting. I’ve read posts in the Teahouse from new editors who say they feel paralyzed due to their fear of being criticized for doing the wrong thing or making mistakes. As such, being able to get easy access to policies would help to reduce policy breaches, support retention of new editors, and help create a “psychologically safer” environment for all editors. In my experience with AI and LLMs such as ChatGPT, they are very efficient when they are dealing with well-defined inputs for a request. A set of Knowledge policies and guidelines would be an example of well-defined inputs. Generally, when LLMs stumble into "hallucinations", it tends to be when they are tasked with open-ended topics such as “blank sheet of paper” requests where they need to create something new with no prior input other than their own information.
8351:
thing in mind is ChatGPT and its fuzzy mistakes and/or the wrong hands that image making 'AI' hallucinates. Artificial
Intelligence is much more that this, and I am sure many of you are clear to this. Now what if I assure you that the AI will make equal or lesser percent mistakes than ClueBot NG in terms of overall damage to Knowledge? My point is that I am sure if I had proposed inculsion of bots to Knowledge (assuming they weren't involved yet) I must have met a fierce resistance than I am getting now. By AI, I don't mean hallucinating ChatGPT or an AI which will make Knowledge human editor-less but a algorithm that will better serve the knowledge gap regarding 'policies' and 'guidelines' to new editors, so they can edit without fear of getting 4 warnings quickly and blocked, all because they never knew what they were doing wrong. If you still oppose the idea, please list the reason and I will try to be more objective in answering those.
7768:- First and foremost, I understand and respect your vision to expand Knowledge but I fear that AI (such as ChatGPT) is not to the level that it should be. I understand that AI has been around for quite a long time, but only recently has it been ignited to the public and is used through numerous high-end companies (such as Google, Microsoft, Apple, you name it). I oppose this because Knowledge is about humans checking the article. And yes, it would make it go faster, but it will make mistakes and those mistakes could time consuming for an individual (or a community) to resolve them. I think we should pilot it to a few selective articles rather than making it public to the entire Knowledge articles. I think it's a great idea, no doubt, but we should be cautious when it comes to making it public for all without really piloting it. I have a couple more opinions on it, feel free to reach out if you want to.
4833:- CU and OS are both high-trust roles with real-world legal implications, with access to advanced tools to manage very sensitive information, which can do serious real-world harm to real persons and the project itself if they are misused. They are chosen by a committee which understands the purpose of the roles and evaluates individuals' aptitude and suitability for them, as well as whether or not a candidate fills an identified need. The community elects that committee, Arbcom, and community input is part of the appointment process. Making these specialized positions open to general election puts us at fairly serious risk from motivated malicious groups wanting access to the politically valuable information available; frankly it's already too much of a risk IMO that Arbcom members gain access to these tools through election.
4774:
admins - adminship involves a large number of often very subjective judgments on things like eg. whether someone is likely to continue to be a problem in the future and what sanctions are necessary to prevent this. CU / OS, by comparison, are much more rigid and technical - there is a bit of subjectivity around the edges, but not nearly so much, and it mostly comes down to very simple categorizing using a few straightforward rules. This means that while judgment is important for those roles it doesn't imply as much need for additional community trust. Admins need to understand, and be trusted to accurately enforce, essentially all of
Knowledge's policies and practices; CU / OS are each mostly about a much more narrow slice of it, and a slice that generally involves a bit less subjectivity at that. --
7029:
by all of my points -- your idea is incomplete, premature, and lacking sufficient detail or information to be executed on even if there was consensus that it was desirable. You can't simply handwave away critical considerations like "who's going to pay for this" and "is this compatible with our open-licenses and our mission" as trivialities that we'll figure out later. That kind of techbro fastspeak won't fly here. We are the 7th most popular website in the world; even small changes here can have drastic impacts on millions of people. The burden is on you to show that you've actually given the serious consideration and planning due for a change that would affect people in that magnitude. Until then, you don't have a proposal; you have a fantasy.
3332:(other than user pages) require all types of protection to be shown on the top right. The lock icon will display in the same way shown in the protection policy page (linked above). With move protection, the only way to tell that the page is protected is if the move button is not seen (this article for example, doesn't have the move button for me, but it does have subscribe) with the possible exception for administrators as they can move any page even if it's protected. Even if accounts are able to edit semi and EC protected pages, the relevant lock is still there. But like I said, that will not change. Admins will also be able to see if a page is move protected from the green lock icon at protection policy page.
12526:: Sure thing. The contents page is the main gateway for browsing Knowledge. While most people search for a specific article, it would be helpful for people like me that like to browse Knowledge. On mobile, the contents page is not easily accessible compared to desktop so I think in this way, we can make it more accessible in mobile. The contents page has a lot of ways to browse Knowledge by category. Whether people like overview articles by category like looking for some wars going on in the history section or looking at vital, good, and featured articles, it's a great way to be able to browse what Knowledge has to offer. I hope you consider my reasoning and that you understand where I'm coming from.
4407:
fulfill specific purposes. They carry no "social" value (no accountability requirements, etc.), and if someone who hasn't held an NDA role before asks for it, the whole thing basically boils down to "will this person invade upon privacy or leak personal information?". I sure as hell cannot answer that question. Can you?...yeah, you probably can, because you've probably been here for 15 years or something. But you are not the only demographic that goes to RfX, and with this system it won't be any different.If the problem is that you want arbcom out of the way, then sure, I could potentially get behind that. But experienced, non-temperamental people need to make this decision, not the RfA mob.
7457:
queries and responses could we possibly train it on? How will the AI know how to balance essays, guidelines, and policies, or how to recognize an essay that nevertheless has broad buy-in from the community and is a guideline in all but name? How would the AI know how to adapt to IAR, to contradictory essays and guidelines, or to the fact more broadly that our documentation is descriptive rather than prescriptive of
Knowledge practices? There is no publicly-available dataset that we could train an AI off of that would even begin to address these use cases. I am raising these concerns as someone with several years of professional experience in AI research.
2361:- FA/GA topicons highlight Knowledge's best content in-place. Readers shouldn't have to go to a talk page or a list somewhere else to see that the content they're reading has been reviewed and is considered Knowledge's finest, and there is benefit to distinguishing it from content that hasn't been through or has failed such a review. Ratings below that level are part of a content rating system that's been dead in the water for 20 years (though projects still use it) and there's no point in highlighting it for readers since there are practically no standards to the ratings, but if you want to see these ratings when reading articles anyway you can enable
5191:
15593:. To be sure, a new, truly unsourced article is very likely to be hit by NPP for draftification, prod, or AFD (perhaps even when it really shouldn't). It's good practice to include at least some references. However, some editors take a narrow view of sourcing and consider implicit sources as "unsourced" when it really isn't (i.e. a newbie editor simply writing out "According to Joe Bloggs, blah blah blah..."). Secondly, the main case where valid "unsourced" articles exist are generally the frontiers that are good to create articles on for
7575:: In editing energy and telecommunications articles, I've noticed that several key editors who made significant contributions have left Knowledge, likely due to criticisms or disputes. These criticisms, not always expressed in a civil tone, have highlighted issues in their newly created articles or edits such as subjective language, the inclusion of original ideas, and potential plagiarism. Implementing a "policy checker" for articles before they "go live" could greatly reduce such friction, helping to retain passionate contributors.
15118:, because this creates a new type of deletion, which makes new page patrol and deletion workflows more complex. I believe that all new deletion proposals should work within our existing types of deletion. I think it would make more sense to expand the scope of BLPPROD, than to add a brand new NOSOURCESPROD that is in addition to the almost obsolete PROD (since folks always just unprod these and they end up at AFD) and BLPPROD. I will also note that many new page patrollers automatically draftify or BLPPROD articles without sources. –
8159:
out of frame, also WMF does not look to have been actively sorting out in something specific before this proposal as seen in CAlbon (WMF)'s reply above. And to the troubles which we may face in this, first we have to start somewhere, second that implementation could be step by step. This cycle is just like an unemployed being denied a job because of lack of experience which he will never get without a job which he is being denied. The ending was not reply to you specifically but rather to the discussion as whole.
14985:, in this highly unlikely scenario, the unsourced article would have saved the second editor a bit of typing. But that time saved typing is cancelled out by the time spent reading the unsourced draft and comparing it to the source material to see if it matches. That's a waste of time. I would never read an unsourced draft -- it doesn't matter what the heck is written there if there is no source listed. I would just gather the sources and write my own summary, completely ignoring the unsourced draft. It's
15674:. I would think that if one was going to go through the expense of yet another RFC on the same theme (the third within six months?), it would have at least been better thought out. As Joe Roe and others have highlighted, clearly it is not. Anyway, we should not introduce this new process, subtly different from existing ones yet also similar and overlapping in purpose. I hesitate to expand our assortment of procedural mechanisms for deletion or quasi-deletion, which is already confusing to editors.
4293:
unsuitable are closed as unsuccessful, community input is sought for all the others. All the comments (arbs, functionaries, community) are then evaluated by arbcom and the successful applicants appointed. An RFA-like process would lead to mostly the same people being appointed as now, just with a greater likelihood of acrimony, incivility, and clearly inappropriate nominations and an increased risk of untrustworthy people being appointed. I'm not clear what problem this is attempting to solve.
3015:
2968:
1287:
2063:(whether in a separate section after the description, or in the nominator's initial !vote) there's expected to be some reasoning for why the heck we're voting on this at all and some sort of case to modify the status quo. The RFC creator gave no such explanation other than what I already cited that "other people mentioned it" and "readers can find out on the talk page" which is not conversant at all with the issues involved. People could propose random changes all day; why is
16186:. An issue for someone who's new to Knowledge, still learning wikitext etc. is that adding a citation in the correct format isn't entirely straightforward. Even using the provided templates, you have to know which detail belongs in which field. It's another technical thing to be learnt. It's quite possible that the reason someone hasn't added any citations yet is that they don't feel confident adding them. "How do I make the references appear in the right place?", "What does
8969:: it's common knowledge that enwiki's love for sister projects is... lackluster at best. Thank god we're not in charge of creating new projects, because otherwise there wouldn't be any. But raising awareness for sister projects raises the probability that we'll be able to help someone find what they're looking for (like, say, a quote or a definition) next time they need something. Maybe they're looking for that information right now, and don't know where to find it!
9221:, good points above on the value of ads and on being cautious with the power of en.wiki within the WMF ecosystem. On a pragmatic note, a general link to go look at WikiSource or WikiData or even WikiCommons is of any use. How to contribute to those is opaque at best. If these resources are promoted, it should be through specific useful ways, such as our practice of including relevant WikiSource pages in See also sections (occasionally they pop up in infoboxes too).
4789:
as can be. CU, on the otherhand, is far from categorizing a few straightforward rules. There is a huge amount of discretion involved and judgement calls are regularly required in terms of whether a check has been justified and if it has whether the results indicate a violation of policies and guidelines. I also think most admins only operate in a narrow slice of the admin universe so they don't actually need to know every policy and guideline. Best,
5219:
1955:
13192:
6557:
6492:
6403:
6353:
6307:
14997:, not writing a summary of secondary sources. Writing off the top of one's head about a topic is not the same thing as summarizing sources. And if somebody's off-the-top-of-their-head blog happens to line up with an NPOV summary of high-quality RS, that's just like a freak coincidence, man. That is not what we should be striving for, or even tolerating, on Knowledge. "But what if the bloggers happens to be right?" is an lol argument.
15631:
topic/subject actually exist. It's not that difficult. If you want new editors to understand the new PROD criteria, why not being more clear in the
Article Wizard that Knowledge articles need to have sources? And if my proposal sounds BITEy, then that's because the whole PROD/AfD process itself is BITEy. Please, if that's the reason why you opposed my proposal, please suggest changes to PROD and AfD instead. This is not my fault.
15534:. I also see this as unlikely to succeed, but I'd prefer to see the project move into this direction. I think it would be an improvement to require that article creators include at least one source, and I do not see current procedure as sufficient to deal with the unsourced article problem. I can understand the objections based on grandfathering, but I would prefer the harms of temporary inequity over the harms of doing nothing.
15559:, but geez y'all, it's 2024, citations are expected in everyday culture now, anyone dumping an unsourced article into mainspace (without followup edits) nowadays is willfully ignoring our requirements and clearly has no plans to join the community. We don't need to protect these precious new editors, and we don't need to retain unsupported information that would be deleted if it was in any other format than a standalone page.
15635:
most new editors nowadays don't start out editing in wikicode, they start out with VisualEditor. When they fire up VisualEditor for the first time there is an explicit instruction dialog hovering below the citation button that instructs you how to make an inline citation. It's really not that hard to do for a beginner. Even if VisualEditor somehow cannot process your URL, you can always type that citation in plain text.
5622:
4279:? That wasn't really a direct community process. It started with arbcom being able to veto any candidate and was then advisory in nature only. 15 years is a long time in the project, I'm not sure we should discard an idea based on such an old example. There are certainly things that can be learned from it - along with years of experience in how many other projects have been able to run CUOS elections themselves. —
8570:
digitized public domain texts that anyone can download or distribute; a travel guide; a media repository; and many others. The sister project links are currently buried far down on the Main Page, and are especially distant for mobile viewers who make up an increasing share of our readership. Why would we not want to help readers discover some of the useful resources our sister projects have to offer?
9023:
5161:
likely would not support an application from someone who frequently asked us to suppress things that clearly don't need it, and I likely would support someone whose reports were almost always of things that do need suppression. However, editors who are not oversighters do not have access to this information (indeed when oversight works perfectly almost nobody knows it has happened).
14260:. I don't love grandfather clauses either, but I think this is the least bad of the available solutions (the most bad being "Do nothing; just keep accumulating unsourced material indefinitely".) At some point, we have to turn the water off to the gushing pipe, and then we can focus on cleaning up the remaining mess. We really need to get across the idea of a "reverse BEFORE":
9267:
platform, and so it seem highly inappropriate and immoral and incestuous that we don't allow banners which may improve or even save people's lives, but will allow banners purely to inflate the traffic flow of various WikiMedia projects. If there is an appropriate need to link to another project, that is already done within articles, such as via
External links.
5081:
a very well attended RFC for a project this size (where the supporters would likely already be over 100 as well). The best case would be that if successful a graceful transition from the current committee happened. I could see the stewards team stalling any appointment pending additional community deliberations over collisions between multiple policies. —
7405:- The state of the art of AI does not have sufficient quality assurance to be able to operate in such an open-ended domain as Knowledge policy and guidelines. This proposal is begging for trouble, and there is currently no time frame for when AI will reach this level of sophistication beyond a useless guess of "maybe in a few years at best".
4593:
areas like edit-filter work. Non-admins cannot scrutinize most of this activity at all. While trust and judgement are important aspects of being a functionary, there's more to it than that. Community scrutiny is necessary but not sufficient, and the current system of the community being able to provide feedback is exactly what it should be.
1952:- I agree with Levivich that the quality of the GA process can be inconsistent, but in practice I still find that they are almost always better than your average non-good article. Yes there can be stuff like what Doug Coldwell did, but the same goes for every other part and process of Knowledge. Most readers aren't likely to grasp what the
16546:. How many long term unsourced articles are hoaxes? How much misinformation is there sitting around on the project, potentially fooling readers? I think the draftify process works relatively well for new articles, the problem is long-term unsourced articles and unfortunately the community has shown an unwillingness to take it seriously.
8033:. Using ChatGPT to augment the wikipedia search engine isn't a good idea. It hasn't been tested enough, isn't built for searching, and doesn't like certain queries (medical, legal, political, and anything containing the phrase "root access"). If Wikimedia wants to build its own AI to help with searching, however, then I do support this.
7515:
cause a new editor to fix their bad edit before another editor had to deal with it, it could make things better. That said, the model is only a small part of what would be needed to make this work, a bigger aspect would that the UI/UX that makes it seemless for a newer user while not annoying experienced editors (maybe make it opt in?).
13799:(OTOH, the counterargument could well be made that this just shows that the proposal is the best kind of wiki-rule: one that simply codifies existing practice to prevent future confusion. But if that's the argument it would likewise be helpful to have some quantitative details showing how this proposal maps onto existing practice.) --
9841:, where editors representing different initiatives could host "open house" activities to engage potential volunteers. I didn't pursue the idea, though, since there was almost no interest expressed. However if it were to occur, it would be an opportunity for editors from other projects to set up open houses to publicize their work.
1278:- due to the fact readers have no clue what these mean and the fact the majority no longer meet their FA and GA criteria and 60%+ are mobile viewers don't even see them anyways. I can see how they are an incentive to get editors to improve articles though. That said I would slow down on rfcs that will go nowhere..... Time wasters.
16608:
articles and you make it far more likely they won't develop into a productive editor who improves the encyclopaedia. Short term, arguable improvements should never come at the expense of long term definite improvements. Especially as this proposal would speedy delete articles that have sources which just happen not to be inline.
14298:
appetite to apply this rule to articles that already exist, and without a mechanism to move the grandfather date automatically we'll have to keep having discussions to move it around which wastes time and risks running around consensus by tiring people out with constant discussions. I don't see this going well in practice.
7644:
least a minor change which may make it a process easier (and yet efficient) to edit for
Wikipedians. Also I don't think any 'third party tool' or any 'tool' is currently better than Knowledge's own "search engine" which is not very effective, I very first proposed, and even if any exists, they mostly are highly unreliable.
2346:- articles exist for the benefit of the readers, no tenth editors. A reader has no idea how good an article is without reading a significant part of it; how vital it is requires little more than a definition. There is no need to tell a reader how vital an article is; there is much more to tell the reader about the quality.
9160:
not a good way to support sibling projects if that's the goal. It's indiscriminate and for the majority of readers completely useless given what they're here to learn about. Why show a reader a banner about wikispecies if they're here reading about the
Andromeda Galaxy? I don't see the benefits outweighing the costs.
13717:, draftifying does the trick already. There do not seem to be many (any?) totally unsourced articles that make it through NPP, so I am not sure there are any articles that this proposal applies to (the category mentioned by the nominator contains mostly old articles that have been recently tagged as unsourced). —
15314:. Articles on notable topics which would be worth having but don't yet meet mainspace standards (lack of sourcing is only one possible reason) should be draftified. That is a step towards eventually having a good article, while deletion is a step away; I think it is obvious which is better for the encyclopedia.
14499:. My reading of the previous discussions was that there is a consensus against (or at least a marked lack of consensus for) automatic deletion of unreferenced articles, old or new. Those previous proposals were weakened by a lack of clarity in scope and terminology, and it seems that this proposal is too:
1681:: GA and FA symbols are no guarantee of any kind of quality, but it is one piece of information that media literate readers should be using to help them assess the reliability of what they read. These topicons may also be motivating to editors who put articles they have improved through GA/FA processes. —
14883:. The first edit to any new page should contain at least one source. One source is the minimum we should require for any page in mainspace. One source is the minimum we should require from anyone creating a new page in mainspace. One source is the minimum required to show that an edit or an article meets
14846:- where the notability is based on the availability of sources, not the current state of the article where it may or may not be sourced. Finally, I think there is no need for this. Sending them to draft is enough for them to fix the article, or if they didn't want to fix it, it will be deleted anyway.
7616:– It'd be a big hassle for Knowledge to implement such a proposal and, at least to me, seems like a pretty unnecessary thing to do, since there already are such third-party tools. If anyone wants to use them, they should feel free to do so (and accept responsibility for any error), like with any tool.
16449:
moving to Draft with a PROD-like tag. Honestly, if the article author can't be bothered to source the article, it can't be that important. We are no longer barn-building here. Virtually every subject of any objkective imortance, and a good many of no objective importance whatsoever, are already here.
16374:
new articles that are completely unsourced or are built on unreliable sources should be draftified as part of the NPP process, even if the NPP reviewer finds that sources exist. The article can then be improved and published to mainspace once sources are added to it (same bar we put on AfC articles).
16241:
As also seen by the recent backlog drive, it's really easy to add a poor source to a shoddily started article and call it a day. It's much easier and better in the long haul if we expect the editor writing the article to establish it based on sources, rather than pretending it's equally worthwhile to
15937:
There are ways other than deletion that can be employed to clear the backlog. I would support a draftification process for unsourced articles to get potentially problematic content out of mainspace, but simply deleting discourages new editors from learning how to write articles and ultimately staying
15346:
to requiring "inline" sources. If there are sources but they aren't inline, that's a case for cleanup, not deletion. Deleting (rather than draftifying) an article only for that reason would be highly counterproductive. New editors often do not know our standards for how to present sources in articles
14976:
Irrelevant? You're the one who brought it up. I agree, it doesn't matter if sources were used or not used in the creation of an article, what's relevant is whether sources are listed in the article or not. If the sources aren't listed in the article, when second editor comes along in order to improve
14961:
Firstly that is irrelevant, secondly it's not true. If someone has written an article about a topic but not included sources then another editor can find sources to verify the claims in the article without needing to know the claims (or even the topic) exist. There is no guarantee of course that such
14292:
mostly because a grandfather clause is generally a bad idea at best: why does this only become a problem on April 1, 2024? As other have pointed out, unsourced articles rarely make it through NPP and AfC, and even if we let PROD be used for this, it can still be contested and forced to go through AFD
14268:
the reference material that verifies what you will write, and cite it. "Write first, hope someone sources it later, in practice let it sit unreferenced or CN tagged for the next ten years" should be an approach that is deprecated and ultimately not permitted (at least not in mainspace; if people want
12571:
is the second link in the sidebar. If that doesn't appear on mobile, that is a problem with the mobile view not the Main Page. We shouldn't add redundant links for desktop users just for the convenience of mobile users, especially for such an obscure and little-used page (the page views tool shows it
12114:
With V22 rolling out, the main page has become quite squashed, with very short line lenghts, tiny images, and a general bloated feel. It would be great to redesign this, probably by stealing ideas from other editing communities. The
Spanish Knowledge design would definitely get support from me, but I
9159:
largely per Isaac. If we do every project, we're making a lot of noise for very little benefit. If we select only some, we functionally decide which projects we endorse (and which we don't by omission). Neither is a particularly good outcome. I also think banner campaigns are over-used in general and
8983:
I don't think this is a good idea, beyond directing users to all
Wikimedia sites in general. If English Knowledge starts choosing individual sites to promote, and thus selecting ones not to promote, failure to promote a site will be seen as a negative endorsement. This may have an unduly discouraging
8691:
I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words into my mouth. I am under no illusion that
Knowledge is 'the best' anything. It is however, the only online encyclopaedia that has any significant readership (thanks in no small part to Google), and is thus worthy of critical scrutiny. And I'm not judging the
8326:
Side note, it's unclear what is meant by "AI" in the proposal. Knowledge has long had AI (it's search bar). I'm assuming the proposal meant generative AI. Strongly against that. Such is a black box with a mind of it's own. We don't need it to be presenting its creations as policies/guidelines or
8258:
As I suggested earlier, I feel continuing to try to discuss your proposal without the involvement of those who are experienced and ready to start planning development isn't the best way forward. At present, this is discussion is about a hypothetical project where there are reasonable doubts about its
8158:
No, no!! Never in my any statement have I ever mentioned that AI will come and interpret policy and suggest editors the next move. Sorry if I am being too expressive as lot of editors here are having same misunderstanding. Ok, so simply as it goes, AI is for new editors, so user script better be kept
7643:
Specifically proposed for new editors (and in extension can be used by others). Some newbies don't even know Wikimedia projects other than Knowledge exist, being aware of third party tools seems improbable. I don't think hassle can be the reason to deny working on (discussion), which may result in at
7103:
I agree, this would be nice. Since training / fine-tuning AIs on volatile user-provided data is a hot area of research and product development at the moment, I don't think it would be a wise use of Knowledge funds to get involved just yet. It feels like we would just be duplicating work that is being
6008:
Ah, yes, anchors, good thinking. Their essential invisibility tends to make me fail to consider them more often than not. In this context, I recken that's probably fine, though, because keeping the thing itself hidden but then implicitly or explicitly drawing attention to it in a visible notice would
5820:
automates the generation of this string directly from the archive config, rendering the four Talk header params unnecessary. Imho, they should be deleted from the template in order to prevent misleading bot notices in the Template header box when the given params get out of sync with the config. More
5617:
Well, amn't i the fool! I can't remember how long we've had TFLs and how long i've been reading them, years and years though, and until this moment i have never realised that they are on a schedule; i have always just scrolled down the Main Page wondering if there'll be a TFL. Boy, do i feel stupid
5535:
Something that I've always been confused about is why TDL has a schedule where one list will appear three days after a list and then the next list will appear 4 days after instead of just three days again. I don't see how this could be for "we could run out of unique lists" purposes because there are
5080:
It would end up being a case if changing the local checkuser policy to allow elections were to be strongly supported by the community, and then there we to be an actual successful election - and how much of a counter argument the committee wanted to put up. This sort of change would certainly require
4788:
Have to be honest, but I think this is backwards in terms of how much trust is required. Admin actions can be and are scrutinized easily and regularly, that can't happen in the same way with CU/OS. OS is maybe straightforward in the way you describe though the information involved can be as sensitive
15895:
can be PRODed. Unsourced articles aren't the same as articles lacking inline citations. He then specifies (3) "Such a PROD can only be revoked after an addition of one inline, reliable, third-party source" – apparently raising the bar even higher, since articles lacking inline, reliable, third-party
15382:
per other guidelines and many other opposers, that sources existing and existing notability is enough to not use an enhanced PROD process. I am not a very big fan of draft space (I think working in articles space where there's many eyes is often better if it seems notable. And user space or off wiki
13899:
citations would result in the deletion of articles on topics whose existence and notability is not only verifiable, but is actually verified with sources actually cited in the article. The proposal is a solution in search of a problem, as there is no problem with unreferenced new articles that could
12936:
As I have already said, independent reliable sources are needed to established notability, so such sources should be made explicit by citing them in any new article. As Levivich says, an article with no sources is a blog. Hell, when I was blogging a few years ago, I always included a list of sources
12770:
Unfortunately (that relatively little used) feature was provided by a 3rd party and that 3rd party wasn't able to keep that integration up with the changes of Mediawiki and Wikimedia for 8 years, after which it broke and there is no easy way to restore or rebuild that without significant investment.
12115:
think we can make this into a more responsive design, so that we can use modern screen sizes more optimally. There are two columns, so the arguments for V22 giving up screen space are not transferable. Easiest is probably taking one small step at a time. Is it possible to widen the main page in V22?
10219:
One idea that might get approval is moving to a single column. The current layout was well designed when pages used the whole screen, but there are very few words on each line now that we have two thin columns shoehorned into a narrow stripe down the middle of the screen with an acre of empty white
9956:
I believe it's time to consider updating the design of the main page. I'm not certain when the current style was implemented, but it seems to date back to 2006 or even earlier. Nowadays, there are numerous modern and colorful box templates available that could give the page a more contemporary look.
9895:
Some years ago Search was changed so as to show matches in some other projects, my edits in those other projects have greatly increased since then. I don't know if search also does this on mobile as I never go to Knowledge on my smartphone. But it would be interesting if we could see stats as to how
9647:
to a lot of relevant articles where we have more images on commons than in the article. I'm not against adding relevant links to our sister projects at the end of articles, but at the top? I think the only time we should do that is where the Knowledge article is a disambiguation page for a word that
9567:
I agree that more should be done within wikipedia to "help readers discover some of the useful resources our sister projects have to offer", but I don't think that banners is a good way to do it. Some user research is needed to figure out productive ways to embed links to other projects in wikipedia
5160:
Another point that I don't think has been made is that, particularly for OS applicants, one thing that is often significant is what the requests they've submitted have been like as this can give an indication of what their judgement will be like in assessing requests from other people. For example I
4002:
If you look at what proposals come out of the committee to increase their productivity, they are almost always about streamlining case management and especially dealing with appeals. That none of them relate to CU or OS appointments should give you a clue that it's really not a significant aspect of
3850:
page when it's such an uncommon occurrence seems to have very little if any benefit. The lock icons not being used often is a non-problem. And most users that want to move a move-protected page are going to click on the button regardless of the color. If you just want to gray it out for yourself, it
3481:
I'm fine with a lock icon for creation-protected pages if technically feasible (obviously not by placing a lock template on the non-existent page). I'm also fine with an upload protection icon although almost all files are at Wikimedia Commons and we don't need to invest a lot of time into improving
2722:
readers don't care about them (which I haven't seen any good evidence of, just assumptions), they're helpful from an editor's point of view. If I see a blatantly terrible article with a little green icon on the top right, that catches my attention and makes me want to either send it to GAR or fix it
2003:
is fine (which is what FA / GA icons do), the problem with VA marking was - too many to list, see previous discussions. This proposal comes across as an extremely weak "well this one proposal was voted down, let's do the same thing in a separate vaguely similar area out of some misguided fairness."
1402:
I think all quality ratings should be shown, not just GA/FA. Analogous to maintenance tags, it's useful for readers to know how much they should trust what they're reading on Knowledge. Moreover, topicons are unobtrusive and might have the benefit of converting a few readers to editors. As an aside,
15070:
What in the world am I doing that would be considered "imposing my opinion on the encyclopedia"? Comments like this is why I get frustrated discussing things with you. Nobody here is imposing anything on anyone, and this IS an RFC about modifying policy. This IS the right place to express the views
14992:
And why do some editors spend so much energy defending unsourced articles? FFS, this is Knowledge, it's coming up on almost 25 years now. The first step in writing an article is to gather not one source, or two, but three high-quality, GNG-compliant sources. If you don't have that, you don't have a
14837:
clearly state that unsourced articles have to be draftified, not PROD-ed. PROD only applies to BLP articles that are unsourced, not other articles. If this is implemented, the procedure of NPP will have to be changed as well which requires further discussion before it can be implemented. We have to
14099:
We need to build this idea that finding and including sources is step #1 of creating an article. And the burden shouldn't fall on overloaded volunteers to "prove a negative" when people don't bother with sources. But are there enough of these to be setting this up? I've done thousands of NPP's and
13904:
that there should no further proposals for the creation of an "unreferenced PROD" for the next five years. I do not believe that there is any chance of consensus for the creation of a new PROD in the near future, and the community does not have time to !vote on what is essentially the same proposal
13172:
The fundamental problem for newcomers is that editing Knowledge is not convenient. It takes a substantial effort to do so. So, one way to make this easier is to improve on the article wizard and ask people to find a few sources before citing them. I imagine that the new article wizard would ask you
12423:
page in mobile view. Instead, I would have to search for in the search bar and go into desktop view to access it. I am proposing that we include this page somewhere on the main page. No opinion on where to put it on the main page, but my first thought would be to put it the other areas of Knowledge
11587:
What's needed is a brainstorming RfC process like is currently being done for RfA. This gives an opportunity for a variety of ideas to be suggested and we can then see what sticks. For example, I'm most interested in structural change -- amending the section order and content so that the featured
11234:
Why? No clear argument for why this would be desirable. Can we be sure it would not lower general accessibility depending on the device being used to access the site? I am not adamantly opposed to sprucing things up a bit. But the oft quoted adage "if it aint broke, don't fix it," definitely comes
10557:
Fucking excuse me? How the heck are the articles that we've vetted low quality? ITN gives us some global perspective and is one way readers could keep themselves up to date in current events. DYK makes everything a bit more fun for everyone and trivia is fun. Both highlight our utility as an online
10457:
I agree that the Slovakian one is too dated. I don't see any problems with the Spanish version under vanilla V22. Maybe swap POTD with On this day for slightly longer line lengths for the latter, make Other projects full-width (and maybe unbox it), and of course adapt ITN to our format, but I don't
9199:
the entity being advertised. We already link to the sister projects in the main page (left panel and bottom) and we routinely mention relevant sister projects explicitly from articles where applicable (many articles include templates linking to specific pages on Commons, Wikivoyage, Wiktionary) and
8852:
for the same reason I don't like banner ads for donations or dishwashing soap. You diminish the encyclopedia by pasting ads for things that are completely unrelated to the topic they are searching. First and foremost, the READERS matter, and this diminishes the encyclopedia by putting information
8300:
I apologize for being unclear: personally, I do not recommend that you expand this discussion further. Instead, I think you should let those who are interested in planning development to drive the conversation, so that they can use their expertise and constraints to help direct further discussions.
8205:
You gave a very specific example of an AI hearing a generic problem and deciding what guideline it thought applied. That is interpreting policy. Your example also specifically includes a suggestion of the editor's next move: "For more information, you may ask the editor who reverted your edit for a
7805:
are active examples. AI has wide applications, and I think that there are lot of applications to it on WP too, to some I oppose just like you, but others, like AI optimized simple search, or beta tested policy chatbots are some I have eyes on, as they rather than replacing existing resources, would
7231:
Sean.hoyland gave one pointer above to a Wikimedia Foundation team that might be able to give some pointers or advice. You can also look at the foundation's pages to find other potential contacts. Think of everyone you know and if they have any related experience or connections to those who do, and
7028:
If we're going to use that analogy, your suggestion is like switching from candles to incandescent bulbs, without having addressed why the lighting difference matters, what type of lamp we're going to use, whether the power grid can support it, and who's going to pay for the electric bill. I stand
6798:
ChatGPT requires email for registration. But it also has that 2021 bias, and couldn't list any policy/ guideline's specific article. ChatGPT is more like proposal 2, but that makes it erroneous. It's also third party, so it may not be fed with new ones and also combine non-wikipedia related data it
6117:
There is a counterargument to be made, using the same scenario: If, after jumping to the top of the article, for whatever reason, one decides one wants to go back to the redirect's target location, again for whatever reason, the proposed change adds a new way to do that - Ctrl+F "redirected". Works
5024:
It could certainly create one of those community consensus crisis sort of situations. Regardless, I certainly would want a wholesale cleanup of everything related, including the arbpol, if this were to gain traction. Realistically, I think this proposal should have gone through more development and
4618:
Arbcom managing this seems to be working well, and producing both enough permission holders to get the work done but not spreading access too widely. Arbcom is exceedingly unlikely to appoint any person the community expresses a decent amount of reservation in, and is aware of things the community
3914:
I propose that we implement a community-based process for appointing CheckUsers and Oversighters similar to how RFAs are run. Because these positions require a high degree of community trust, I believe consensus should be higher like in appointing bureaucrats and interface administrators. I believe
3466:
because participants saw it as unnecessary bloat. Personally I always found them a little useful, even though us unregistered types haven't been able to move pages for a long time since it was still a quick indicator that a title was potentially contentious, but I can understand why it was removed.
1348:
and still in use today needs revision to be practical. GA ranks are varying quality; FA ranks are easier to attain for less popular topics than highly read ones where they are most needed. Removing icons could be the start of recognizing that our quality reporting system is insufficient for meeting
1228:
I'm neutral about removing FA topicons. At least that process can be said to involve multiple editors reviewing it, and the FA folks take their FA reviews pretty seriously AFAIK (unlike GAs, which some take seriously but others don't). I don't think it matters much if the FA topicon is there or not
16537:
I wasn't aware of the RfC on unsourced articles, but the consensus at that RfC is incredibly disappointing. Simply put, we should not have unsourced articles. We are supposed to be an encyclopaedia, and having unsourced articles makes us little more than a social media site or a free webhost. Just
15797:
How/when would that happen? Due to the backlog due to a handful of active NPP'ers being asked to do too much of the million editors' work and otherwise being too difficult and painful, it won't even get looked at at NPP until after the draftifying time limit runs out. Not that I think that there
15634:
You might ask, why do I demand an inline citation in my proposal? This is because an inline citation helps me to verify a specific statement in the article. If that reference is placed below, a reader would have no idea what is the specific statement that we are referring to. Just to mention this,
15630:
that new articles should have an inline citation. Why is it so difficult to codify that into policy? If you translate an article from a foreign language to English, then it is very trivial for them to copy the citations to the English version of the article or find one source that verify that this
13956:
Establishment of notability (in the Knowledge sense) requires the existance of reliable, independent sources, so if we know what those sources are, why not cite them in the article? In other words, if no reliable, independent sources are cited in the article, where is the proof that the subject is
10743:
That does look much better! Combining the search box with the first box seems alright, though maybe I'd use the tagline "Search free knowledge". I'd also recommend making the globe logo stick to the bottom of its box, replacing the whitespace between the first two boxes with a horizontal rule, and
9266:
to all forms of distracting and inappropriate advertising. There will always be sound and moral reasons behind any banner campaign - I'd like us to allow various charitable banners which fund-raise to help starving children, or prevent climate change, etc. But Knowledge was set up not to be such a
8569:
Sister Wikimedia projects have a lot to offer readers, and as one of the most viewed sites on the internet (globally!) we should help introduce readers to these resources. As you know, other Wikimedia projects include a dictionary/thesaurus which includes translations; a travel guide; a library of
8350:
Firstly, AI here does not directly indicate to generative AI, rather it may be complementary. Secondly, the first and foremost thing I propose(d) is AI in search bar, not just as significant as it looks on paper, but practically useful. It is the present 'tune' I say, that as anyone says AI, first
8058:
something similar with their internal content. We may do the same with Knowledge's internal pages and (maybe conversations/ discussions also) for editors (especially new) as I already proposed. AI already serves Knowledge's content for readers, with this editors may benefit from something similar
7514:
I have put some thought into this and I do think there could be merit for a tool to help new editors see their revision draft is violating a WP policy prior to submission. That isn't necessarily a "WP Policy chatbot" but probably something more akin to a spellchecker but for WP policy. If it could
6992:
1) The stance is like 'We have candles, why need bulb?" The very reason I proposed this is that it is really difficult for a non-experienced user (even a mid-experienced user like me having 3000+ edits) to find relevant policy, and sometimes not sure if there exists any for it even with the legacy
5815:
template has no control over Talk page archiving, but it does have four params used to generate a "bot notice" in the header box which says something like: "Archiving: 90 days" (plus a tooltip with more info). It's just a string displayed in the header, which may or may not reflect what the actual
5681:
I wish to seek to change the wikipedia policy WP:SOURCE. Currently this states "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." in the section Responsibility
5406:
Welcome to the sandbox! Anybody can edit this page and it is automatically cleared regularly (anything you write will not remain indefinitely). You can either ] the source code ("''''''" tab above) or use ] ("''''''" tab above). Click the "'''Publish changes'''" button when finished. You can click
5065:
In essence I agree with Xaosflux that the arbitration policy should be amended to align with community desires on appointing checkusers and oversighters. Thus I raised this need in my initial comment. In theory the arbitration committee could just agree to rubberstamp community appointments, but I
5036:
I'm not sure if there would be a crisis. The stewards would have to ignore the English Knowledge arbitration policy and accept community-requested assignments, and it doesn't seem to me that's likely to happen. I agree that it would have been fruitful to have more discussion to develop a rationale
4502:
Previous attempts to try this have descended into a popularity contest and produced no useful feedback about the candidates' suitability for these specific roles. These roles do not necessarily need popular editors who avoid sticking their heads above the parapet for fear of not being elected, but
2808:
addition of sitewide ratings for all mainspace articles and for all devices. The purpose of such a system is to indicate an article's quality to readers in advance, so they could anticipate whether an article is worth reading or not - or at least have a glimpse of what to expect. It's no different
2465:
The topicons are an easy-to-find, yet also unobtrusive, way to indicate that an article has received (and passed) some level of vetting. The fact that they're visible in mainspace also means that they're relatively easy for readers to find and interpret as well, a benefit that would be lost (or at
16715:
per Pppery and Sdkb's criticisms of a grandfather clause. These articles with the unreferenced tag are avoiding draftification in the NPP process by satisfying the relevant notability criteria, so it stands to reason that reliable sources can be found for other editors to create inline citations,
16607:
The issue is that when you speedily delete an article rather than sourcing it, tagging it, prodding it, moving it to draftspace, etc. you don't give any opportunity for the editor to improve it by adding sources, you reduce the opportunity to educate them about the desired standards for Knowledge
16479:
why is there a need for an inline source? It's not a strict requirement for articles in general, nor is necessary to establish notability, and it only creates an additional burden on the editor. I see many "oppose" here because of this requirement, and I was hoping you could explain the rationale
15597:
grounds. These are often translations of other language's wikipedia articles where there very well may be sources, but not ones easily consulted in English. Now, yes, other language Knowledge editions have weaker notability requirements than enwiki, and yes, some of these are just authentically
14918:
A draft with no sources is useless, it doesn't help anyone start an article, because you need at least one source in order to summarize sources. Also, while a petty concern, the editor who started an unsourced draft shouldn't get article creation credit. The first step of writing an article is to
13813:
For what it’s worth, on March 1 and 2 I attempted to patrol the category in question and see if it was possible for one person to keep it down to zero. It sort of is but you run into articles that are unlikely to get deleted but next to impossible to source, and then things get out of hand if you
13789:
So as long as the proposer reasonably believes that the deletion will be uncontroversial there doesn't appear to be any particular procedural barrier to prodding these articles now. Third, it would be helpful to see evidence that there is a problem that needs solving. A PetScan query for articles
12483:
I think there's a larger underlying problem here of it being difficult to access sidebar links in mobile generally. Some links are justifiably not present there, as they relate to tasks better done on a desktop, but the contents page seems useful to everyone. I'd like to see an effort to push the
12218:
Nobody ever seems to mention this, so I think it might just not be generally known -- seriously, go look if you don't believe me -- there is a different Main Page on the app with completely different sections that are not put together by the editing community. It has totally different stuff, some
10695:
Something feels wrong about the concept of giving that much prominence to our sister projects. Knowledge readers are hardly gonna go there and this introduces a lot of colorful icons that clutter up your attention. Previously it'd only take attention when you scroll/look down and want to dedicate
9880:
Whilst I'm not necessarily opposed to focusing on other Wikimedia projects, personally I prefer a venue that is open for any initiative looking for more participation. There are a lot of areas on English Knowledge that could either be helpful to more readers, if they knew about them, or could use
7536:
Maybe we could add that in 'beta features'. Proposal 2 or related would surely be more complex idea than 1, but it will increase the overall efficiency and quality of articles produced/ or edits. However 'AI' is the "popular" term so I used it, but the real solution would be to somehow reduce the
7456:
I still think that this is a solution in search of a problem, and that it will in fact find several new problems if implemented. The same concerns of lack of reliability apply: how do we know that the chatbot will direct people to the correct p&g page given a query at runtime? What dataset of
6993:
tools. To be clear, there are numerous similar policy pages, and it is difficult to find out where the exact guideline is located and it takes lot of time if not hours finding one. Also even, forums avoid/ aren't sure of such questions as they themselves find it hard to locate sometime (not sure).
6871:
I assumed that this shall help, or else I wouldn't have proposed it. We may not need it, but it's worth considering the potential advantages such an AI could bring, taking into account factors such as efficiency, accuracy, accessibility, and standardization all throughout Knowledge it could bring
5995:
I think this is a good question. The notice linking to the redirect is useful as a way to get to the redirect page. and it informs the reader why they are at a place they would not expect to be, but it should be displayed where it can be seen, and preferably where it is most relevant, which would
4773:
RfA, while it might be the only method we've come up with for selecting administrators, is not such a glorious success that we ought to be using it as a model for anything else, at least not when the current system is perfectly functional. And there are substantial differences between CU / OS and
4292:
The current process is that applications, which are accepted at any time, are scrutinised by ARBCOM, those that cannot be dismissed out of hand are passed to the functionaries to for scrutiny. Based on the feedback from functionaries and arbitrators' own discussions, applications that are clearly
3622:
That might be alright but then thing is, if a page is (edit) protected, then the lock is still there, even if they are able to edit it themselves. So that is why I proposed a plan to introduce the green move icon lock in the top right to be shown to all. Again, like with edit locks, the move lock
3285:
topicons. Anecdotally, some years ago, in a former life, I was observing a high school social studies class in the American Midwest and the teacher, as part of a lesson on research methods, told the class that the lock icon in the upper corner meant that it was vetted. We should be discussing how
3082:
I've nothing against the topicons; I'd be happy to keep them just because they're useful to experienced editors, a nice reward for hard work, and traditional for the site. However, I don't think we should be making this decision on the grounds that we speculate that they're useful to non-editing
1440:
By that logic, I think one could say: Why should a reader care about that one editor came to the conclusion that an article is GA quality and 5-10ish editors—none of whom are necessarily subject matter experts—came to the conclusion that an article is FA quality? I'll make a note to return to the
1425:
Why should a reader care about how vital wiki editors think an article is? The reader has their own ideas about how vital that article is to them in that moment and in general. The idea of showing all rating indicators is an interesting one in terms of helping readers clue into what they are. I'd
16190:
mean on the form?", "How do I know if I'm choosing the right template?", "What is a template anyway?" People don't automatically know this stuff, and they're already having to read up on how everything else works. I think a friendly offer of help with inserting them would be more useful. "Find a
15504:
Draftification is done at the discretion of editors and new page patrollers, who like most Knowledge editors are generally expected to have coherent reason for things that they do. Making it a binding policy would remove this discretion. Either way, it is not good: if it's meant to substantively
15325:
PROD would force that article to be improved or to be moved to draftspace. And frankly, why is it so difficult to cite one source in an article about a notable topic? I don't get the opposers' reasoning here. If there is no source in an article, how could we know that this article is not a total
14419:
In practice, this is needed because it is very difficult to verify which statements belong to which source (with an exception of very short stubs). I would say that all sentences in such an article are likely to be challenged because they establish that "this topic exists in real life" and "this
13477:
The categories track the tagging date. And iirc some automated tools update tag dates when making unrelated edits. So, it's likely the new categories are just populating with old articles. Autopatrolled editors wouldn't remain autopatrolled if they created unsourced articles nowadays. I actually
13346:
Moving to Draft with a x day prod-like notice. I'm impressed by the relentless work done by a small number of overwhelmed volunteers trying to address this problem, and I support their efforts. I disagreed with the former proposal, but this one is acceptable, grandfather the existing article and
11449:
I want to avoid doing more with this, since I think that's where previous proposals have failed - people want some of the changes but not others so it ends up a whole mess. And since at least some people seem to like this, I might try to put it up for RfC soon, but want to make sure there aren't
10597:
might be getting at is that simply undergoing a vetting process is insufficient; it is the quality of the vetting that is important, and so by extension, the quality of those doing the vetting. If, for example, ITN and DYN undergo a lightweight review which is perhaps keener on filling slots and
10248:
From a purely selfish viewpoint (which is allowed, as this is an aesthetic matter), I want the main page to remain unchanged. I use Vector 2010, and everything looks just fine to me. However, the vast majority of readers don't have the luxury of setting that preference, and are stuck with wide
10157:
You could probably get consensus for the general idea that the MP should be changed, but the consensus would break down over what specifically to change it to, as everyone has their own idea about that. As noted, this is a constantly made proposal. The best chance of success would probably be to
8008:
User scripts are add-ons that are commonly used by experienced users, while new editors are often unaware of them. Even mid-level editors may naturally find them uncomfortable to use. While volunteer-created scripts or tools are valuable, official integration ensures widespread accessibility and
7480:
Your have very valid points of concern. I think that this could be implemented step by step, whenever the community and foundation feel ready. There are lot of proposals in this discussion itself: First two are the proposals I presented, then a new one is too just let the already existing search
7428:
No, I never deemed the proposal to be the way you are thinking, I myself may have opposed such proposal. I proposed for an AI optimized search for Knowledge's policy and guidelines. There are lot of chatbots out there (including ones made on small budget) which could answer question based on web
6820:
Also, new data like various discussions going on ANI, Village pump, IANB etc. could be fed to AI so as to decrease discussions on already discussed topic, a user is not aware/ couldn't find about. Currently only search method is using Knowledge search within specific category which could produce
6237:
The aim of this proposal is to add some technical clarification to the template but also simplify its use. I find the current template clumsy looking and over-engineered in its 3-in-1 approach (i.e. certain templates can be transcluded if certain parameters are used. Why not just transclude them
5864:
The GeoHack system offers a choice of about two dozen map applications. I always choose the same application, but I have to make that choice every time I use GeoHack. It would be nice if my choice could be saved in a preference setting so that whenever I click on a coordinate I go directly to my
5688:
I believe that requiring sources on every page brings a number of problems: 1) it is onerous and inefficient and discourages linking relevant articles to pages, especially for new editors: 2) the relevant article may include more sources, mentions of the article might only include one, so anyone
4592:
Not only is the current system not broken, the community as a whole is very poorly placed to judge an admin's skill at handling those areas that are mostly directly relevant to CUOS skills; revision deletion, SPI activity, deletion-related activity at RC patrol, VTRS activity, and more technical
4107:
But I'm in favor of trying a community based system because it might be better than the current system. In general, I think community-based systems work better than representative-based systems on Knowledge. ANI works better than AE. RFA for all its problems yields better results on average than
3331:
Currently, articles that are protected from editing have the relevant lock in the top right hand corner. Userpages may not have the relevant edit lock on the top right. With regarding edit protection, it will stay as it is but why don't we do the same for move, create and upload so that articles
2784:
be hijacked by sockpuppeting, they present no evidence that this is widespread to convincingly argue the review process' collaborative editing is a net waste. While the GA and FA criteria are no different from the normal aims of article editing, the pursuit of specific quality metrics encourages
1307:
As others have ably noted, these icons provide no discernible benefit to the reader. We would therefore better serve the reader by eliminating this visual noise. Frankly, we would probably do well to reconsider the centering of FA and GA work in general. The hundreds of hours it takes to nurse a
13798:
with listed references (so tagged incorrectly but still subject to this proposal) and one that is currently up for speedy deletion. The remaining six definitely have some issues, but I'm not sure we need this level of policy change to fix what seems to be a couple-of-articles-per-month problem.
11794:
Most editors are not allowed to edit the main page and so we have a frozen format which is alienating too. What's needed is a process for making changes which allows the main page to evolve. Perhaps there could be an annual update. During the year, there would be a beta test version to trial
7063:
Also I believe that just because I did not elaborate every problem we may face with this, doesn't make it useless, and it could further be developed. However, I assume your point to make sense, and would like to further detail my proposals. And yes, we are one of the most visited website, so we
4744:
The process often requires considerable privacy. ArbCom may have to learn, or deal with, very personal information of potential CUOS. An RfA like process is incapable of handling such sensitive issues. We already ask for community feedback for candidates. Why would we want more RfA, when RfA is
3264:
If we are going to remove an icon, I would hide the protection icons from logged out users (I don't see the benefit - they are anyways shown a "view source" button instead of "edit source" if they can't edit the article). That truly is inside baseball unless you actively try to edit an article.
14297:
makes it likely to be kept regardless of the number of citations in the article. The main practical effect I see is the grandfather clause, and it only makes sense if the goal of slowly removing the protection is bought into. The problem is that consensus from about a month ago doesn't show an
4406:
I'm uneasy about making people go through the fiery pits of hell thrice total if they want CUOS. That aside, my bigger concern is the wider community's ability to judge whether someone is trustworthy enough to handle private information. CUOS isn't admin or crat, they're specific roles used to
15602:
notable people who don't have articles yet, and deleting the articles out of misguided "consistency" doesn't make sense. Better to keep the article simple and non-controversial and wait on someone familiar with the foreign language sources, instead. Keeping this situation a valid option for
11779:
The most popular editing view for Knowledge is desktop, not mobile. Alienating the site’s most essential users is a serious risk to take. If there had been no way to revert the Vector 2022 and recent line height changes, I would have been strongly alienated from Wiki and contributed way less.
6938:
for several reasons. 1) We already have a search capability, as well as numerous other features like lists, disambiguation pages and redirect shortcuts to help guide users to find what they're looking for. 2) The risks of AI misinterpreting, hallucinating, or otherwise giving users inaccurate
16735:: This proposal risks discouraging new contributors by setting overly stringent barriers to entry. Instead of penalising new, unsourced articles, we should guide and educate new editors on the importance of sourcing. Let's not make participation in Knowledge more daunting than it already is.
14598:, what information actually needs to be in it? Or should it verify some of the article content? If so, how much? If not, where are you supposed to put the citation, if it doesn't actually relate to any actual article text? What about articles that are obviously not hoaxes (i.e. most of them)?
8227:
How can any AI/ algorithm work without interpreting its query and relate it to the search results. What you mean by 'interpretation' is the vary backbone of any AI that I could propose. Otherwise what is difference between current search bar which just cares to match the words you enter? The
7319:
Proposal 1 is AI- optimized search. Proposal 2 may better suit your oppose. Also the proposal 1 is not asking for issues as it is already evident from my and others(response above yours) experience that new wikipedians do face lot of issues when it comes to make even the slightest edits, and
6451:
Each category page should go into further detail about its purpose. On core and extension tracking category pages the information would most likely be included on the pages themselves but in the case of template/module tracking categories the information would most likely be transcluded from
4633:
RfA is a broken process as it is, leading in part to a shortage of admins. Doing the same for CUOS without improving the RfA process is asking for trouble, not in the least because CUOS deals with way more sensitive data and the community as a whole is ill equipped to assess trustworthiness.
14438:
unsourced statements as likely to be challenged because the person doing the challenging must assess whether the claim is a "sky is blue" type claim (and thus doesn't need a source), plausibly true (in which case they should attempt to find a source, and add it if found or tag it if not) or
9344:
as conceptually wrong. Very, very, VERY few people, even linguaphiles, are hardcore "let me sit down and read the dictionary some" types. Similarly, even people who love reading books aren't going to be enticed by "oh hey, let me go to the local library and pick some books at random" from
16294:
This is basically de facto practice anyway. An article without sources is going to get draftified pronto. Then, either the author will clean it up, or it gets deleted in six months. I don't know that we need a dedicated kind of PROD, I think regular PROD could work if it isn't suitable for
15000:
If an editor happened to use sources in drafting the unsourced article and just forgot to put them in there, that's easily fixed. When the article is prodded, tagged for CSD, or AFD'd, the editor can add the sources. Heck, even after it's deleted, the editor can get it REFUNDed and add the
8477:
Please note that this is a discussion regarding whether Knowledge should do this in the broad sense; detailed arguments like "I don't like the suggested banners" or "but we shouldn't promote " should be saved for later discussion. Please respond to the idea in the RfC statement. Thank-you,
7166:
This proposal is in essence about creating a better search tool. It could be a good project for a university computer science department. If you know anyone with appropriate connections, or any developers with available resources who might be interested, perhaps you can suggest it to them.
2863:
I don't feel strong enough to sit on either side of this discussion. There are genuine grounds for concern about quality control and the ad hoc nature of the review process. It does seem that the topicons are very much inside baseball, so to speak. Nevertheless, despite the extreme example
15857:"All of the objections raised to the two similar proposals in the last few months still apply. I really can't be bothered to repeat them again. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here. Clearing a backlog is only incidental to this. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)"
12721:
Thanks for the reply and the advice. But it used to be that you could aggregate topics/chapters and download all of them in PDF in the format of a PDF book, just by clicking download. It would download it and create the index, with page numbers and chapters. All of it in one unified PDF
7084:
An AI that can instantly forward you to the correct venue for a dispute, find help pages for any question, or search the archives of boards, and other capabilities mentioned above would be a massive benefit to editor QoL. A proof of concept might be possible by creating a custom GPT on
1295:
Our loyalty is to the WP:READER, to whom these icons—where they're even noticed, that is (on mobile view they don't exist!)—are merely inside baseball. Their real purpose to allow editors a chance to gussify their user, talk pages etc. Stick em a table on a subpage if you have to :)
15167:
appears to be a list of current prods. Got any reports that list the outcomes of prods, such as deprod vs delete? My point is that many prods are de-prodded, which then requires the patroller to follow up with an AFD. This is my anecdotal experience with using prod during NPP. Thanks.
12937:
at the bottom of a post, so that readers could read more about the subject, if they wanted to. Not providing sources when an article is created is just being rude to other editors who are somehow expected to do the work sourcing the article that the creator could not be bothered with.
4099:
I never said I think an rfa-like process would produce a better result. The proposal is for a community based process, not an rfa-like one. I think rfa is terrible, hence my voting in favor of various reforms, consistently for years. I said I thought rfa produced fewer false positives
11748:
The most popular view or Knowledge is the mobile one and that's already one column. We should therefore be designing and optimising for that as the primary interface. The balance issue is absurd in that it often causes ITN admins to remove news entries -- form rather than function.
14164:. Beside it is very frustrating to see in AfDs the comments "there are sources available" and "normal editing can solve this" after which absolutely nothing happens. Not even by the editors that state that there are sources available (when you know that, why do you not add them???).
14016:
Based on the number of comments in opposition here, I don't think it's obvious at all. However, if it is obvious then you will have no problem gaining consensus for the amendments. Just don't claim the consensus exists until you can provide a citation proving it does actually exist.
8692:
other projects by 'Wikipedian' standards, I'm judging them by the standards of someone who considers Knowledge structurally flawed, even if its objectives are worthy in the abstract. The projects I refer to are in my opinion worse, in several ways, but mostly of little significance.
6970:
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, people have trouble searching for policies and boards. Half the time I use Google Search. Overall, there seems to be unharnessed potential, which could make newbies stick around or make learning and navigating between policies, past and present, easier. -
6965:
Is this referring to an AI generating freeform text, or referring a user to a certain page? I think that this program should probably be restricted to answering in links. I don't see a reason to believe the AI would consistently get that much wrong, or get it wrong more than a user.
16095:
Yes, that's precisely what I meant. I don't condone the German Knowledge's approach; it would be better if they used more inline citations, but unfortunately they often don't, and yet nevertheless they have useful, well-written articles on subjects we don't cover, and the articles
8280:
I have indeed invited dozens of editors shown to have expertise/ special interest in AI or its branches since you last suggested. We even have the attention of director of machine learning at WMF. I will try to expand this over now, streamlining its focus as you said. Thank you.
7001:
3) That's the other primary reason I am proposing this. Assuming that a constantly evolving policy may make the "AI" old, seems like saying editors have super power of going though entire policy updates within less time AI is updated. AI may help editors know what updates are in
2864:
highlighted above (for which I have direct experience) I still think indicating some kind of independent review has taken place is worthwhile, no matter how limited in nature...I might have an easier time supporting this proposal if an alternative was being proposed. Regards, --
1770:
of the GA and FA processes back when I was an unregistered lurker. I can imagine other unregistered users falling down a rabbit hole and potentially getting involved with curating content after seeing one of them. Also Barkeep49 presents another good rationale for keeping them.
11043:
I think people will support a new main page design as soon as they're shown a new main page design that they like. I would encourage people who are so inclined to create and share mockups of new main page designs. Eventually someone will make something that enough people like.
15040:
I wasn't the one to bring this up, you brought it up in response to Zero. I'm not saying that it's not better to have sources in a draft (obviously it is), so most of your arguments are refuting something I'm not claiming. My only point here was that an unsourced draft can be
11368:
I like a lot of that, but (at least on Desktop on MonoBook) the colored section headers only seem to have a thin border on the bottom and nothing on the other 3 sides. Much better than the es.wiki one linked above, which is visually clean but seems to lack any sort of flavor.
16273:—the majority of outcomes are either unsourced articles, or backfilled articles that will likely need to be largely rewritten anyway because the original author wasn't actually working from any sources. Better to do the rewriting first before the article actually goes live.
15505:
change the way that article creation works on Knowledge, it is for the worse, and if it isn't meant to substantively change anything, that is a great reason to avoid making giant disruptions in the public-facing process of a thing that has worked fine for the last 23 years.
14811:
So our current system works, no? None of the articles have been prodded, but those which were problematic have been moved to Draft space as appropriate. Some of those may be moved back into main space after they have been worked on. Better to go to Draft than to be deleted.
14349:. Is there something preventing us moving such articles to draft space that necessitates creating a new hammer? Also, requiring inline citations is a step too far and seems contrary to policy. I hope this isn't really what was intended and the proposal is just badly worded.
13777:. Three concerns: First, the proposal and discussion seem to be conflating unsourced articles with articles lacking inline citations. Requiring all articles to have inline citations regardless of whether any content has been or is likely to be challenged is out of step with
4128:
if this is your opinion, then I think I understand why we feel so differently about this issue. From my perspective, AE is a very significantly better board (for the situations where they overlap) than is ANI, which vies with RFA for the title of worst venue on the project.
15383:
is better at the stage where notability is unclear or if someone wants to draft an article solo.). However, I could see supporting a properly crafted proposal that articles less than 90 days old and entirely unsourced when draftified with care (so maybe a very weak form of
14132:
The greater fool theory, that someone else will do it, is not accurate: see the backlog. See the stats that show how few experienced regular editors. If we can't support our maintainers who are in the trenches doing this work, then you are right, they should not do it. --
2848:
If it helps 1% of the readers, that should be a good enough reason to retain them, unless they actually harm the site or reduce it's quality, at least for some readers. If it's 100% neutral for 99% of the readers, this should not weaken the fact that it helps the other 1%.
3630:
The reason I propose those changes is because they are shown in the relevant links but the non edit protection locks are barely used. It also tells users that the page is protected (the move option should be visible to admins if protected) With regarding salted pages (see
13235:
tools and wording changes for newcomers are instated. The risk of this detracting newcomers is high enough that I think the community should have a consensus that the new wording/templates etc. alleviate harm, and they should be ready to go before any changes are made. ―
16212:, many unsourced articles have sourcing available and it just takes an editor to spend 10 mins to find them. The problem is that this rule would be deleting potentially encyclopedic subjects written by editors that lack the expertise to add sources. Also, not all pages
4648:
In discussions about the low number of applicants for functionary permissions in the 2023 round it was noted that the shortage of new administrators was likely an influential factor. RFA's brokenness is the most significant reason for the shortage of new administrators.
3243:
Many editors have stated that finding out about the GA/FA process has made them motivated to contribute to Knowledge. I think the article ratings should be made more explicit to the reader, but if we can't bother to improve the top-icons, then we should get rid of it.
13731:
The NPP process does not allow unsourced articles to be draftified. It maybe happens often, but it's not part of the policy. An NPP reviewer is required to look for sources, and if they find sufficient ones to support notability, they are supposed to tag the page as
13616:
per the most recent discussion and disallow any new discussions on this for a few months. I've already seen several notable topics without sources or with only one source being moved to draftspace and then deleted after six months. A PROD would make this even worse.
12259:
So is someone going to let the people at DYK and FLC know that they were deemed unimportant and removed from the main page, then? If this is just being done unilaterally by the fiat of app developers, does it really matter what the community decides should be there?
13523:
In general, I expect almost all the articles in those categories are old articles. Notability would have to be completely obvious and there would need to be no BLP element in the article for a reviewer to pass an unsourced article in 2024, if someone were to start
6229:
I believe that the third group is the largest of the three. Such tracking categories are used to track missing or invalid parameters in template transclusions amongst other things. They are not integrated into the MediaWiki instance and are therefore not listed on
11062:: a minimalist interface, with a prominent search bar, to which I'd add prominent display of TFA and FP. Like maybe FP centered at the top, search bar below that, and TFA below that. But I'm no web designer though so I'm not sure exactly how that should all look.
9326:
project. I'm generally opposed to taking up screen real estate to try and recruit readers, let the readers read in peace without distraction. BTW, the way to let readers know about sister projects they may find useful is "inline," the way we do it now, with those
7489:), then we have something like Knowledge Library type, difference that it provides access to some third party model like ChatGPT fed with p&g which could be used in a while, etc. I have even posted an example of basic AI which we could think of in first step.
4051:
That is an inappropriate question and you're old enough to know that Thryd. No, I'm not going to name the CUs/OSs who I think shouldn't have been appointed over the years. But for starters, the ones who were suspended or removed from those positions would be good
16220:
lacking sources do little harm to Knowledge. What about disambiguation pages, obviously those shouldn't have sources. At what point does a list page become a disambiguation page, and vice versa? And pages with valid general references should never be deleted. —
9361:
having its first EL being to Wikisource? Great. The reader is interested in the topic, here's a link to where you can read the story on Wikisource. Or disambig pages including a prominent Wiktionary link, especially for less-used words or foreign terms like
15421:
I know this is not going to succeed, but ultimately only this approach is consistent with the widespread (and beneficial) practice of improving verifiability by removing unsourced content from articles—which can only be restored if there is a reliable source.
9321:
due to banner blindness, and due to the fact that just because a project is a sister project doesn't mean it's a good project. I just don't see the value in telling readers about other projects. BTW, I also would oppose a banner that encouraged people to edit
15638:
And why do I ask that citation must come from reliable source? Because we don't want people to write an article about a notable topic with absolutely shitty sources, like Twitter posts, gossip websites, forums, etc. If the whole article is talking about the
5689:
looking for useful information might not see it; 3) in a rapidly moving field sources may be updated in an article but that might be missed on linked pages. In any case it is easy for anyone to click on the link to see the article with all relevant sources.
4147:: I'm sorry for personalizing this discussion with my earlier comments. I thought by personalizing this discussion I could make a point about not naming names and personalizing the discussion, but that was a dumb idea on my part in retrospect, my apologies.
9327:
boxes/links/hatnotes/whatever-you-call-them that say, e.g. "full text is available at WikiSource," or "there is an entry at WikiData," or "there is media on Commons," etc. It's better to put those more-targeted notices in the place where they'll matter.
15774:
newbies worse and give less feedback on how to write an acceptable article, without any change to the amount of unsourced content in mainspace. The backlog of unsourced articles is completely unconnected to the new articles that this proposal is about.
15443:
I think it's premature to predict the outcome. A straight vote count is running a bit under 40:60 against the proposal, but a number of objections (including my own) are to specific details (e.g., specifically requiring an inline citation instead of a
15643:
and every citation in that article refers to a self-published Blogger page, then that article is just as useless as it is uncited, because we cannot verify whether that article is spewing out myths or not. Many editors here objected my proposal due to
5009:
leaves the question open. However by ratifying the arbitration policy, the community agreed on giving this responsibility to the arbitration committee, as well as agreeing that this scope has to be altered via the arbitration policy amendment process.
4095:
You know what I meant by "false positive": that people were appointed who shouldn't have been. You're not confused about that. What you are asking is for me to substantiate the claim, which is an inappropriate question, because it would require naming
13867:– Let's suggest something new. Before PRODDING, one should check for sources. If it turns out that the unsourced article has no reliable sources to verify, then just PROD it; otherwise, it should be draftified as an easy and less bitey than prodding.
13328:
was rejected. Let's not make this another topic area where people keep pushing essentially the same proposal with slightly different wording until, through tendentiousness and exhaustion, they manage to get something in (and then ratchet and repeat).
3412:
already supports move protection, it just needs admins to apply the template when they move protect a page. It cannot be used for create and upload protection as there is no page to put the template on. It might be possible to add the padlock icon to
11249:
I think where previous proposals have failed before is in trying to do many changes at the same time (e.g. changing the emphasis of different parts of the main page while also restyling it). Anyways I have a modest proposal, under the principal that
12035:
require the article to be created, expanded fivefold or made GA this week. That's basically articles which are either new or newly worth featuring. A stub which occupied the title of this week's good work for a decade shouldn't block it from DYK.
11403:
is intentional - I wanted to have a simple header style rather than having an unnecessary box around the headers. Yeah, I liked ptwiki's a lot more than eswiki's, which is probably technically the "best" in terms of modernization but is too bland.
6917:. While practicing editing is important, AI tools can greatly enhance the editing process on Knowledge by providing valuable assistance, improving accuracy, and streamlining search. They are designed to complement human editors, not replace them.
1179:. Some editors in that discussion said that they would support removing the good and featured article topicons as well. If either readers or editors are interested in whether they are good or featured articles, they can be found on the talk page.
9838:
13391:
Did you find many such new articles? New page reviewers can mark unsourced articles reviewed if the topic is notable but I doubt that happens very often. Someone would have to sort those articles by creation/expansion-from-redirect date to find
2554:, below, as to the "randomness" of GA reviews. Any bad GAN review can be deleted, and any bad FAC/FLC review can be stricken through. My point is that the existence of bad reviews is not a good argument, in my view, for removing the topicons. –
12242:
Not really? The sections are Featured article, On this day, Featured image, Most visited articles, and Random article. It's not totally different by any means, and I don't think it needs consideration when we think about a main page redesign.
8602:
less substantive WP page. If not for public figures, for intellectuals, especially politically controversial ones, promoting some of their own - such as, of course, their best critics' - quintessential paragraphs should really be the standard
1213:
Strongly support removing GA topicons. GA reviews are essentially random. It's just one editor reviewing it and there is literally no training or qualifications that the reviewing editor needs to have. To suggest a GA article has gone through
14772:. I'm not seeing those articles as any more problematic than other similar unsourced articles. I think it is better that we make a judgement about which articles we delete rather than simply sweep away everything that meets a broad criteria.
13695:
That's why there is a moving deadline to the left to clear out the backlog. Stage one of this proposal is to prevent further growth of the backlog, stage two of this proposal is to start tackling the remaining articles from newest to oldest.
13216:
All of the objections raised to the two similar proposals in the last few months still apply. I really can't be bothered to repeat them again. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here. Clearing a backlog is only incidental to this.
8080:
Using ai to help users find policy pages seems fine, but asking it for advice when it comes to editing conflicts seems like a poor idea. We already have the teahouse and help desk, and the likeliness of ai giving an incorrect answer is high.
2938:
We having no evidence for something doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true. Readers curious to find out the meaning of the icon would hover over it - it says "This is a featured article. Click here for more information". The click leads to
8236:
is just a simple advice which may be made compulsory for AI as a disclaimer for issues related to 'warnings for unknown reason'. If you still oppose the idea, please list the reason and I will try to be more objective in answering those.
4523:
A very sensitive position (including being able to do real life harm to people) which has very specific proven-trust requirements. I'm more comfortable with some experienced (elected) people making that analysis and decision. Sincerely,
3845:
I think graying out the Move button is a bit dubious from a UX perspective. The warning on the Move page after clicking on the button is already quite clear. Trying to illustrate that a page is move protected prior to an attempt to move a
4971:
I didn't want to repeat the process since I linked to it, but mostly yes. An amendment can be also be proposed for ratification if it is approved by the committee. The majority vote to ratify must have at least 100 supporting statements.
12410:
10424:
Yes, I do agree with that, especially the Slovakian one. However, you know we still need ideas from other contributors, which can be challenging. Nevertheless, I will make an effort to advocate the idea of changing the main page design.
8136:
An AI interpreting the policies and guidelines is simply asking for trouble. Nor is there a need, as pointed out above, to force anything official right now given that user scripts exist and the WMF may be carrying out its own research.
7429:
results in real time by 'searching' on internet, but the Knowledge(AI-opt-search) work would be simpler even in term that it is just based on internal pages of just Knowledge. In other words, right now Knowledge's traditional search is '
9957:
What are your thoughts on starting this initiative? After all, the main page represents our entire community. I understand that changing a familiar style can be challenging for many users, but it's part of the natural cycle of updates.
3772:
I proposed it so that users are able to see if the page is move protected or not, just like edit protected. With regarding salted pages, I meant to add, they would also be on the top right if at all possible, otherwise I suggested the
15489:
This is not a "very costly move" as you have said, as multiple editors has pointed out that this is not that much different to how modern Knowledge processes new unsourced articles. We just don't allow them to come to the mainspace.
14327:
There have been multiple recent consensuses that explicitly opposed to using prod or speedy deletion to clear the backlog, so this is clearly something the community does not want and continuing to propose it is getting tendentious.
12358:
When it comes to modern design, the Wikimedia Foundation understands that initiating random discussions here on Knowledge can be challenging, as it is difficult to satisfy everyone, and people often resist adapting to new changes.
4307:
If that summary is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it) then it sounds like an ideal way to appoint people to those positions. Certainly better than any RFA-like process. Let's remember that ARBCOM is elected by popular vote.
3226:
On one hand, it's definitely an improvement over nothing, and should minimize confusion. On the other hand, topicons look better, and nobody might care enough anyways so that these who care would click on the icons to learn more...
12479:
The portals link was added to that box as a small concession after we decided to remove the more prominent portal links at the top of the Main Page. I'm not saying that's a reason to keep it, but just historical context you should
5484:
please remove this redirect and instead create a disambiguation page of “People’s Publishing House”, so that other pages with similar names, for example “People’s Publishing House (India) can be listed on that disambiguationmpage.
1223:
16146:, PROD is the prescribed process for completely unsourced BLPs (which seems to be the majority of articles that NPP deals with). Do you feel that BLPPROD is also BITEy? Do you use draftification to get around the BLPPROD rules?
6603:
7792:
First of all I appreciate your civil tone. I understand the lack of confidence on currently available AI platforms, and that implementing it site wide may bring issues, increasing the overall time to solve. But for that you said
2779:
Opponents of the GA and FA topicons claim they are visual noise, yet they criticize the choice to not include them in mobile viewing as proof the review process is wasteful. While Levivich is correct that the peer review process
9485:. First of all, banners are bad, and encyclopedia shouldn't advertise anything. Second, because there are fewer readers and fewer editors, some projects are not really useful, and it's not en wiki aim to improve other projects.
9284:
per SilkTork. Besides, a lot of people, both editors and readers, are already frustrated by the endless, huge banner ads that get foisted on articles every December, grubbing for money for the WMF. We don't need to add to that.
5407:"'''Show preview'''" to see a preview of your edits, or "'''Show changes'''" to see what you have changed. this page is cleared regularly, feel free to try your editing skills below. <span class="plainlinks clickbutton": -->
12499:
I don't use either Contents/Portals or Contents regularly, but it seems that they are fairly equivalent, and the Portals look much nicer and have more links. I don't see the point of replacing the Portals with Contents alone –
14273:
in a draft or userspace, that's up to them.) An alternative might be to draftify unsourced new articles, and forbid returning them to mainspace until at least one source is added, but when you're already dealing with a flood,
7556:
Yeah, I do think helping new editors overcome the hurdle of their (and everyone's) first edits often being pretty rough. Structured Tasks can help with this, but the "policychecker" idea has merit, at least as an exploration.
5796:
14518:, cited or not? Those are not synonyms, and anyone who has got stuck into trying to write or salvage articles will know that there is a big difference between an article that lacks citations and an article that lacks sources.
8660:
edia, not Knowledge. This is the exact Knowledge-is-the-best-and-most-important-project conceit I've been talking about. And I wonder which project you object to— Wikidata doesn't follow our notability guidelines, Wiktionary
4108:
arbcom CU/OS appointments (calculate the #-removed-per-#-selected ratio and you'll see a much higher % of CU/OS appointments are reversed than the % of RFA passes who are later desysoped, even though both are extremely rare).
3870:
14081:
sourced, not whether any sources are currently listed in the article. We should be making it easier for editors (new and old) to contribute notable articles to the encyclopaedia, not putting even more barriers in their way.
10393:
I kind of like the Spanish version, but Vector 2022 forces the text to wrap in a weird way because it's so narrow. The Turkish version is pretty similar to en.wiki's, and wouldn't be much of an improvement. I also looked at
7904:
Note that the new editor does not know about script and rather says 'Hindi', a language. The editor need not be expert in linguistic field, but this initial gf edits should not discourage them from editing constructively in
4003:
their workload. Over the last five years, functionaries have been asked by arbitrators to evaluate 26 candidates for CU and 16 for OS (people applying for both tools are included in both counts), This is not a large burden.
16592:
We currently have many thousands of unsourced articles, the backlog is enormous. Having unsourced articles is a credibility problem for a start. With no sources, how can we verify we're not spreading hoaxes to our readers?
3290:. I've also been a big proponent of requesting Foundation staff to run user testing on some of our community design norms, i.e., banner blindness or in this case topicon literacy. I can track down those requests if useful.
13923:
that "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I do agree that retroactively apply this proposal to very old articles is a very dumb idea, but I do think that we need to
6669:
I am busy right now to handle any opposes which I surely have answers to. Next time I will objectify this more and come with clearer proposal and beforehand answer common opposes. Anyone in support may start discussion in
11588:
picture and ITN swap places so that ITN can expand coverage of its recent death entries. Issues like this can't be resolved by the editors who maintain the individual sections and so an overall mainpage forum is needed.
8228:'interpretation' I consider wrong is that WP AI is given specific cases by user, say related to NPV, and the AI presents a 'solution' rather than simple 'AI optimized search' that too based on its own 'interpretation' of
5092:
Sure, that would be a reasonable approach. We might be thinking of different connotations for the word crisis. I agree that most likely there would be sufficient support to amend the arbitration policy at the same time.
2322:
The icons are an extremely powerful motivator to get involved and improve Knowledge. It only works because they are shown by default. I'm sure it would be trivial to squelch display with a script for an opt-out option.
9001:
There are far fewer reasons to do this than not to do this; some of the reasons that I can think of off the top of my head include NPOV & not wanting to have to look into the editorial practices of other projects.
3623:
will be there for all, including unregistered users and admins. If a page is not move protected, then the lock will not show even to unregistered users despite the fact that unregistered users cannot move pages anyway.
13117:
10265:
I use the full width view of new Vector, but when checking it on the narrow width, it looks fine to me. A little narrow perhaps, but not nearly constrained enough IMO to obviate the advantages of a two-column view. ―
4322:
Mostly - except that that is the general "routine" process, arbcom also can just appoint anyone they want if they pass with a 50%+1 committee vote (we see this the most when there is a request from a former funct.) —
3037:
Related to this: I wonder what a reasonable comparison would be. (If it's 1,000 clicks, is that a lot or a little?) I wonder whether it could be compared against the Portal: links that used to be at the top of the
15467:; not sure there is much more to be said about why this would not be a great idea. I think this would go against the spirit of the project, and that it would be a very costly move in return for not much improvement.
7343:
Sorry, got trigger-happy when I saw 'AI.' I could see it working if it was used as an addition to the search. Something similar to how Bing uses Copilot to summarize search results. We would just have to be careful.
7195:
I think you need to first find people with appropriate experience and resources who can work on this type of project. This will allow them to engage in any discussions and thus guide them down more productive paths.
4072:
OK, that wasn't a well phrased question. I was trying to understand what you meant by "false positive" (which you've now made clear means people who were appointed who you think should not have been) and importantly
3510:
Alternate proposal: What if we grayed out the move button and put a lock next to it? I agree with Daniel and ToBeFree that locking the edit button would be too confusing, but this could work if technically possible.
15837:
The last proposal said that we should PROD all articles right now that does not have a source. That's absolute lunacy. What I'm suggesting here is what the community has effectively done to new articles since 2020.
11570:
When you try to get a lot of people to make a decision together, they often spend more time attacking each other than they do collectively moving in any productive direction, if I understood the metaphor correctly.
2247:
I'm piling on to say that FA and GA are very important tools for developing quality articles and qualifying articles should be highlighted. The icons are also a learning experience for anyone wanting to click them.
2105:
If my GA/FA articles didn't get the topicon, I rather doubt I'd have even known they existed, or felt compelled to get my articles to that status. The badge is useful to readers, and a great inducement for editors.
16295:
draftifying. But I do agree with the sentiment that we are no longer in the wild west days of Knowledge. Sourcing exists, can be found, and should be found before a totally unsourced article gets thrown out there.
14193:
years, and the standards have dramatically increased since then. Back then, this might've been acceptable, but it is no longer, hasn't been for quite a while, and this just codifies that. This is also in line with
13900:
possibly make it expedient to create a new sticky PROD similar to the BLP PROD. We are not being swamped with unreferenced new articles, and it is very easy, and takes very little time, to do a WP:BEFORE search. I
8259:
viability, which means there isn't any impetus to work towards refining the scope and objectives. I think the proposal needs to have more concrete resources and expertise behind it in order to get better feedback.
7537:
pressure of getting 'edit wrong due to policy/ guideline' fear from new editors, because those who have such worries are the ones who are most dedicated. And it may surely ease the navigation process like gps did.
1958:
means anyway, in my mind it serves as more of a motivational little trinket for editors, and I'm concerned that removing the most prominent area where it's featured could decrease the impetus to improve content. ―
6020:
5983:
10687:
The third column has line lengths that are way too short in the limited width. That makes the excessive space to the right of the descriptions all the more jarring. And that is in my version of V22 enhanced with
6129:
7279:
Feel like this is an unnecessary way to teach policy (and it's just asking for issues). We should avoid AI in general, and instead we should be improving new user onboarding so that we don't need this solution.
16703:
16543:
13137:
to aid completely new editors to create a new article. I think that the wizard should be shown more prominently in "Knowledge does not have an article with this exact name" notification box, as well as making
11912:
Not necessarily, there's quite a few people in this thread who would support that idea. That's also what the purpose of an RfC is: gather consensus, and if it is a quick-fail, so be it. What do others think?
4929:
12879:
inline, reliable, third-party source. That source does not need to completely establish the topic's notability (because that will be decided in AfD); its only job is to verify that this topic is not a hoax.
7868:
1308:
single article through FAC would surely be better spent improving some of the millions of articles that have been substantially untouched for a decade or more. But in any event this would be a good step. --
15732:
There is no excuse for creating an unsourced article in 2024. Unsourced articles cannot be repaired by adding sources; they must be rewritten because without the sources we cannot tell if they are COPYVIO.
3169:
without the colored title text would make the most sense here. It shows the article assessment in an intuitive way and clearly indicate links for curious readers to read more about our assessment criteria.
11258:. It could do more work from someone who actually knows how to design (I like ptwiki's main page header a lot and that could be incorporated), but all I did was basically remove unnecessary (imo) styling.
4888:
for the nth number of good reasons above, plus ArbCom just started essentially open instead of timed applications - which was the big step forward needed in this process. Lets give it a chance to work. --
3482:
the display of the few remaining local image pages. A move protection icon, however, is an unneeded gimmick that is more likely to confuse readers than to help the few editors who intend to move the page.
15712:
cleanup, in that a PROD indicates that "this article that does not have inline citations does not belong to Knowledge". And it is not wrong to do so, because it corresponds to our current best practices.
11078:
This, but for WikiProjects, which are largely bland and uninviting. This is something I've felt for a long time, but have just now worked up the courage to say... so be nice. heh. (but isn't it obvious?)
10811:
I think the portal links should be omitted, especially since previous consensus is to do so. Also, I don't think that the Knowledge Ad should be present, and I'm not sure about how the logo is presented.
6726:
Proposal 2: Proposal 1 + Giving AI more AI feel, by letting it become more than better search engine, by becoming suggestion judge for small situations. Example: You editors are creative, you may add one.
6121:
Ah, but now that I imagine myself doing that, selecting "redirected" in the notice at the top, then Ctrl+F, then just hitting Enter once or twice may be even more convenient than typing it in. Never mind!
5987:
3915:
in this way, the community has more of a say of who gets to be a CU and OS other than our current arbitrators who currently hold those positions. I would also be open to saying with arbitration approval.
10480:
I would concur that it's a good idea. IMO, some of the other Wikipedias have Main Pages that put enWP's one to shame. But as others have stated, good luck finding something that everyone can agree on. ―
5527:
1813:
per Barkeep and Bilorv. Moreover, just because mobile readers are unable to see them it does not mean we should remove them from PC readers (if anything it means that we should add them to mobile view).
16571:
have unsourced articles. Opposition centres around how to balance our goal of creating a verifiable encyclopaedia against our equally-important goals of being an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit that
13988:. If you want to change "credible claim of significance" to "credible claim of significance supported by an inline citation to a reliable source" then you need to explicitly propose amending that page.
12433:
12213:
11986:. I do not know how many new articles are created on Knowledge each day, but it could be dozens, and we only need to list a handful of them to make the Main Page show Knowledge is a developing project.
5961:
For most of the many redirects that target sections of articles, instead of entire articles, that means that this line isn't in view, which makes little sense to me. After all, if the page includes any
4904:
3929:
3924:
3626:
In addition, the pending changes protection (check mark) and semi protection (user icon) are both grey with the semi protect lock being slightly darker so all could be grey, but I still prefer it to be
4180:
I see no current problem with ArbCom selecting them, and this has the slightly greater risk of granting the power to the wrong people. Moreover, it could lead to a flood of premature self-nominations.
3287:
15365:; unclear that this necessarily resolves a problem - as the February unreferenced backlog drive showed, even experienced Wikipedians were making mistakes and incorrectly sourcing articles. Regards, --
10642:, indeed, I know no German or Dutch! But yes, a "huh" because I wasn't speaking for myself on the quality of the vetting, merely that it's a view (among others, of course, as you point out.) Cheers,
4174:
1662:
7806:
only complement them. And as they say it, something is better than nothing (being added), especially when it is promising to look at. I would also like to know 'more opinions' you mentioned to have.
6653:
3312:
13828:
This is exactly what I meant. This PROD would essentially be a formal enactment of our "unspoken rule", which is that new articles on Knowledge must have sources. A lot of people here don't get it.
7692:
a GPT with access to all Knowledge namespace articles concatenated into a single file. Go ahead and ask it about Knowledge rules and guidelines and maybe it will actually give an accurate answer. –
2879:
9063:. The purpose of Knowledge is to be an encyclopaedia, not to recruit users for other projects. If the Wikimedia foundation thinks they need more users elsewhere, they can do their own advertising.
7059:
I presented my ideas here (on proposal) as conjectures, indicating that they are open to improvement and further development. This allows for collaboration and the exchange of ideas among editors.
6234:. In theory, it is possible to have tracking categories which are manually included on pages the same way content articles are manually categorised, but I am not aware of such tracking categories.
4276:
13028:
We should also find ways to retain new editors if this proposal is enforced, because that would set an even higher barrier for entry for new editors to Knowledge. This is the reason I why invited
7006:
4) This is just a tool. I may be wrong, but it is not even a major update like enforcing new vector design on IP editors/ readers. Just a sidebar for easy searching, and policy updates will do it.
4503:
trustworthy, active admins who know how to use the tools and deal with abuse within the bounds of policy. ArbCom appointments with community consultation strikes the right balance in my opinion.
3904:
2123:, mostly per voorts. We should show more of this, not less; readers deserve to know if an article has passed some quality gate. On the topic of substandard GA/FAs, yes they exist, no we shouldn't
1473:
This is how I think about the distinctions: start is longer than a stub, but either not very well-cited or written, C is a start class article that's starting to meet some core PAGs, and for B we
12841:
5834:
4805:
RfA has serious problems and I don't think we want to replicate them to other processes. The current system for CU and OS appointments seems to work well, and allows adequate community feedback.
16392:
I wanted to correct one erroneous item which is that draftifying articles is typically an available option. Due to the backlog at NPP they are all generally past the time limit for doing that.
12018:
are new articles. I was hoping some recent change patrollers could enlighten me as to how many articles are likely to be created on Knowledge each day, to know whether my suggestion is tenable.
5146:
gets here (not in the next few months, but could possibly be later this calendar year), that we might need more CUs than we have now, particularly during the first few months of the transition.
3949:(Moral Support) I'd love arbcom to be out of the CUOS business, primarily so that we can focus on putting people on the committee primarily on the strength of their dispute management skills. —
6708:
Create AI for Knowledge by taking existing model and feeding it the guidelines and policies. This will make it easier to find relevant policy. Example: I ask AI for any policy regarding 'using
1461:
I've had a similar thought before myself, but I've come to believe that in practice, the distinction between Start/C/B-class is often too poorly defined to be useful information to the reader.
12590:
12373:
And thereby decides it has the authority to unilaterally override the community? While I don't really care what the app does since I don't use it the principles there are fundamentally wrong.
10790:
10619:
I also wonder what you mean by "hein". A dictionary search shows that it is 1. surprisingly not German 2. Dutch for death 3. French and Portuguese for "huh?". Is that last one what you meant?
5548:
2824:
1193:
16494:
Because this is de facto required for all new articles on Knowledge. Inline source helps the person who actually use the reference section have an easier time verifying facts in the article.
10234:
The white space is probably from the skin you are using. It looks fine in legacy vector. Easier to change the skin to something that you like rather than change the main page for everyone
14895:, our core content policies. One source is not too much to ask. And for this reason, there is little reason to save an unsourced draft. Without a source, a Knowledge article is meaningless.
3378:
3356:
1382:
11201:'s for Vector 2022 users? This way we could keep up the "modern" look for Vector 2022, but keep the "legacy" style for Vector legacy. I just don't know if this is technologically feasible.
7832:: For those who oppose major change related to AI, the ai need not take a very inclusive part in Knowledge's working for now, but a simple AI search like this would really ease the problem:
6165:
I will just mention that it works completely differently on mobile. Here, no matter where it sends you, a notice appears for a few seconds at the bottom of the screen, and then disappears.
15004:
Much more likely, the unsourced article is unsourced because the author didn't summarize sources, they wrote off the top of their head. This is not worth saving, nor is it worth defending.
14977:
the unsourced article, the second editor has to start by looking at sources and coming up with a summary of those sources. Then the second editor can look at the unsourced draft and yeah,
3366:. I am not ECP myself (have ~260 edits). This is just an example of what it looks like for non ECP users to try and (re)create a salted page. You may wish to use an incognito tab to do so.
8906:
I could just as easily say that proposals like this one are detrimental to the English Knowledge because they consume editor time that might otherwise have been spent improving articles.
6799:
is fed on with its response, which will make it even more erroneous. Proposal is to simply feed an AI on Wikipedian data only and program it to link specific policy it found the info on.
14591:
the deletion is expected to be uncontroversial. Does this remove the 'uncontroversial' requirement? Does that mean that this new type of PROD can be used multiple times? Or after an AfD?
3653:
Actually, edit locks do not show up for users who can edit the article anyway, at least not on mobile. I have not seen them for EC-protected articles since I reached extended confirmed.
1388:
The topicons are useful for readers as indicators that an article has gone through some kind of review process. This is in contrast to vital articles which is editor facing information.
15188:
Nice to meet you too. That link points to many articles where the PROD tag has been there for nearly a week and nobody has removed it, making your claim that that always happens false.
4957:
So that would be 100 petition signatures and a majority on an up and down vote? I believe that is what it was on the vote that removed any remaining provision for an appeal to Jimbo.--
3326:
2516:
per the commenters above. These are not mere decorations; the icons signify that the GAs and FAs have undergone their respective quality control processes, and are thus helpful to the
2305:
The proposal might be an argument for a double-check system for GAN's, but it isn't a reason to remove the topicons. They at least show articles that have been through some vetting.
12387:
It's not possible because the app exposes all the versions, so, how will you decide which style to use? If you ask each community separately, it will take years to reach a consensus.
12324:
11688:
You don't think that a larger image and prose that isn't chopped into tiny sections that resemble the old "See spot. See Spot run. Run, Spot, run." children's books would be useful?--
8635:. Several of the 'sister projects' are worse than useless. At least one is run in a manner entirely contrary to the stated objectives of Knowledge. We should not be encouraging them.
3496:
Displaying a lock for move-protected articles would confuse far more people than it would help, I agree with ToBeFree. I'm ambivalent about displaying a lock for the other two cases.
2746:
As primarily a reader of Knowledge, I find the GA/FA top icons to be useful information. Removing them would do some readers a disservice, and there is no advantage to removing them.
1559:
Per Barkeep. I'm not sure how valuable fronting the lower ratings would be (they're often out of step with the quality of the article) but I'm not immediately opposed to adding them.
11708:
We do not have an overabundance of blurbs, blurb words, recent deaths or DYK hooks. Besides size limitations, there's a reason newspapers separate every single article into columns.
2625:: The usefulness of these icons is different than the possible usefulness of a vital articles topicon. Also not seeing an actual reason listed for why we would want to remove these.
1188:
9670:
1730:
in this discussion or the previous one. The process basically works, and judging from the silence, it doesn't seem to be contentious these days. Congratulations all around. - Dank (
13814:
miss a day. It’s a tough project. I just want to note that this is a burden on editors to fix, and a lot of times adding a inline source to a plainly bad article doesn’t do a lot.
10158:
propose incremental changes, one at a time- a wholesale redesign would never gain consensus. Even a small change would take much work to convince others to support and implement.
1740:
Featured lists should undoubtedly follow featured articles in this regard. If any decision is ever made to change or remove the FA icon, featured lists should get the same result.
13167:
13121:
10960:
Honestly I quite like eswiki's, but I would only change the style, and leave how ITN and etc are formatted as is. But, strongly support changing the "Welcome to Knowledge" header
7014:
6) I am not considering myself eligible to answer questions related to financial side, as it dependent on what the community and foundation decides and how this proposal evolves.
5958:
When one arrives at an article via a redirect, the page is rendered with an additional line saying "(Redirected from )", directly (?) below the "" byline below the article title.
14313:
This is why I suggested that "In the future, this "imaginary" deadline could be gradually push backwards to tackle older and older articles, until the backlog is fully cleared."
9432:
Rather than asking readers to take an action to see banners about other Wikimedia sites, we may as well just ask them to visit another page to learn about other Wikimedia sties.
5253:
4869:
per Thryduulf finding only 42 CU/OS evaluations over the past five years, suggesting that the current system poses a minimal burden on ArbCom while avoiding the toxicity of RfA.
15015:
Knowledge articles, even if they're hosted at wikipedia.org. The starting point for every article and every editor is sources. Anyone who starts anywhere else is doing it wrong.
14765:
8984:
effect on the expansion of the related communities. I am wary of putting English Knowledge in a position where it can determine the success or failure of other Wikimedia sites.
8610:
for this precise purposes that e.g. hovers under an infobox closer to the top of the corresponding WP article rather than at the very bottom, would really do WQ some justice. (*
5938:
5051:
I'm inclined to trust the steward when he says such a situation with the stewards would create a crisis. Perhaps it would be resolved the way you suspect but perhaps not. Best,
2551:
1133:
13891:. The topic of an unsourced article is often notable. The content of unsourced articles is often accurate and verifiable. An article is not "unsourced" merely because lacks of
9468:
Banner blindness is bad and getting worse. Also, I cannot say that I endorse all of our sister projects; forcing the community to vote on who we endorse only ends in disaster.
9345:
Wikisource or Wikibooks. And yet that's precisely what these suggested banners provide: essentially a link to the front door of the library, or to a full dictionary. What is
7324:
finally. We are not a company, but encyclopedia's community which should be not conservative in approach of helping Knowledge's editor base growth in fears which make no sense.
3463:
16707:
2903:
16316:. However, there must be safeguards. 1. Draftifying is better than PROD. It preserves good text, even if unsourced. 2. The PRODing editor and the deleting/draftifying editor
5001:
I think the wording in the current arbitration policy has given sole responsibility to the arbitration committee for appointment of checkusers and oversighters. I agree that
1169:
15640:
15404:
I think that any articles without citations should either provide a source or be deleted.But there should be a ~month long period to provide sources before deletion occurs.
13525:
13113:
2834:
pay absolutely no attention to article ratings and their associated topicons. However, because I don’t think they harm the project in any way… I am neutral on the question.
13984:
says "verified with an inline reliable source from the first revision of the article" not "verifiable". If you want to change that, you need to explicitly propose amending
6279:. It should be obvious to any administrator not to delete tracking categories, but it can be stated that tracking categories may at times be empty or even most of the time.
6076:
6012:
That said, I suppose a generic phrasing like "(Redirected from to this location)" would work for both, or even all three, cases. That'd leave the space issue to be solved.
5297:
1982:
Not clear what the harm is, and if the only benefit is making people feel good about getting an article to GA/FA (by having a shiny icon on the article) that seems enough.
14100:
don't think that I've ever seen one with zero sources and just a few with zero in-line sources. The widespread / pervasive volunteer-crushing problem is zero GNG sources.
13347:
raise the quality bar for new articles by a very small degree. We already do this with AfC, where quality standards are much higher, it is nothing we don't already do. --
13173:
for URLs/book titles (and pages), and once you create a draft it would show you how to expand these fragments of info into fully-fledged "wikipedia-compliant" citations.
7437:' but much less sophisticated and easy to build. Also this would complement the search and may not be major change, it is proposal 2 which may suit your oppose. Regards,
6595:
6024:
6003:
4055:
Arbcom elections and RFAs have also produced false positives, in fairness, but I think RFA has produced the fewest false positives (proportionately) of the three systems.
1176:
15655:
I'm just gonna sum up my proposal as follows. Missing content on Knowledge is terrible. Having incorrect content masquerading as facts on Knowledge is much, much worse.
15274:
13325:
12837:
9519:~ considering how blind banners make people, how useless (and even antagonising) much online advertising is, there is no way to consider this a good idea. Happy days, ~
7981:. Wrong page? This seems like a request for software rather than something that needs consensus. Any volunteer may create a user script or Toolforge tool that uses AI. –
6016:
5979:
2718:
Oppose per Barkeep, Bilorv, Epicgenius, Aaron Liu, and others. I don't see any point in removing topicons; I find them useful and evidently a lot of others do too. Even
7797:, I would also point that we have bots, which do not directly edit and cross check the articles (as a dystopian editor-less Knowledge may have, and I oppose this), the
6526:
6464:
6174:
6040:
5661:
13928:
communicate with new editors that new articles require at least 1 cited source. We can help them to find the sources, but ultimately the burden is on them to find it.
10774:
I don't think WPAds should be isolated. Maybe it could replace the search box.Also, any ideas for how to eradicate that awkward gap below the image for the first box?
10052:
10044:
6536:
6125:
6112:
5184:
15959:- (has anyone else mentioned this? sorry if so) this looks as though it is about to deal with most of the issues raised here, to the liking of some if not of others.
9820:
6160:
6133:
5206:
2713:
16699:
11830:
11483:
11425:
10526:
6192:
6094:
4452:
What is the problem that has to be solved? The present RfA-process is quite a bit of mud slinging, so it only decreases the number of able & willing candidates.
14386:
So, contrary to policy, you are actually seeking to bypass the challenge part (for the contentious material) and jump straight to deletion (of the entire article)?
10681:
I don't know any good ways to fix this, but flushing the Welcome banner's text to the left leaves a lot of blank space in the rest of the box, making it feel weird.
8939:
No, a proposal that seeks to improve the encyclopedia is not a detriment. This, however, is a proposal that diminishes the encyclopedia, which is why I opposed it.
2755:
12733:
12626:
11207:
9969:
9794:
9698:
6613:
6067:
5698:
4852:
These roles have real-world legal effects and are required to sign an NDA. We definitely shouldn't elect them by popular vote. The current system works just fine.
4334:
This is equivalent to former admins regaining the tools on request as long as at least one 'crat is happy to flip the bit. The only difference is that there is no
1302:
13942:
This conflates notability with content; we can establish notability in the absence of sourcing in an aricle, verification of content requires sourcing. Regards,
13742:
and mark it as reviewed, not to draftify it. I would support allowing NPP reviewers to directly draftify unsourced pages, but this is not the case at the moment.
3590:
Erm, I said one comment above in support of just greying it out. I suppose this proposal would be a strong recommendation to the WMF to implement such a feature.
2647:
GA reviews are essentially random. It's just one editor reviewing it and there is literally no training or qualifications that the reviewing editor needs to have.
1376:
16753:
11982:
ways in which s/he would like the Main Page changed. I do have a suggestion, and that is we could include a box listing some of the new articles in Knowledge in
9850:
9238:, as leeky put it. Other sister projects are very well what readers may be looking for, like WikiVoyage or Commons. There should be an option to opt-out though.
6535:
Re your idea to combine "tracking category" and "possibly empty category" based on the idea that tracking categories shouldn't be deleted, dated categories like
2479:
1859:
50:
16236:
12236:
9664:
8463:
6733:
seem to help, so will this which may be easier to build. But couldn't find discussion for one like this. The proposed proposals may be amended for better use.
6268:
That one template be used for each purpose instead of combination templates or a mix of combination templates and individual templates per the current practice.
5917:. He might know whether a bit of .js or something could solve this problem. If he isn't on wiki in the next couple of days, I suggest taking this question to
4104:), but that's not the same thing as saying an rfa-like process would produce fewer false positives for CU/OS appointments. I don't know if it would or wouldn't.
16038:(1): Is it that difficult to ask for one source? Our built-in translation tool also translate the references for you, so I don't see why this is so hard to do.
15547:
12984:
12889:
12819:
12298:
If consensus determines that there are specific objections to the landing page in the mobile app, that discussion can be brought to developers for changing it.
8978:
7010:
5) Knowledge itself would not have got the success, if it was not launched due to such considerations. Solving the problems is necessary to establish anything.
5470:
3206:. Nobody except the tiny minority of high-volume Knowledge editors cares about how we rate articles. Like: there are 8,000,000,000 people in the world, and
2896:
2818:
2353:
1761:
1208:
16168:
guideline. This doesn't mean we should expand the pattern we use to deal with unsourced BLPs (which exists for a specific reason) to the more general case. ~
15770:
be raised. The proposal is about new unsourced articles and suggests to delete them instead of draftifying as we currently do. This would make our problem of
14429:
13205:
13182:
13041:
12926:
12908:
10535:
Redesign it, but in a way that removes ITN and DYK. Both are massive investments for very little return, and much of the content they display is low quality.
9917:
It probably does on the website since mobilefrontend is mostly a different skin that uses the same engines. It definitely doesn't do that on the app, though.
9413:
9151:
9011:
7820:
7787:
3635:
for an example), the lock could be displayed within the infobox or even the top right, or somewhere before the 'This page is protected from creation, so only
3197:
2741:
2634:
1788:
1604:
1576:: It's good to show readers in an unobtrusive way that the article they're reading has been reviewed and is of quality. There is no benefit to removing them.
9187:
8554:
5637:
5463:
5438:
5272:
4111:
As for you personally, not really the place to discuss that nor a topic I care to spend time on, but for example this line of questioning was a poor choice.
2704:
2508:
2097:
15823:- the suggestion has already been turned down, apparently twice - no justification for bringing it up again so soon. For the rest, as per James500 and Joe.
15617:
Do I feel comfortable to say that we tolerate unsourced articles because someday, somebody will magically put a citation into it? No. Without work from the
14638:
Maybe not this specific discussion, which is already quite long. If you want to develop this idea further, I'd suggest going back to basics and asking what
12899:
backlog. In the future, this "imaginary" deadline could be gradually push backwards to tackle older and older articles, until the backlog is fully cleared.
9230:
9071:
2796:
2424:
2300:
2239:
1540:
1362:
16200:
15984:
14761:
14212:
12895:
If this proposal is accepted by the community, it would greatly streamline our efforts to cleanup uncited articles and prevent the growth of the cancerous
10729:: using Galobtter's design for the main portion. I think a large prominent search box on the main page is a good idea, though, as opposed to a redundancy.
10598:
reducing backlogs than ensuring the integrity of the main page, then it would be unsurprising, in some eyes, if these processes came under extra scrutiny,
8865:
8825:
Banners steal our readers' attention. By distracting them and taking them off task, we slow down them learning what they're here to learn. Ads make people
8644:
5423:
2771:
2205:
16744:
16576:
instead of removing them. I don't think it's fair to conclude that, if others see that balance differently from you, they're not "taking it seriously". –
15026:
statements in mainspace. It's rather an indictment of Knowledge that this was not the first policy, and that it's still not policy almost 25 years later.
9866:, had a paragraph overview of each project, links to any welcome portals on that project, and links to any coordination or other related groups on en.wp.
9295:
9055:
8887:
8124:
8090:
5450:
5345:
5325:
3944:
3741:
If a page is not move protected, then the lock will not show even to unregistered users despite the fact that unregistered users cannot move pages anyway.
2873:
2441:
1805:
1273:
16727:
16366:
15722:
15703:
15133:
15044:
You are entitled to your opinion about how other people's workflows for writing articles is "wrong", but unless and until there is a consensus to modify
14284:
13975:
13654:
13636:
12941:
12744:
12729:
12696:
12666:
12637:
12630:
12622:
11438:
I added 1px of margin, which was missing since I removed the 1px border. It looks ok to me now, although you might be right that more margin is needed. @
11286:
I like that! It's simpler but clearer. Although something seems a little off with the header box, the lack of border makes it feel poorly-defined to me.
9546:
9477:
9213:
8844:
8799:). I think that such a campaign would be best served by a focused group of 3 or 4 of them that is more able to effectively direct attention their way. ―
5211:
4643:
2591:
2545:
2378:
2314:
2271:
2192:
2115:
1554:
16555:
16090:
15947:
15929:
15683:
13875:
13308:
13226:
13112:
If you think the new editor article-writing experience is so demoralizing, maybe we should just not let new editors create articles in the first place?
13001:
9629:
9577:
9460:
9178:
per leeky. General support for the idea, without committing to doing all of them (after all, we can't say too much about the Incubator, Meta, etc.). —
9170:
8817:
8582:
8370:"Now what if I assure you that the AI will make equal or lesser percent mistakes than ClueBot NG in terms of overall damage to Knowledge?" That's a big
8073:
7927:
7375:- I'd find it so useful to find policies and guidelines, as long as the AI is only used for that and is not involved in anything else around Knowledge.
6837:
6815:
6786:
6771:
6749:
6688:
6546:
6481:
4385:
Thryduulf gives a good summary. I don't currently suspect that the CU/OS system we have is appointing the wrong people, and RfA is exceedingly toxic. —
3794:
Why should someone who can't move any page anyways see if a page is move-protected? They can edit most of them, so edit padlocks are definitely needed.
3219:
3179:
2843:
2673:
2397:
2166:. I would prefer we go in the opposite direction and make the icons more visible and more intuitive. Readers will not know which one is more "trusted".
1991:
1977:
1824:
1585:
1568:
1397:
1238:
15413:
9525:
9379:
9336:
9276:
8386:
7971:
7945:
4880:
4613:
4563:
4497:
4428:
3974:
ARBCOM were elected on the basis that this would be one of their responsibilities. They can tell us if they think they've got too much on their plate.
3632:
2582:
2257:
2013:
1878:
1653:
1317:
16304:
16259:
15374:
14962:
claims will present a comprehensive and neutral view of the topic, but that's true regardless of whether all, none or some of the claims are sourced.
14491:
14177:
13951:
13905:
again and again and again in quick succession. It is not particularly easy to check the large number of noticeboards for perennial proposals, either.
13837:
12584:
11171:
11146:
10648:
10630:
10612:
9494:
9258:
8411:
8251:
8215:
8200:
8173:
8146:
8042:
8023:
7996:
7160:
6926:
6902:
4739:
4444:
3744:
Then what purpose would the lock serve? Why would we want anons to see them? I don't think this or "it's not used much" are valid reasons to use them.
3120:
2690:
2230:
The great majority of Knowledge's readers are unaware that there is a quality scale. Indicators of article quality need to be more visible, not less.
16765:
16403:
16345:
16050:
16033:
15568:
14448:
14414:
14394:
14379:
14357:
14337:
14322:
14308:
14111:
14091:
14026:
14011:
13997:
13454:
13293:
13268:
13254:
12474:
12460:
10617:
Thanks for the detailed explanation, though I don't think the vetting that we do is low-quality. At least at ITN we do a pretty big referencing pass.
9948:
9590:
9396:
8993:
7566:
7551:
7524:
7133:
7113:
7098:
4602:
4515:
3253:
3238:
2446:
Adding: I fully acknowledge that both review processes have serious issues, but the average quality of a GA/FA far outstrips that of other articles.
2338:
1843:
1694:
1420:
1339:
16645:
16286:
15968:
15871:
15847:
15832:
15744:
15664:
15612:
15585:
15396:
15335:
15318:
15242:
14904:
14821:
14806:
14781:
13937:
13914:
13081:
13063:
12771:(i'm not blaming the 3rd party, I'm pretty sure it wasn't exactly sustainable on their end either, they haven't even updated their website since). —
9928:
9511:
5494:
4951:
4844:
4825:
4754:
4628:
4465:
3505:
3476:
2175:
1290:
16101:
16025:
15908:
15197:
15183:
15154:
14873:
14859:
14740:
14671:
14657:
14633:
14616:
14252:
13853:
13808:
12737:
12716:
10552:
9559:
8377:
On a side note, if somebody's getting four warnings, they're obviously not somebody who's going to go to the effort to search for policies at all.
8009:
consistency across the platform. So I propose a direct integration of this feature in Knowledge's interface, and so I started the discussion here.
7268:
7073:
7047:
7023:
6957:
4861:
4783:
4725:
4535:
4302:
4191:
4032:
3955:
2222:
2158:
2133:
1735:
1673:
1622:
1513:
16012:
15998:
15761:
15438:
13673:
13362:
13336:
13105:
13019:
12557:
12535:
11820:
11774:
11615:
10569:
9427:
9034:
8365:
8338:
7879:
This could be the possible reason that your edit was removed. For more information, you may ask the editor who reverted your edit for a response.
6888:
6859:
4898:
4700:
4686:
4672:
4658:
3134:
3055:
2856:
1938:
16423:
15387:
is done) cannot be moved back to article space without adding at least one source that has a credible claim of at minimum verifying the article.
13961:
13726:
12168:
Would creating styles in the template namespace just for a sandbox in userspace to include templatestyles be an abuse of the template namespace?
11804:
11789:
11758:
10530:
10036:
9912:
9137:. leeky puts it perfectly. Most readers don't know what on Earth a Wikivoyage is, when in reality, it could be exactly what they're looking for.
8623:
7676:
7658:
7631:
7503:
7468:
7451:
7416:
6471:
4923:
4814:
4479:
3969:
3860:
16525:
16503:
16489:
16384:
16137:
15522:
15499:
15484:
15302:
14482:
methods are better ways to address this issue than quickly deleting new articles. Such as a more leisurely deletion process or drafification.
13769:
13705:
13386:
11889:
11850:
11834:
11521:
11507:
11487:
11429:
11413:
11395:
11377:
9769:
9755:
9123:
9109:
9096:
8445:
7756:
7731:
7701:
7598:
7584:
7395:
6980:
4768:
4398:
4219:
4205:
2455:
1490:
1468:
16617:
16467:
16109:
14462:
12765:
12690:
12517:
12129:
Since I've noticed that many people prefer the Spanish version, I believe we should focus on structuring this discussion more effectively now.
11244:
11093:
9856:
Maybe rather than banners for individual projects, there could be a banner about sister projects in general linking to a page that transcluded
9727:
9441:
8771:
8757:
8701:
8686:
8487:
8310:
8295:
8268:
7241:
7226:
7205:
7190:
7176:
6342:
4587:
4317:
4037:
Please can you give some examples of these "many false positives" and explain how a different process would have produced a different outcome.
3838:
3805:
3789:
3767:
3662:
3648:
3520:
3398:
3274:
3106:
3077:
1917:
1127:
1123:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
13539:
13518:
13489:
13472:
13443:
13424:
12027:
12009:
11597:
11128:
11109:
10308:
10056:
9311:
8953:
8934:
8920:
8901:
7363:
7338:
7307:
5598:
4270:
4236:
3997:
3491:
2563:
2528:
are that way. The reader may not know what they mean initially, but they'll certainly know if they click on them - the solution is to make it
2466:
least reduced) if the indicators were kept confined to talk pages. (I also second the comments made by Barkeep, Bilorv, and The Night Watch.)
1747:
16602:
16587:
14717:
14701:
12660:
12492:
12368:
12342:
That's because the app doesn't use the main page as its landing page, and that's what JPxG's talking about, though I consider it irrelevant.
11532:
Probably, yes it is time, however the problem is not to change the design, it is how to herd the cats without them canabalizing themselves. —
11267:
11224:
11187:
10955:
10806:
10692:. Under the normal limited width all the columns have line lengths that are too short and the sister projects' descriptions run off the page.
10673:
10499:
10434:
10415:
10388:
10324:
10073:
10007:
9882:
9842:
9743:
9616:
the sister projects, and picking which ones to advertise seems wrong (and will probably get bogged down in a huge no-consensus RfC anyways).
9602:
9433:
9370:
more aggressively, sure. That might be a good way to spend time. But these banners don't have any relevance, and therefore aren't useful.
9195:- Advertising (especially in banner form) is annoying and intrusive, distracting and wasting of screen space. It doesn't matter how noble or
9045:
8985:
8728:
8302:
8275:
8260:
7860:
WP AI: I found the following guideline regarding the usage of Indic script (which the Hindi language is predominantly written in) in infobox:
7233:
7212:
7197:
7168:
5768:
5732:
5690:
5558:, it's because TFL appears Mondays and Fridays, aligning with days of the week. That seems to work fine, so I don't see a need for a change.
5521:
5500:
If they really are of equal importance then a two-entry disambiguation page may be the best solution. However, the new article you created,
5286:
5094:
5067:
5038:
5011:
4973:
4943:
4058:
But you really should be ashamed for asking for names. I'll give you one name: yours. That's not nice but neither is what you just asked me.
3717:
Oh, I see what you are talking about now. I think that the padlock would be a type of topicon, and those really should be visible on mobile.
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
15457:
15264:
12856:
unsourced articles, because currently there are still new articles that does not have sources attached to it (see the 2023/2024 category at
12608:
12199:
11963:
11949:
11733:
11473:
11459:
11359:
11343:
11329:
11295:
11053:
10983:
10919:
10899:
10881:
10867:
10853:
10839:
10821:
10785:
10769:
10755:
10738:
10721:
10469:
8546:
5155:
4798:
4663:
I don’t disagree in the slightest. I was just hedging to avoid nitpicking about all the possible factors that lead to a shortage of admins.
3983:
3726:
3712:
3696:
3678:
3615:
3601:
3585:
3550:
3536:
2954:
2615:
1403:
I think the distinction that's been drawn between quality ratings and vital article status is strained. Both are done through the work of a
1156:
topicons for good and featured articles. I find it very unlikely that consensus will change from here given the overwhelming !vote to keep.
16417:
15080:
15065:
15035:
14971:
14956:
14942:
14689:
14063:
13823:
12788:
12353:
12163:
11719:
11701:
11683:
11667:
11649:
11633:
11580:
11281:
11008:
10969:
10516:
10210:
10149:
9999:
It still looks good on Desktop and even on my phone, in Monobook and Minerva. Everything is in one column and the content is very readable.
9809:
9713:
7104:
done elsewhere. At the current pace of development, I would expect that production-ready open source systems that do this are not far off.
5612:
5580:
5359:
4372:
4358:
4347:
4329:
4261:
The last year in which CUOS were selected by the community (it has been done before) was a disaster for providing the relevant privileges.
4156:
4138:
4120:
4090:
4067:
4046:
4012:
3336:
3322:
3156:
2931:
2141:. This does not really seem like a good idea to me; if there's a bunch of crappy GAs we do not need to address topicons to deal with them.
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
101:
16174:
16155:
15896:
citations aren't the same as articles merely lacking inline citations. There must be clarity on what exactly is proposed to be changed. –
15351:
15108:
14928:
14913:
14127:
13403:
12396:
12382:
12179:
11933:
11903:
11071:
10229:
10105:
9984:
6777:
Re proposal 1, ChatGPT can already answer this question decently. Presumably its training data includes pages in the Knowledge namespace.
5930:
5853:
5566:
5316:
5195:
3298:
3032:
2914:
1253:
16437:
15618:
12914:
12138:
12124:
11549:
11313:
10452:
10284:
10258:
10243:
10189:
9890:
9875:
6618:
Summary: Renamed user g5s6n3yi8z7g08cs made unapproved automated edits performing various tasks over the course of a couple months using
5996:
usually be at the redirect target. At the section header would be appropriate for R to section. Not sure about R to anchor. Cheers · · ·
5170:
5075:
5060:
3430:
1999:. The provided rationale is extremely unconvincing - "some people mentioned it?" Lay out the case yourself if you believe it. Marking
1454:
1435:
16639:
section, I'm not too worried that the references aren't "inline" and require some syntax formatting to not have it summarily deleted. —
15809:
11995:
11565:
11036:
10087:
8436:
Despite some support for the idea, clear consensus holds that banners advertising sister projects should not be run on the front page. —
8186:
be related to editor's problem. Reading the policy/ guideline page and deciding next move is solely editor's responsibility and choice.
8110:
be related to editor's problem. Reading the policy/ guideline page and deciding next move is solely editor's responsibility and choice.
5113:
5102:
5087:
5046:
5031:
5019:
4996:
2197:
also noting that I will support introducing FA and GA topicons to mobile and apps, but not supporting the entire removal of the badges.
2076:
2039:
1896:
16232:
14148:
13572:
12293:
12277:
12254:
12104:
12088:
10167:
5822:
5802:
5776:
5762:
5740:
5726:
5143:
4986:
Maybe ... while changing the arbcom policy requires those hoops, changing the cu/os polices don't really. This would really need to be
4981:
4966:
3753:
With regarding salted pages (see red link example for an example), the lock could be displayed within the infobox or even the top right
16682:
16663:
12333:
9831:
5905:
4939:
4935:
4285:
4254:
16539:
15784:
15543:
14405:, and nowhere does it say that deletion of the article is the appropriate course of action for verifiable but not verified material.
13761:. From above, it appears that newly created unsourced articles are already sufficiently handled by our existing rules and processes.
13606:
12309:
12074:
9823:
about the appropriateness of displaying the banner for Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month globally without any geographic targeting.
6099:
Definitely "in addition", rather than "instead of". At the very least, this would help editors whose muscle memories have them press
5882:
13690:
12045:
11478:
Another idea would be to use light gray rounded rectangles, because rounded rectangles are a very common part of modern web design.
10521:
I think that it’s probably best to make changes one by one, so that consensus would be more likely. Like one change per discussion.
10095:
5336:
I think it is a good idea, and it seems more user-friendly. It draws more attention to itself, but I don't think that is a problem.
3001:
2971:
1716:
14039:
I agree with DonaldAlbury above: the point of having one source, no matter if it's not reliable, or trivial, is to ensure that the
13781:
and quite a jump from settled practice. Second, is is not clear what it means for the affected articles to be "eligible" for PROD.
13751:
13126:
9586:
6371:
6198:
5138:
This is a tangent, but if any of you are willing to take on these roles, please consider volunteering. I am worried that whenever
2475:
1367:
The top-icons lack context. I'm in favor of removing them or improving the top-icons to something that make more sense to readers.
9357:
that the reader has already shown themselves interested in, hence them being at an article in the first place. So something like
8762:
Is it your intention to get into long-winded discussions with everyone who participates here, or just the ones you disagree with?
3018:
2487:
per Voorts. Acknowledging the lack of professionalism at WikiProject Good Articles, the icons at top mean something. I'd suggest
15852:
My bad - I should have implied "substantially similar", not "identical". On which, I'll just quote a brief comment from up above:
14947:
It doesn't matter if they were used or not, if the sources are not listed in the draft, the draft is not helpful to anyone else.
13158:
easier to understand for new editors. But we need new editors and we MUST NOT make Knowledge harder for newcomers to contribute.
9800:
One could look at siteviews of projects, number of edits made, number of active users... and see if there was noticeable change.
7781:
7663:
I don't think that things shouldn't be done because they are hard to do. I just personally think that it's not worth it. I'd say
6591:
6522:
6460:
5585:
I think the "every Monday and Friday" pattern makes it easier for people to know when to look for it than your proposal would. --
2988:
and changed the links in the template accordingly, so after a month or so we should have good data on how many clicks these get.
1226:
who had hundreds of GAs that turned out to be full of misinformation (and copyvio and other stuff, the editor ended up indef'd).
16081:
I wouldn't personally want to emulate this approach, but it is something to think about as a potential source of complications.
15648:, but why is it so hard to ask people just cite one of those excellent sources to the first sentence, to verify that this topic
14909:
Isn't the reason to draftify an article exactly so that it can be brought up to mainspace standards before living in mainspace?
13787:
the page is not a redirect, never previously proposed for deletion, never undeleted, and never subject to a deletion discussion.
12992:
Number two is extremely difficult. Anyone who knows English could be a new editor. There are many hundreds of millions of them.
11348:
Can't we add padding to the bottom of TFA, like ptwiki seems to do? Also the manual alignment doesn't seem to be working for me
10558:
encyclopedia and good work on our behalf. Removing it would make no sense at all. It has worked, it is working, and it returns.
3335:
The only way to see the green (move) and blue (create/also known as salting) lock is if the URL was typed for some reason, like
3113:
I have occasionally told people who have questions about whether/when Knowledge articles are reliable to look for the topicons.
2213:. Do not see any positive from this action. On the contrary, will be some amount of value subtraction (if that is even a term).
1609:
Why? I think it's a convenient way to show that articles are of a decent quality to our readers. It's not causing any problems.
13029:
10315:
As Joe Roe said, Wikipedians are usually a little less open to change than a cube of iron. But do you have any specific ideas?
4077:
you think an RFA-like process would have produced a different result. I will also follow-up your answer regarding me by asking
67:
16408:
Do we need to increase the time limit that articles can sit in draftspace … so NPP can work through their perennial backlogs?
14842:
where alternatives before deletion have to be considered before moving on to the deletion. This proposal also didn't consider
14662:
I wish that the opposers would detail more about what this proposal is missing rather than just regurgitating talking points.
11604:
We're currently kinda designing some layouts, so a more formal workshopping process should begin when we have more proposals.
11602:
I don't think expanding coverage of RD entries is needed much, and the POTD often needs a dedicated row due to its image size.
7181:
Yes, AI optimized search tool is the first and foremost thing I proposed. Other things can be discussed within the community.
5682:
for providing citations. I propose amending this with the additional sentence "Sources may be contained in a linked article."
5005:
states that local elections can still be preferred over appointment by the arbitration committee, and it could be argued that
14208:
13791:
13595:
and move on. Others might choose to bat it back and forth to draftspace a few times first, but the end result is the same. –
12798:
12725:
It really was a great tool for creating, in seconds, a PDF book of topics you liked including an index, page numbers and all.
12616:
10439:
With all due respect, the gradients in the Slovakian one make it look very dated, like an early-2000s PowerPoint template. --
9860:
9718:
Adding 'sister project' banners is inevitably going to make other content less likely to be seen, given finite screen sizes.
9147:
8853:
in the way of what they came for: verifiable facts about a topic. We aren't here to promote anything, including ourselves.
6963:
The risks of AI misinterpreting, hallucinating, or otherwise giving users inaccurate information about policy is non-trivial.
6392:
5501:
1913:
16426:, but I noted at the time that the specific figure of 90 days was just a starting point that can and should be revisited. –
15798:
are very many completely unsourced new articles. The pervasive problem is lack of GNG sources for articles that need those.
12572:
is the least used link in that part of the sidebar). Incidentally, the correct place to suggest changes to the Main Page is
11197:
Is it possible to have, say, the current main page visible to users with the Vector legacy skin, but a main page similar to
8614:, where a special "featured articles" modality was, however, discerned as a likely prerequisite for all of this though...)
4484:
The last attempt at community-based CUOS appointments was a total failure, and the current system is more than good enough.
87:
14624:, I think all of these concerns are very valid and thus this proposal is not complete. Should I move this to the idea lab?
14366:: "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an
12831:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
10048:
8457:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
6700:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
5673:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3525:
IMO just greying it out would be enough. Putting an icon draws too much attention to it for an otherwise icon-barren menu.
3468:
2764:
2265:
Might actually reduce the amount of FAs and GAs that will start coming out because there will be less motivation to do so.
1345:
1144:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
16775:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
9944:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
8421:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
8301:
That will make it very concrete from both their perspective and the community's. Thanks for getting more people involved.
5792:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
5180:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
3308:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2887:, as far as I know, we have no evidence that ordinary readers have any idea that those topicons exist or what they mean.
2067:
change being proposed? You shouldn't start an RFC as just a thought experiment, that's what a normal discussion is for.
16752:
This proposal also fails to take into account pages that don't require sources, such as lists of lists - see for example
13631:
12640:
Do you have a link to what it would look like/an old documentation, so we have more detail on what it'd be about? Cheers
11826:
11654:
No, that would be allowing the text and images to spread across the screen instead of being cramped into tiny corners. --
11479:
11421:
10522:
7156:
6643:
5409:
If you are logged in, you can access your personal sandbox: "''''''". ] in sandboxes.<span style="font-size:85%;": -->
4555:
4418:
2419:
2290:
15018:
Someday, more Knowledge editors will come to realize this, and eventually Knowledge will actually as a matter of policy
12704:
12677:
was removed from Wikisources because it was broken and redundant to a newer tool, but it appears to work on enwiki (see
8055:
6730:
2536:
so. There are some valid issues with the GAN and FAC processes, but they are in no way relevant to the use of topicons.
1593:: per Barkeep, however, the GA topicon was a bit confusing to me when I was only a reader and I wouldn't mind a reform.
15925:
12813:
After a full month of discussion, it seems fairly clear that this proposal does not have consensus for implementation.
12456:
11443:
9819:: Those here concerned about excessive banner use (or, conversely, wishing we'd use banners more) may be interested in
9760:
It depends what the final design is. Presumably the design used for mobile will be much smaller than that for desktop.
8462:
Should Knowledge run a period of banners (one or multiple weeks) encouraging readers to use and edit sister projects? (
6605:
6587:
6518:
6456:
6363:
6296:
6081:
This would've been a perfect technical wishlist submission if they hadn't just gotten rid of the technical wishlist. --
5918:
5709:
I'm not too familiar with how things work here at the village pump but I believe policy changes should be discussed at
5430:
3450:
2573:. These icons bring more visibility to the assessment project, motivate editors, draw in readers, and are informative.
83:
45:
40:
17:
16508:
My understanding is that they are only required for GA/FA, as well as for contentious material and direct quotes (per
16422:
The time limit North8000 is talking about is that articles already than 90 days shouldn't be moved to draft. That was
14748:- here are, at time of writing, the latest uncited articles created today which under this proposal would be prodded:
9502:
to banners for non-Knowledge good causes. Raise awareness for sister projects where relevant, do not use banner ads. —
7858:
Editor: I added name of subject in Hindi in information box at right side, but somebody removed it and warned me. Why?
6629:
15622:
14919:
gather sources; people who write stuff off the top of their head are just blogging, not writing a Knowledge article.
14643:
13409:
First one I checked from March 2024 was created by an autopatrolled editor, so even NPP wouldn't see it necessarily.
13371:
12896:
12857:
11384:
I believe that whatever we think about the rest of it, we should adopt the first box of the eswiki/ruwiki main page.
9292:
8669:, Wikisource has no citations at all (!) Wikifunctions is just a bunch of code or something, Wikivoyage goes against
6895:
Sounds like a solution looking for a problem. You only get familiar with current expectations by doing more editing.
6671:
6658:
6212:
57:
15891:
is proposing here. The header claims the proposal is (1) "deprecating new unsourced articles". But then he says (2)
12621:
The Book Creation Tool was an amazing, fantastic, super useful tool. It is an obligation to bring it back. Cheers.
11300:
I like it, but I think the margins around each section need to be a little more generous if there are no borders. --
10399:
6238:
explicitly on category pages instead if they are needed?). To complicate things further, there is a template called
5446:. This makes the reset option more visible. It might make people pay less attention to the heading, but I doubt it.
1525:. The topicons are useful, and have been this way for a long time. What exactly is the advantage of removing them? –
16301:
13152:
11255:
11213:
The current main page has no problems to view in Vector 2022. That said, it should be possible with CSS selectors.
10802:
10030:
9474:
8840:
6321:
6272:
5555:
5229:
Hello! In case you're wondering, my suggestion is to make the "Click here to reset the sandbox" link go from this:
4839:
4751:
2373:
2112:
16059:, while you're thinking about translation, take a look at the German-language Knowledge. Check out articles like
11672:
Why would we need all the text and images to spread across the screen? They don't gain anything from being wider.
9704:
Those links are hard to find and do little. Especially for mobile readers, they are unlikely to be actually seen.
6586:
The purpose of the category and how long it is expected to exist should be specified on the category page itself.
16070:
Even among their TFAs, which AFAICT do have inline citations, they may be sparse. Several this month (including
13248:
12185:
10493:
10278:
8811:
8611:
7775:
7714:
5710:
5476:
2751:
1971:
1507:
35:
10944:). It's OOUI, modernized and is in a familiar layout, though I might make the "other projects" part full-width.
10760:
I'm not sure about the search box, but I like the top banner otherwise, especially the logo in the bottom left.
16228:
15229:
14769:
12143:
Yep. We should start a prototype and maybe an official RfC once we have a good example of what it'd look like.
11763:
Remind me what happened the last time a bunch of editors thought Knowledge was optimizing for the mobile view.
11697:
11663:
11629:
11334:
That's done manually by admins each day since aligning depends on how much content is in each of the sections.
8425:
8102:
AI (if build in chatbot form) would not be asked doubts/ queries regarding existing policy known to editor. At
5603:
If you want to have more TFLs (no idea whether that is a good idea or not), just go for three times per week. —
5594:
2943:
which begins with "Featured articles are considered to be some of the best articles Knowledge has to offer". –
2279:
The FA topicon linked to the first projectspace page I read. It probably contributed to me becoming an editor.
1640:
94:
16075:
14478:. It is necessary that articles be based on sources, but not that the sources be cited in-line. Other, less
13559:
I draftify all new unsourced articles I see, but sometimes the creator tendentiously undraftifies it, and per
12079:
And most of those articles are probably pretty bad. DYK fills that role, and DYK is at least slightly vetted.
7849:
Anachronistic names, Changed names, Multiple changed names, Pseudonyms and stage names, Hypocorisms, Nicknames
5539:
So I propose that Todays Featured List should appear every 3 days instead of every 3-4 days on the main page.
15905:
15539:
15282:
14981:
the unsourced draft will magically be a perfect summary of the sources. This is, obviously, highly unlikely.
14681:
14248:
14059:
13142:
13007:
12656:
12159:
12070:
11929:
11885:
11004:
10643:
10607:
10513:
9254:
9016:
NPOV only applies to articles. If we start interpreting it that strictly, then we're going to need to delete
7752:
7688:– Don't think this should be an official tool. I support any unofficial ones that people want to build. I've
7391:
6539:
don't fall under that generalization. Once their month has passed and they've been emptied, they're deleted.
6370:
of the project and may be empty occasionally or even most of the time. Its name is localised via the message
6320:
of the project and may be empty occasionally or even most of the time. Its name is localised via the message
6283:
6239:
6156:
5972:-type dab templates, those are placed as section hatnotes, not article hatnotes, which makes a lot of sense.
5456:
5223:
1297:
10689:
10134:
to lend us their expertise and create something new – subject to community-agreed goals and constraints but
9358:
8748:
edia objectives, and then you say that you aren't judging them by Wikipedian standards. I don't understand.
7622:
though, I just see it as another solution to a problem that already has (or is close to having) a solution.
5066:
think the community wouldn't feel satisfied by an approach that relied on the benevolence of the committee.
16499:
16131:
gives the often new editors more time to rectify sourcing issues and gives them more venues to get help. ~
16046:
15843:
15718:
15660:
15495:
15427:
15331:
15289:
uncited new article about a BLP should be subject to deletion after a week's notice but an equally uncited
14869:
14802:
14667:
14629:
14425:
14375:
14318:
14007:
13971:
13933:
13833:
13701:
13650:
13264:
13201:
13178:
13163:
13077:
13037:
12980:
12922:
12904:
12885:
12817:
11142:
5420:
5367:
5322:
5250:
4919:
3249:
3193:
3175:
3089:
we have a limited amount of evidence suggesting that they're not (or that the utility is very limited), and
2710:
2471:
2124:
2035:
1892:
1856:
1486:
1450:
1416:
1372:
62:
5504:, currently has only one primary source and may be at risk of deletion. Even if the new article remains,
16217:
16003:
For the proposer's reason. (Sorry about where I put the comment, I was clicking the wrong reply button.)
15445:
14790:
14749:
14731:
There is already a process that works (draftification through NPP), there is no need to complicate that.
12784:
11545:
11030:
10138:
a crude yes/no vote on using it (which would inevitably fall afoul of the "change is bad" phenomenon). –
9903:
9655:
9612:
per Wugapodes and because banners are an inconvenience to readers. I can't get on board with advertising
8086:
7667:. If such a feature is implemented, good. If not, that's fine too. Just wanted to add my opinion here :)
7357:
7301:
6247:
4352:
That process is also generally done in secret without requiring an opportunity for community feedback. —
3318:
1867:
Like voorts, I would not object to all ratings being shown. In fact, I use a plugin that does just that.
1726:
per all the opposers, but I'm mainly here to comment: I consider it a win that no one has even mentioned
1335:
1159:
13457:. (The article has since had one of its external URLs changed to a ref to remove it from the category.)
10844:
Oh, ok. Still, the portal links need to go, and I'm not sure why we only display 1/4 of the globe logo.
7871:, the use of Indic sript in India related articles is to be avoided for multiples reasons listed below:
3325:(To see what it looks like to try and move a protected page. non admins only). Originally posted at the
2183:- Nothing wrong in letting readers know which articles are trusted and have underwent community review.
1244:
Actually, I support removing FA top icons too. I'd forgotten that most FAs no longer meet the criteria.
15513:
15475:
12955:
12947:
I envision that there will be three things that needs to be done before this proposal can be enforced:
12541:
12440:
12268:
12227:
12005:
11496:, our design language, never use them. That would be completely alien to the rest of the encyclopedia.
10115:
8974:
7769:
6276:
6262:
6243:
6231:
6204:
5896:
5509:
5505:
4745:
concededly broken? (case in point: the concurrently running RfA RfC). If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
3203:
2997:
2853:
2814:
2747:
2350:
2149:
1744:
1618:
86:. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either
15598:
unsourced in the other language too. But this case is large enough that there will still be cases of
14933:
Just because sources are not explicitly listed does not mean they weren't used when writing the page.
14605:
This would be a massive change to our inclusion standards. It needs to be properly thought through. –
11401:
colored section headers only seem to have a thin border on the bottom and nothing on the other 3 sides
7837:
User: I am editing person's article, but she has lot of names, I want to write all of them, what I do?
6286:
be reduced to a simple message box for those maintenance categories which are not tracking categories.
5975:
Why not show the notice below the section title, either instead of or in addition to where it is now?
2984:
16222:
16196:
16008:
15980:
15691:
15278:
13664:
Unsourced articles are bad but etching explicit grandfather clauses into Knowledge's rules is worse.
12531:
12470:
12429:
11800:
11754:
11593:
10545:
9409:
9300:
These are going to be normal-sized. It seems more useful than displaying edithon notices to readers.
9017:
9007:
8925:
By that logic, every proposal here is detrimental because they take time away from editing articles.
8744:
You first say that we should not encourage our sister Wikimedia projects because they go against Wiki
8360:
8290:
8246:
8195:
8168:
8119:
8068:
8018:
7966:
7922:
7815:
7726:
7653:
7546:
7498:
7446:
7333:
7222:
7186:
7152:
7109:
7069:
7019:
6922:
6883:
6832:
6810:
6782:
6766:
6744:
6683:
5350:
Agree, I think it's better for users new to the sandbox to have it emphasized that you can reset it.
4696:
4668:
4639:
3940:
3920:
3166:
2735:
2630:
2488:
2362:
1924:
1907:
1781:
1599:
1407:
and both indicate something important to the reader about how the community has assessed an article.
1204:
1184:
16071:
2959:
The vast majority of readers don't see these anyways because they are not displayed in mobile view.
16740:
16694:: If this is going to be a new policy, then it must apply to all articles. Old articles cannot be
15535:
15164:
14232:
is not fake. These unsourced articles should at the very least be moved to a draft, in my opinion.
13134:
10603:
10300:
8619:
8382:
7941:
6649:
6567:
5376:
4424:
4023:
Per nom and above, and also the arbcom appointment process has generated too many false positives.
3856:
3636:
3501:
3472:
2500:
2296:
2093:
12964:
Communicate to new editors that articles on Knowledge must have reliable sources cited, and it is
6716:. There are already AI's like pdf readers, which you can feed on with pdf and ask questions on it.
2978:
1175:
We recently rejected a proposal that would put the vital article topicon on the page. Discussion:
16723:
16495:
16476:
16362:
16056:
16042:
15886:
15839:
15714:
15699:
15656:
15491:
15327:
15293:
article about, say, a sports team or a business shouldn't be allowed to follow the same process.
15178:
15128:
14865:
14798:
14663:
14642:
purpose a mandatory citation for each new article would serve (i.e. beyond just removing it from
14625:
14421:
14371:
14363:
14314:
14003:
13967:
13958:
13929:
13829:
13697:
13646:
13623:
13260:
13197:
13174:
13159:
13073:
13033:
12976:
12938:
12918:
12900:
12881:
12814:
12712:
12582:
12219:
sections are missing and there are sections that only show up on the app's main page, et cetera.
11152:
11138:
10395:
10177:
10174:
10069:
9837:
During the brainstorming session for the 2021 RfA review, I suggested having regularly scheduled
9752:
9226:
9107:
9069:
8947:
8914:
8881:
8470:
8405:
8211:
8142:
8038:
7991:
7801:
have proven to be very effective in side tasks other than automating repetitive tasks. Bots like
7217:
Okay. Can you tell where could I search for such people who may have related experience? Thanks,
6899:
6637:
6073:
5490:
4876:
4549:
4491:
4412:
3245:
3189:
3171:
3125:
Question: how often are ratings/topicons reevaluated and lowered due to subsequent crappy edits?
2927:
2792:
2467:
2411:
2284:
2235:
1954:
1852:
1535:
1368:
15862:
I could add to that but it would be pretty much what James500 and Joe have already said better.
12093:
A DYK hook can be extracted from nearly every article that satisfies DYK's very basic criteria.
9779:
If banners were approved and shown, how would you determine whether they were worth the effort?
6383:{{Tracking category | message = Syntaxhighlight-error-category | extension = SyntaxHighlight }}
5310:
16598:
16551:
16151:
16086:
15943:
15921:
15679:
15453:
15298:
15193:
15150:
14697:
14458:
13679:
13581:
and NPPers don't have a special 'article go away' button otherwise. Unless an unreferenced has
13578:
13536:
13486:
13440:
13400:
13222:
13015:
12997:
12452:
11869:
I think we'd need to establish a list of a couple potential designs, and start an official RfC
10798:
10403:
9898:
9723:
9650:
9044:. I have seen no convincing argument why and how this would benefit the encyclopedia. Also per
8860:
8767:
8697:
8640:
8097:
8083:
7594:
7562:
7520:
7129:
7094:
6976:
6719:
Make AI optimized search, for reasons that are struck(still valid) before.(Added on 18/3/24 by
6413:
5926:
5544:
5434:
5268:
5151:
4735:
4313:
3979:
3825:
3785:
3644:
3443:
3414:
3374:
3352:
3215:
3102:
3051:
3028:
2892:
1357:
29:
11978:
This proposal may have met with a more favourable response if the proposer had suggested some
11512:
I have a visceral dislike for rounded rectangles, possibly because they are now so prevalent.
8892:
This is the kind of self-centredness that is detrimental to the Wikimedia project as a whole.
4677:
I was actually agreeing with you, just noting a downstream problem of the one you identified.
2432:. The indication that an article has had internal quality-control is very useful to a reader.
1322:
I don't think I've ever met a reader who knew we had FA topicons, let alone what they meant. —
16673:
16399:
15805:
15409:
14753:
14107:
13736:
13589:
12349:
12289:
12250:
12195:
12175:
12100:
12001:
11945:
11846:
11816:
11770:
11715:
11679:
11645:
11611:
11561:
11503:
11391:
11355:
11325:
11240:
11220:
11183:
11105:
10951:
10915:
10781:
10751:
10717:
10626:
10565:
10465:
10206:
10123:
9924:
9307:
9289:
9052:
8970:
8677:… I could go on. Judging other projects by Wikipedian standards in nothing less than absurd.
8334:
7863:
6571:
6502:
6445:
6417:
6367:
6317:
6000:
5859:
5657:
5006:
5002:
4598:
4531:
4510:
4187:
3834:
3801:
3763:
3756:
What do you mean by "infobox"? If we can add it, it'd be ideally where padlocks usually are.
3708:
3674:
3597:
3532:
3394:
3234:
3116:
3097:
A month from now we will know whether those topicons get clicked on at any significant rate.
2850:
2810:
2669:
2451:
2437:
2393:
2347:
1934:
1822:
1801:
1757:
1741:
1464:
13795:
3960:
It might be good to take something off of ArbCom's plate. ArbCom has many responsibilities.
3286:
better to present this information for readers, not its removal. The 2023 GA proposal drive
2809:
than rating systems for various things, like for movie, book, video game and music reviews.
2659:
I don't think I've ever met a reader who knew we had FA topicons, let alone what they meant.
16192:
16004:
15976:
15370:
15258:
14538:
14487:
14199:
14171:
13947:
13819:
13678:
Yeah, I don't like the idea of grandfathering, especially given the potential to reinforce
12527:
12501:
12466:
12425:
12392:
12364:
12134:
11796:
11750:
11589:
11202:
11167:
10979:
10594:
10536:
10430:
10384:
10365:
10024:
9965:
9598:
9542:
9418:
Possibly opt-out? Of course users should have the right to opt-out of showing the banners.
9405:
9209:
9138:
9003:
8836:
8534:
8505:
8441:
8352:
8282:
8238:
8187:
8160:
8111:
8060:
8010:
7958:
7914:
7807:
7718:
7645:
7580:
7538:
7490:
7438:
7325:
7264:
7218:
7182:
7144:
7105:
7065:
7035:
7015:
6945:
6918:
6878:
6873:
6847:
6827:
6822:
6805:
6800:
6793:
6778:
6758:
6739:
6734:
6720:
6675:
5817:
5809:
4910:
I'm indifferent at this point. Both systems appear to have their flaws and their benefits.
4820:
4692:
4664:
4635:
4624:
4459:
3936:
3916:
2869:
2725:
2626:
2559:
2541:
2310:
2266:
2188:
2019:
1903:
1772:
1594:
1550:
1268:
1200:
1180:
14706:
I'm saying that the potential for confusion is there, not that I'm personally confused. –
14224:. As others have said, having at least one source will at least verify the topic is not a
13187:
Sorry for the horrendous MS Paint drawing, but this is what I envision it to be like this:
11420:
My proposal would be to change the boxes to a very light gray and then remove the border.
11114:
Too complicated to go into here. Probably best for discussion at the WikiProject Council.
9533:
Banners don’t actually do much besides annoy people, speaking from personal experience. I
6968:
AI is not a "magic bullet" solution to problems that you haven't validated actually exist;
6179:
I occasionally want to Rcat redirects. When I'm redirected to a section, I have to scroll
3851:
would be possible to do that with some JavaScript that you could put into your common.js.
3092:
we know that most readers don't see them because 66% of page views are on the mobile site.
2596:
FA/FL/GA are also a lkist drawn up by a project. The point is that they are about article
1495:
Plus from my experience it is often not kept up to date as the article content changes. ―
8:
16761:
16736:
16613:
16341:
16270:
16243:
16105:
16029:
15994:
15564:
15061:
14967:
14938:
14569:
14444:
14410:
14333:
14304:
14087:
14022:
13993:
13568:
13289:
13243:
12761:
12707:
section. You can enable the tool and it will appear at the top of pages you are reading.
12686:
12553:
12513:
12084:
11983:
11959:
11899:
11729:
11517:
11469:
11455:
11409:
11339:
11291:
11263:
10895:
10877:
10863:
10858:
I don't understand what you mean about the globe logo. The logo is visible on all pages.
10849:
10835:
10817:
10765:
10734:
10669:
10488:
10411:
10320:
10290:
10273:
10239:
9871:
9805:
9765:
9709:
9641:
9637:
we should be trying to reduce the number of banners not increasing them. That said I add
9625:
9573:
9456:
9423:
9180:
9166:
9119:
9092:
9030:
8930:
8897:
8806:
8753:
8682:
8615:
8578:
8542:
8483:
8378:
7952:
7937:
6855:
6713:
6517:
The number or nature of the many templates should be stated on the category page itself.
6170:
6036:
5949:
5797:
Feedback sought for proposal to drop archival bot notice params from Template:Talk header
5341:
5166:
5056:
4857:
4794:
4779:
4682:
4654:
4436:
as I said in the RFA 2024 review @ proposal 15. I dare not to repeat the same statement.
4368:
4343:
4298:
4225:
4134:
4086:
4042:
4008:
3900:
3852:
3722:
3692:
3658:
3611:
3581:
3567:
3546:
3516:
3497:
3270:
3152:
3073:
2697:
2494:
2089:
2023:
1987:
1966:
1581:
1564:
1502:
1431:
1393:
13782:
8873:
as per above. Banner ads do not benefit the encyclopedia, which is our primary concern.
8739:
At least one is run in a manner entirely contrary to the stated objectives of Knowledge.
7141:. It could really help finding policies when you forget the name or just don't know it.
3871:
Proposal: Implement a community-based process for appointing CheckUsers and Oversighters
3340:
2587:
FA/FL/GA is about quality while VA is about being on a list drawn up by a wikiproject --
16717:
16695:
16573:
16413:
16358:
16281:
16254:
16128:
15964:
15867:
15828:
15739:
15695:
15608:
15581:
15392:
15225:
15169:
15119:
15104:
15076:
15031:
14952:
14924:
14900:
14817:
14777:
14685:
14542:
14279:
14270:
13910:
13618:
13560:
13529:
13511:
13479:
13465:
13433:
13417:
13393:
13059:
12852:
unsourced articles. However, there should be a process in order to take action against
12708:
12593:) was proposed and passed here. In any case, I suspect this page is much more watched.
12577:
12568:
12444:
12420:
12412:
12032:
11795:
proposals and then a confirmation and release process at the end of each annual cycle.
11785:
11693:
11659:
11625:
11576:
11371:
11277:
11067:
11049:
10965:
10185:
10083:
10065:
10001:
9787:
9691:
9375:
9332:
9272:
9222:
9102:
9078:
9064:
8517:
8400:
8222:
8207:
8153:
8138:
8034:
8003:
7982:
7672:
7627:
7148:
6909:
6896:
6633:
6108:
5910:
5878:
5870:
5849:
5830:
5590:
5486:
5481:
The page “People’s Publishing House” is redirecting to a Beijing based People’s Press.
5355:
4890:
4870:
4608:
4543:
4486:
4408:
4250:
4152:
4116:
4063:
4028:
3993:
3683:
That is not true, I still see the lock over the edit button when I go to, for example,
3487:
3130:
2923:
2839:
2786:
2610:
2578:
2406:
2280:
2253:
2231:
2072:
2009:
1873:
1636:
1526:
1249:
1234:
16716:
even if it will be a herculean task for all 95K articles that currently have the tag.
16041:(2) and (3): That's true. I think I have to reconsider this proposal for this reason.
15626:
150k articles and will keep growing from here. Plus, by de facto standard, we already
14434:
That's not what the policy says though, and there has been consensus against treating
13068:
As in discouraging. It would be bad if we start to vandalize new articles in order to
10793:
to remove portal links, so the "Look through content portals" part should be omitted.
9537:
people to help sister projects grow but banners will likely have the opposite effect.
6614:
Knowledge:Bots/Noticeboard#Fully automated edits without BRFA - Request for assistance
5312:
and the subsequent diff. I'm on mobile right now so no idea about how it works on PC.
4990:
supported to make the change either way (with more than enough support to do both). —
3344:
16594:
16582:
16562:
16547:
16432:
16147:
16082:
15939:
15917:
15901:
15675:
15449:
15294:
15189:
15160:
15146:
14852:
14757:
14736:
14712:
14693:
14652:
14611:
14454:
14362:
Inline citations are essential for verifying information in an article. As stated in
14244:
14122:
14055:
13868:
13848:
13804:
13601:
13582:
13532:
13496:
13482:
13450:
13436:
13396:
13302:
13218:
13011:
12993:
12652:
12448:
12305:
12155:
12066:
11925:
11881:
11839:
I feel like we should only change it if we should, not force a change every 3 years.
11000:
10726:
10661:
10509:
10144:
9739:
9719:
9490:
9250:
8854:
8763:
8724:
8706:
8693:
8651:
8636:
8509:
7748:
7697:
7590:
7572:
7558:
7531:
7516:
7387:
7125:
7090:
6972:
6152:
5966:
5922:
5758:
5722:
5540:
5410:''For more info, see ]. New? See the ] page or ]. Questions? Try ]!'' ]</span: -->
5282:
5264:
5241:
5232:
5147:
4962:
4809:
4731:
4474:
4437:
4309:
3975:
3781:
3640:
3559:
3370:
3348:
3211:
3185:
3098:
3047:
3024:
2888:
2768:
2686:
2656:
I don't see any evidence of that, and having a tooltip and link seems obvious enough.
2198:
1350:
1313:
1229:-- I don't think readers know or care about that -- but GA should definitely go IMO.
16320:
look for sources. We cannot have editors mass–PROD and mass–delete articles without
14222:
purpose is to benefit readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge
13842:
Have you considered that it might be "unspoken" because it's not actually a rule? –
13478:
think autopatrolled has a higher bar than necessary but admins are very risk-averse.
12971:
A way to tackle editor disputes about what constitutes "third-party" and "reliable".
7689:
6031:
Good idea. Cuts down on confusion. How it would be implemented is another question.
5259:
I'm pretty sure that it's possible, although that question would be better asked at
4338:
activity requirement to be regranted CU/OS (although there is to retain the tools).
3576:
What do you think of my alternate suggestion of simply greying out the move button?
3362:
Also, I forgot to realize most people (I think) replying to be are actually ECP, so
16513:
16329:
16321:
15757:
15645:
15423:
15405:
15384:
15362:
15248:
15237:
15216:
15099:
BTW IMO it doesn't have to be an inline source; a general reference would be fine.
15056:
and other core policies you don't get to impose your opinion on the encyclopaedia.
14843:
14534:
14530:
14526:
14294:
14195:
14141:
13920:
13884:
13668:
13355:
13333:
13281:
13097:
12377:
12041:
11305:
11236:
11115:
11080:
10585:
is rather that they invite a retort along the lines of, yes, well, "fucking excuse
10444:
10254:
10225:
10199:
People can contribute and don't wish for anything they don't change to not change.
10163:
10102:
9979:
9886:
9846:
9437:
9392:
9286:
9049:
8989:
8940:
8907:
8874:
8666:
8306:
8264:
8234:
For more information, you may ask the editor who reverted your edit for a response.
7321:
7237:
7201:
7172:
6914:
6543:
6478:
6188:
6086:
5997:
5772:
5736:
5694:
5653:
5517:
5512:
if the Chinese state press is deemed much more significant than a private company.
5098:
5071:
5042:
5015:
4977:
4947:
4915:
4764:
4594:
4576:
4504:
4391:
4214:
4201:
3965:
3456:
3422:
2950:
2517:
2447:
2433:
2331:
2031:
1888:
1839:
1797:
1687:
1648:
1482:
1474:
1446:
1412:
15139:
almost obsolete PROD (since folks always just unprod these and they end up at AFD)
13528:
that more or less concurs with relevant content in existing articles, for example.
12299:
9733:
8718:
8595:
3288:
agreed to start an RFC for options on making GA status more prominent in mainspace
16296:
16209:
15780:
15366:
15253:
14483:
14166:
13943:
13815:
13722:
12913:
And if we think further in the future, such a process can also be used to tackle
12780:
12750:
12601:
12388:
12360:
12130:
12120:
11541:
11254:
and that the boxes around everything is the most dated part of the main page, at
11163:
11024:
10975:
10794:
10606:
with an encyclopedia that aspires, where possible, to serious scholarship. HTH!
10426:
10380:
10154:
10110:
Wikipedians don't like change (see above), so it's not going to happen without a
10015:
9961:
9732:
I think there inevitably will be tradeoffs with inclusion of any type of content.
9594:
9538:
9507:
9469:
9205:
8830:
8437:
8051:
7802:
7576:
7351:
7295:
7260:
7054:
7030:
6987:
6940:
5608:
5576:
4834:
4746:
4620:
4454:
2865:
2588:
2555:
2537:
2368:
2306:
2184:
2171:
2107:
1546:
1404:
1331:
1262:
13300:
Rather than a PROD, we should really just move new unsourced articles to draft.
6250:. I shall refer to templates that transclude others based on parameter usage as
5263:. The more interesting question, that belongs here, is whether it is desirable.
5107:
Likely - it certainly wouldn't stop people from reading or creating articles! —
16757:
16659:
16609:
16544:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Miami-Petersburg Department of Water and Sewers
16521:
16485:
16462:
16380:
16333:
16165:
16124:
15990:
15771:
15560:
15518:
15480:
15233:
15057:
14963:
14934:
14888:
14561:
14525:? Do you expect people to copy the whole text into the article, or do you mean
14479:
14440:
14439:
completely implausible (in which case they should remove it from the article).
14406:
14388:
14351:
14329:
14301:
14225:
14198:; we shouldn't have to prove a lack of notability to throw these articles out.
14083:
14018:
13989:
13747:
13564:
13285:
13238:
12872:
12754:
12682:
12545:
12523:
12505:
12343:
12327:
looks at the Main Page using the app, so fussing over that isn't a big deal. —
12283:
12273:
12244:
12232:
12189:
12169:
12094:
12080:
12023:
11991:
11955:
11939:
11909:
11895:
11840:
11810:
11764:
11725:
11709:
11673:
11639:
11605:
11555:
11513:
11497:
11465:
11451:
11439:
11405:
11385:
11349:
11335:
11319:
11287:
11259:
11214:
11177:
11099:
10945:
10909:
10891:
10873:
10872:
I mean the corner of the globe that you placed next to "Welcome to Knowledge!"
10859:
10845:
10831:
10827:
10813:
10775:
10761:
10745:
10730:
10711:
10665:
10637:
10620:
10576:
10559:
10504:
Is there something particular you feel is a problem with the current design? –
10483:
10459:
10421:
10407:
10358:
10350:
10342:
10316:
10268:
10235:
10200:
9918:
9867:
9801:
9761:
9705:
9617:
9569:
9555:
9452:
9419:
9301:
9163:
9115:
9088:
9026:
8926:
8893:
8829:. We should display as few as humanly possible for as little time as possible.—
8801:
8749:
8678:
8674:
8574:
8538:
8497:
8479:
8345:
7798:
6866:
6851:
6166:
6118:
either way, of course, but a bit better when there are no duplicates elsewhere.
6032:
5901:
5447:
5337:
5313:
5162:
5052:
4853:
4790:
4775:
4716:
4678:
4650:
4364:
4339:
4294:
4266:
4242:
4181:
4144:
4130:
4082:
4038:
4004:
3896:
3892:
3828:
3821:
3795:
3777:
3757:
3718:
3702:
3688:
3668:
3654:
3607:
3591:
3577:
3563:
3542:
3526:
3512:
3388:
3292:
3266:
3228:
3148:
3069:
3014:
2993:
2967:
2884:
2663:
2650:
There are great guidelines for reviewing, and bad GA reviews can be overturned.
2218:
2154:
1983:
1961:
1928:
1815:
1731:
1644:
1614:
1577:
1560:
1497:
1427:
1389:
1286:
1149:
8795:) and others aren't in a state where it's worthwhile directing users to them (
5139:
16677:
16651:
16640:
16458:
16409:
16274:
16247:
16191:
reference you need to add, and I'll show you what to put in the popup form."
16161:
15960:
15863:
15824:
15734:
15604:
15594:
15577:
15388:
15348:
15315:
15270:
15221:
15100:
15072:
15053:
15027:
14948:
14920:
14910:
14896:
14892:
14839:
14813:
14786:
14773:
14577:
14553:
14161:
14040:
13906:
13888:
13504:
13458:
13429:
13410:
13375:
13317:
13089:
13055:
12339:
12328:
11781:
11689:
11655:
11621:
11572:
11273:
11157:
11063:
11045:
10961:
10181:
10079:
9780:
9684:
9521:
9371:
9328:
9268:
8792:
8232:
just like there are different interpretations of Bible/ Quran. The last line
8229:
8182:, AI will be given a problem faced by editor and AI will suggest pages which
7668:
7638:
7623:
7475:
7461:
7434:
7430:
7423:
7409:
6619:
6563:
6498:
6441:
6432:
If the tracking category is implemented by a module, then the parameter name
6409:
6359:
6313:
6208:
6140:
I totally support this idea, you should definitely file this on Phabricator!
6104:
5874:
5866:
5845:
5841:
5826:
5750:
5649:
5628:
5586:
5351:
5260:
5108:
5082:
5026:
4991:
4353:
4324:
4280:
4246:
4148:
4112:
4059:
4024:
3989:
3950:
3571:
3483:
3144:
3140:
3126:
3042:. We could scale it for page views (which I think could be obtained through
2835:
2605:
2574:
2525:
2521:
2249:
2068:
2005:
1868:
1632:
1245:
1230:
16067:). There are general references, but I didn't see a single inline citation.
6215:. If I am not mistaken, we can group tracking categories into three groups:
1218:
kind of meaningful review process is misleading the reader. All it means is
16577:
16509:
16427:
16060:
15897:
14847:
14732:
14707:
14647:
14621:
14606:
14233:
14117:
14044:
13843:
13800:
13596:
12678:
12674:
12670:
12641:
12504:, could you please explain why you find Contents more useful than Portals?
12301:
12144:
12055:
11914:
11870:
11251:
10989:
10505:
10346:
10139:
9735:
9486:
9239:
8720:
8513:
8501:
8106:
AI will be given a problem faced by editor and AI will suggest pages which
7737:
7708:
7693:
7376:
7086:
6141:
5944:
5754:
5731:
Thanks. But I thought I saw that proposals should be discussed here first?
5718:
5278:
4958:
4806:
3701:
That's a different thing. I was talking about the standard padlock images.
3282:
3043:
2940:
2682:
1727:
1309:
1165:
13374:
are ending up there? Don't all new articles these days have to go through
11464:
I'd support it at the RfC stage, but unfortunately I doubt it would pass.
10744:
maybe put the occasional banner before that rule with a white background.
9196:
8715:
is run in a manner entirely contrary to the stated objectives of Knowledge
7064:
should not be stagnant with the influx of improvement we are capable of.
5400:'''Click on the "Edit this page" link above to experiment!'''</big: -->
2919:
1344:
The icons are not for readers. The 2004 article ranking system devised in
16538:
recently, two long term unsourced articles were discovered to be hoaxes:
16354:
15753:
15432:
15049:
15045:
14884:
14134:
13985:
13981:
13966:
This. The cognitive dissonance in these kind of arguments are deafening.
13778:
13665:
13348:
13330:
13191:
13093:
12589:
To your last sentence—not necessarily. The last major mainpage redesign (
12447:
would probably be redundant - which one is more useful on the main page?
12374:
12037:
11435:
11301:
10440:
10354:
10338:
10334:
10330:
10250:
10221:
10159:
10099:
9976:
9388:
8788:
8670:
8594:
sister project has quite a few relatively uncontroversial articles (e.g.
6540:
6475:
6184:
6082:
5528:
Make Todays Featured List appear exactly every 3 days instead of 3-4 days
5513:
4911:
4760:
4386:
4211:
4197:
3961:
3418:
3406:
2944:
2324:
2050:
2027:
1884:
1833:
1682:
1478:
1442:
1408:
16078:, which we don't have articles about) had less than 10 inline citations.
15007:
Knowledge articles are summaries of secondary sources. That's what they
13324:, it seems unlikely that consensus will have changed in the month since
12842:
Knowledge:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/February 2024
12323:
to be fair, unless I'm really misreading things it should be noted that
9201:
7121:
6448:
of the project and may be empty occasionally or even most of the time."
5914:
15776:
14789:, all of them are either PRODDed or have one citation. Problem solved.
14548:
What is a "third-party source"? Elsewhere, that phrase can mean either
13718:
13069:
13047:
12772:
12700:
12596:
12116:
11533:
11018:
9568:
content so that they are useful to the reader without being intrusive.
9503:
8521:
7345:
7314:
7289:
6821:
innumerable irrelevant matches, and there are numerous categories too.
5604:
5572:
5532:
I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I'll ask it here.
4580:
3684:
3313:
Adding move, create and upload protection locks to the top right corner
3281:
Any argument about reader understanding of topicons applies equally to
2167:
2022:, and the fact that earlier discussions occurred at that RfC satisfies
1323:
15273:(or anyone else who's interested), do you feel the same way about the
13010:
has been around for years, and we're pretty good at identifying them.
11318:
I also like this. While we're at it, maybe align DYK with On this day
10364:
What do you think, for example, of the design of the main page of the
10131:
8783:. Some of our projects are of limited interest to the average reader (
6505:
of the project and may be empty occasionally or even most of the time.
6420:
of the project and may be empty occasionally or even most of the time.
6225:
Template/Module tracking categories (implemented by templates/modules)
5025:
leaves more questions open then the change it is trying to promote. —
2532:
obvious that the article has undergone a quality control process, not
2088:
Not causing any harm, and is a nice bit of encouragement for editors.
16669:
16655:
16517:
16481:
16376:
16169:
16143:
16132:
16064:
15507:
15469:
14993:
notable topic, you aren't verifying what you're writing, you're just
13763:
13743:
13684:
13682:, given that Knowledge's content is becoming more diverse over time.
13380:
13051:
12486:
12320:
12262:
12221:
12019:
11987:
11058:
BTW my 2c: make the main page, en.wikipedia.org, look much more like
9825:
8598:) that receive almost no views at all if compared to their typically
6850:
You seem to assume that we want these things and that they are good.
6061:
5890:
5560:
5200:
4262:
4230:
3988:
Arbcoms tell us this year after year through their very slow action.
3667:
Mobile shows no padlocks whatsoever. Not all anons are mobile users.
3039:
3008:
2989:
2976:
We can actually figure out how many people click these. I've created
2961:
2908:
2214:
2143:
2128:
1710:
1667:
1610:
1280:
1177:
Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_25#Proposal_for_a_VA_"top_icon"
16375:
I do not support deletion of content simply because it's unsourced.
15347:
and we should help them learn rather than telling them to fuck off.
12544:
does basically the same thing, and seems to work on mobile as well.
11706:
As I don't have a childhood, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
11493:
10119:
7847:: The guidelines talks about various cases in which the subject has
6580:{{Tracking category | template = Citation needed | delete = true }}
6056:
2491:
should be "on" by default because the readers are not savvy enough.
16452:
14688:
does not use "third-party" to describe tertiary sources. See also
14077:
I agree completely with James500. What matters is whether articles
12465:
I would support a swap from the portals link to the contents link.
11938:
At least your (and Galobtter's) small upgrade would probably pass.
9363:
8796:
8784:
7843:
5840:
Template:Talk header is a highly visible template, so I've added {{
4934:
Note managing access to CheckUser and Oversight tools is currently
15142:
13577:
What are they supposed to do about them? We don't delete articles
11620:
If you go to one column, you won't have to worry about balance. --
10678:
Thanks for the work, but unfortunately I don't like it very much:
6474:, which are expected to exist by a fairly long list of templates?
14220:. Knowledge is a tertiary source, let's not forget that, and its
10114:
of work, but I do agree that it's time for a redesign. Since the
5844:|3|weeks}} to this discussion to give it sufficient time to air.
5277:
This new design is eye catching and could be more user friendly.
4473:
per above. Solution in search of a problem, nothing is broken. -
15916:
Seems to be covered well by existing (albeit broken) processes.
15163:. I don't think we've interacted before. It's nice to meet you.
14834:
10130:
dated and out of place in 2024. Ideally, we'd proceed by asking
6574:
of the project and should be deleted once its purpose is served.
6222:
Extension tracking categories (added to MediaWiki by extensions)
9751:
And how much space will the banners take up on mobile screens?
7713:
Okay, great! But it requires ChatGPT plus. Maybe somewhat like
7589:
This is a really good insight. Thanks for sharing the example.
6391:
This is what the template could look like on the category page
6341:
This is what the template could look like on the category page
6295:
This is what the template could look like on the category page
6183:
and click the link. I would like it if it was just there, too.
5865:
preferred map app instead of having to again select which app.
3606:
Oops, sorry. I missed that when checking who I needed to ping.
15011:, and if they don't summarize secondary sources, then they're
11825:
I agree. Maybe changing every 3 years would be a better idea.
11382:
I think the border's supposed to be like the heading's border.
10173:"We don't like change" says the group of people who made over
10043:
This contradicts the well-established community consensus of “
5536:
over 3100 lists that haven't been featured on the main page.
2922:
might interest you, unless you're already familiar with it :)
14529:? In which case, how do you square this new requirement with
12749:
The Book: namespace was removed more than two years ago, see
11162:" so Idecided to take the initiative to make the first step.
10602:. Some might also argue that trivia—however much "fun" it is—
10045:
ain’t broke, let’s break it and pretend we might fix it later
6440:
on the page, then the template should simply say: "This is a
90:
a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
16269:– per above, there's no reason to allow additional articles
12415:
page either on the Main Page itself or on the mobile sidebar
11809:
I don't think we'd need to change the main page every year.
9022:
3895:, there's a clear consensus against this being a good idea.
1134:
Proposal: Remove the topicons for good and featured articles
82:
This page contains discussions that have been archived from
15277:
policy? I think this proposal overreaches in requiring an
15275:
Knowledge:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people
14370:
to a reliable source that directly supports the material."
13326:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Deletion of uncited articles
12838:
Knowledge:Requests for comment/Deletion of uncited articles
12573:
10591:
How the heck are the articles that we've vetted low quality
7481:
engine get AI optimized, other is to make 'policychecker' (
6436:
would be used instead. If the editor is lazy and only puts
5803:
Template talk:Talk header#Proposal to drop archiving params
4241:
lol, that's a page about redirects. You're looking for the
3820:
As a tangent, someone asked for a script for move locks at
1441:
topic of showing all ratings after this discussion closes.
16332:. If those conditions are met, I will support the change.
15893:
I propose that articles that not have any inline sources
14793:
is the only article here that currently does not have one
14189:
unsourced articles, but this encyclopedia has existed for
13378:, which ought not to let them pass if they are unsourced?
12968:
that they find reliable sources before writing the article
10118:, responsive design technology has advanced enormously, a
9583:
ways to embed links to other projects in wikipedia content
9101:
How would showing readers advertising possibly help them?
6537:
Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2022
6333:{{Tracking category | message = Template-loop-category }}
6242:
which can convey the respective messages of the templates
5455:
Noting that I've left an invitation to this discussion at
1883:
I use the same plugin, which is where the idea came from.
14568:
sources are only required to demonstrate notability, and
12015:
10941:
10937:
10887:
10664:
looks fine to me. What do you think of the changes here?
10373:
10369:
6501:
which many templates expect to exist. It is used for the
2662:
I don't think a reader knows what "topicons" are either.
16324:
simply because of this rule. This rule, or any like it,
15956:
14564:). In both cases, this would contradict current policy:
13092:, which is not going to approve an unsourced article. --
11137:
Good luck. This is going to be harder than Vector 2022.
10684:
We already have a search box; we don't need another one.
7855:
or something I have seen many editors not knowing about:
6712:
or 'words to watch' in articles, and it comes back with
2906:. But that's a reason to improve them, not remove them.
16754:
Lists of members of the National Assembly (South Korea)
15215:, that's a bad rationale for deletion and a failure of
12875:. Such a PROD can only be revoked after an addition of
6009:
be a bit weird, even if there were a nice space for it.
5185:
Proposed formatting changes to the universal editnotice
3387:, though what's stopping us from doing this right now?
13785:
provides the following criteria for PROD eligibility:
13563:, I'm not allowed to redraftify it, so I just tag it.
11724:
As a mobile user, I quite like the one-column design.
9366:. There's an argument we should link sister projects
7936:
I anticipate little benefit to the Knowledge project.
13585:
I think most experienced reviewers would tag it with
13231:
I like this idea in theory, but will only support it
9404:, but with opt-in, because banners can be annoying.--
9087:
readers, we just want them to read the encyclopedia?
7061:
The proposed proposals may be amended for better use.
6624:
6622:. Some of the tasks should perhaps be mass-reverted.
6316:
which MediaWiki expects to exist. It is used for the
3541:
That is true. Greying it out would likely be enough.
14264:
you create or substantially add to an article, have
14116:
I mean, nobody's forcing you to look for sources. –
10096:
Knowledge:Perennial proposals#Redesign the Main Page
8606:
For one thing then, yes, introducing a specialized,
6426:
The transclusion code may look something like this:
6380:
The transclusion code may look something like this:
6330:
The transclusion code may look something like this:
6072:
Yeah, I've noticed that. Thanks for proposing this.
4607:
This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
4363:
That the two are essentially the same was my point.
3885:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
2641:
the majority no longer meet their FA and GA criteria
12917:as well. This would be a glorious sight to behold.
10699:
Lots of useless blank space under the third column.
10122:has been rolled out across Mediawiki, and we got a
9881:more participants, if they were drawn to help out.
9676:
6704:
I propose following 2 things, either one or second.
5196:
MediaWiki talk:Editpage-head-copy-warn § New design
4936:
in the scope of the arbitration committee by policy
16123:from a new page patroller, using PROD for this is
13503:in March 2024, I should have looked more closely.
12424:section. Please comment with your thoughts below.
10458:think the Spanish version needs any more changes.
8709:, could you please expand on how the projects are
6429:{{Tracking category | template = Coord missing }}
6275:be deprecated and its message conveyed instead by
5939:Showing "Redirected from" notice at top of section
5638:Sources: clarify that they may be on a linked page
5404:'''Please leave this heading alone'''</big: -->
3364:please do not even try to recreate the linked page
15603:creating an article means opposing the proposal.
14594:If the only purpose of the required source is to
14403:has been challenged or is likely to be challenged
13455:Category:Articles lacking sources from March 2024
12282:It matters, because most people use the website.
12214:There is already a different Main Page on the app
10886:Yeah, that's common across Wikipedias, e.g., see
7120:The Wikimedia Foundation's Machine Learning Team
3202:I use and value that gadget. Also, I think it's
16676:should qualify). Traditional articles, maybe. —
14510:article? An article consisting of one or more un
14453:Also, many new articles are "very short stubs".
13370:: Can someone speak to how the newer entries in
12844:, I think there is broad community consensus to
11554:What is that graphic metaphor supposed to mean?
9671:General discussion (advertising sister projects)
7717:, WM could give us any one such model's access.
5212:Converting of the sandbox reset link to a button
4759:Appears to be a solution looking for a problem.
4619:is not that may make an individual unsuitable.
3687:. The colors are all the same, but it is there.
16654:what about completely unsourced pages instead?
14002:That should be obvious and needs amending now.
13432:, created March 24 or in the category March 24?
12863:I propose that articles that are created after
12728:Really never understood why it was eliminated.
8494:Notifying participants in previous discussion:
6997:2) As of now, i go with what Mebigrouxboy says.
6511:{{Tracking category | many_templates = true }}
6472:Category:All articles with unsourced statements
6444:which is expected to exist. It is used for the
1796:We need to make them more prominent, not less.
14833:. First of all, as one of the patrollers, the
13980:The cognitive dissonance is the instance that
13895:citations. Deletion of an article for lack of
9949:Is it time for a new design for the main page?
7867:: The guidelines says that per a consensus at
7795:Knowledge is about humans checking the article
6470:How would you handle tracking categories like
5652:. Closing to keep the discussion centralized.
1152:closing this proposal as a clear consensus to
16635:. If someone makes a new stub and drops in a
16127:and the wrong process, the current remedy of
15213:solely because there are currently no sources
13088:New editors are already forced to go through
11059:
9896:this has helped WikiBooks, WikiVoyage et al.
8781:Yes, provided it is limited to a few projects
3888:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
16312:. I agree that new articles with no sources
14690:Knowledge:Secondary does not mean secondhand
14420:topic has X, Y, Z attributes that is true".
14185:. I opposed the previous proposal to remove
11198:
11098:What do you mean by a wikiproject redesign?
10078:Agree. The main page as it is is beautiful.
8398:solution in search of a problem in my view.
6219:Core tracking categories (core to MediaWiki)
5749:a existing policy, not create a new one, so
4196:I don't think there's a shortage right now?
3323:Special:MovePage/Wikipedia:Protection_policy
12915:Category:Articles with unsourced statements
12419:I found that it is very hard to get to the
6755:(Note: AI is supposed to complement search)
5429:Yes, it should be changed to this version.
4691:Ah! My bad, I misinterpreted your comment.
3449:hasn't displayed a visible icon since 2009
2520:. If GAs and FAs don't meet criteria, then
9387:. Unnecessarily distracting and annoying.
9204:where appropriate, most often via images.
5194:You are invited to join the discussion at
3776:And with someone requesting move locks at
3750:The color of the padlock would not change.
2059:is expected to be neutral, yes. However,
16540:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/St. Berks
16164:, as policy, is more applicable than the
15555:. I don't think the citation needs to be
10974:I like the eswik's too, clean and simple
10936:If we modernize it, I suggest we make it
10581:The problem with opening remarks such as
9554:per Dennis Brown and CaptainEek. - Dank (
5571:Exactly. Keep it on Mondays and Fridays!
3343:respectively. (for ECP create protection
1663:should be making the icons more prominent
15448:) rather than to the overall principle.
14680:Joe, a third-party source is defined in
13280:per all the arguments I've made before.
9587:Knowledge:Template index/Sister projects
9349:more effective is a relevant link for a
6103:when following a redirect to a section.
6055:Good idea. I'd suggest filing a task on
5913:is listed as one of the maintainers for
5816:archiving period is. A recent change to
5291:How about <div class=plainlinks: -->
3044:https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/massviews/
2880:Discussion (remove GA & FA topicons)
2830:I suspect that the vast majority of our
15285:, but I don't see why, in principle, a
13883:. This proposal is not compatible with
13114:2603:8001:4542:28FB:E9B3:2893:5C25:E68F
11894:An RfC which would unfortunately fail.
11450:small tweaks needed to what I've done.
10404:and what I believe is the Slovakian one
10126:. All of this makes the main page look
7895:Note the informal language I used here.
7483:spellchecker but for WP policy... which
2386:These are meaningful, particularly FA.
1426:love to see that discussed more. Best,
14:
16567:I am quite sure that nobody things we
16353:the encyclopedia should be built from
15247:That is a good argument to get rid of
15211:if a new article is sent for deletion
14684:, and is not about tertiary sources.
14587:? All articles are eligible for PROD,
14580:as less desirable than secondary ones.
12591:Removal of portal links from Main Page
12540:I understand these goals, but I think
12484:developers to refine the links there.
11638:That would be wasting a lot of space.
11160:and be the change that you want to see
9593:is probably the most frequently used.
9585:— We already have many templates (see
5801:Your feedback would be appreciated at
5619:
4081:you feel I was/am a "false positive"?
2695:Piling on. Same reasons as Barkeep. —
14797:citation and that should change now.
14228:, and will ensure that the mentioned
13792:Category:All articles lacking sources
11492:Yes they're common but Knowledge and
7839:WP AI: I found the following results:
6570:expects to exist. It is used for the
6416:expects to exist. It is used for the
6366:expects to exist. It is used for the
6343:Pages with syntax highlighting errors
6199:Tracking categories template proposal
6017:2A02:560:5829:B000:7D78:FB68:39A:4A28
5980:2A02:560:5829:B000:7D78:FB68:39A:4A28
2825:Neutral (remove GA & FA topicons)
1766:The topicons are what first informed
1194:Support (remove GA & FA topicons)
16310:Support in theory, Oppose as written
16100:sourced, just not the way we do it.
15619:WP:WikiProject Unreferenced articles
15145:rather than repeating silly tropes.
14596:verify that this topic is not a hoax
14514:claims? Or one that is not based on
12827:The following discussion is closed.
12443:already there. Having both that and
10289:VECTOR2022 should just be reversed.
9359:The_Red-Headed_League#External_links
9114:See Queen of Hearts' comment below.
8555:Survey (advertising sister projects)
8453:The following discussion is closed.
6696:The following discussion is closed.
6608:'s unapproved bot edits be reverted?
6551:
6486:
6397:
6347:
6301:
6126:2A02:560:5829:B000:99D:3DCE:4DAE:FDB
5669:The following discussion is closed.
3879:The following discussion is closed.
3780:, I think they must have read this.
3210:8,000 of us care about the ratings.
2765:throwing the baby with the bathwater
2653:readers have no clue what these mean
1383:Oppose (remove GA & FA topicons)
1346:Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team
1140:The following discussion is closed.
16700:2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A
12014:But not all the articles listed at
8563:as proposer. As I wrote previously:
6387:Template/Module tracking categories
6257:I therefore propose the following:
4940:amendment to the arbitration policy
4930:Discussion (CU and OS appointments)
4511:
3165:I think that a modified version of
23:
14570:need not be present in the article
13190:
13006:Number 3 is pretty easy, though.
12617:Bring back the Book Creation Tool.
12054:That's a great idea! I support it
10940:(which happens to be adapted from
10830:Oh, I just put in the ad for fun.
10012:Yea, the main page is good enough
5919:Knowledge:Village pump (technical)
3086:we don't know that they're useful,
2681:Useful indicators of top quality.
2018:RfC statements are required to be
24:
18:Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)
16785:
16756:converted from a redirect today.
15623:Category:Articles lacking sources
14644:Category:Articles lacking sources
13790:created since January 1, 2024 in
13579:just because they lack references
13372:Category:Articles lacking sources
12897:Category:Articles without sources
12858:Category:Articles without sources
10402:(I quite like it, actually), and
9083:Ah, so we don't want to actually
7433:', and I propose something like '
6059:to get some developer attention.
5685:RATIONAL FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE
5502:People’s Publishing House (India)
4713:Solution in search of a problem.
2644:Then nominate them for delisting.
2550:To add: I agree with Aaron Liu's
1405:relatively small group of editors
16771:The discussion above is closed.
12869:does not have any inline sources
11256:User:Galobtter/sandbox/Main page
10116:last major attempts a decade ago
9940:The discussion above is closed.
9683:. Why is something else needed?
9021:
8417:The discussion above is closed.
6555:
6490:
6401:
6351:
6305:
6265:(demonstrated below) be adopted.
5788:The discussion above is closed.
5620:
5243:Click here to reset the sandbox.
5233:Click here to reset the sandbox.
5217:
5189:
5176:The discussion above is closed.
4905:Neutral (CU and OS appointments)
3930:Support (CU and OS appointments)
3304:The discussion above is closed.
3013:
2966:
2125:let perfect be the enemy of good
1953:
1285:
78:Village pump (proposals) archive
16672:"pages" no (e.g. I don't think
14160:I think the is an extension of
13030:WP:Wikiproject Editor Retention
12951:Make a new template similar to
12848:take any policy action against
12186:Template:TemplateStyles sandbox
10175:one billion two hundred million
6203:I propose a new design for the
5711:Knowledge:Village pump (policy)
5556:Knowledge:Today's featured list
5301:Click here to reset the sandbox
4540:Current system does just fine.
4175:Oppose (CU and OS appointments)
1222:. Exhibit A is the editor from
15752:. The bar needs to be raised.
13583:other, more immediate problems
10196:Change for the sake of change!
9589:) for this purpose. Of these,
7898:
7889:
6659:AI for WP guidelines/ policies
6455:Thank you for your attention.
6372:Syntaxhighlight-error-category
6282:That the combination template
5419:Should this change be made? -
3747:I still prefer it to be green.
3417:, but that seems redundant. --
13:
1:
14770:Henry VI's Conquest of Sicily
14766:2024 Salzburg local elections
14682:Knowledge:Third-party sources
13008:Knowledge:Third-party sources
12699:, to be more specific, go to
11851:21:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
11835:21:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
11821:14:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
11805:09:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
11790:23:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
11775:20:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
11759:20:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
11720:01:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
11702:01:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
11684:20:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
11668:20:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
11650:20:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
11634:19:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
11616:16:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
11598:09:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
11581:23:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
11566:22:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
11550:21:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
11522:20:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
11508:14:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
11488:13:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
11474:00:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
11460:00:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
11430:18:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
11414:23:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
11396:16:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
11378:16:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
11360:23:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
11344:23:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
11330:16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
11314:15:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
11296:13:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
11282:06:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
11268:06:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
11245:04:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
11225:03:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
11208:03:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
11072:17:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
11054:17:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
10956:02:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
10786:02:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
10770:01:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
10756:18:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
10739:16:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
10722:03:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
10674:01:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
10649:17:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
10631:17:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
10613:16:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
10570:02:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
10553:00:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
10531:16:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
10517:09:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
10500:08:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
10470:16:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
10453:15:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
10435:14:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
10416:12:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
10389:10:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
10325:13:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
10309:18:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
10285:08:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
10259:09:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
10244:01:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
10230:10:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
10168:08:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
10150:07:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
10106:03:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
10074:18:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
10057:20:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
10008:17:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
9985:03:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
9970:02:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
9679:already has a large section,
9648:has a wiktionary definition.
6606:Renamed user g5s6n3yi8z7g08cs
6337:Extension tracking categories
5835:04:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
5457:Template talk:Sandbox heading
5390:Proposed sandbox heading text
5224:Template talk:Sandbox heading
5156:04:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
5088:23:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
5076:23:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
5061:23:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
5047:23:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
5032:23:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
5020:22:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4997:22:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4982:20:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4967:20:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4952:18:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4740:18:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
4730:In agreement with Sandstein.
4726:14:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
4701:21:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
4687:20:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
4673:19:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
4659:15:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
4644:18:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
4629:16:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
4614:20:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4603:19:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4588:19:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4564:15:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4536:15:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4516:14:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4498:13:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4480:09:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4466:08:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4445:07:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4429:00:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4399:18:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4373:14:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4359:14:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4348:22:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4330:22:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4318:19:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4303:18:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4286:18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4271:16:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4255:15:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4237:15:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4220:15:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4206:14:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4192:14:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
4157:05:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
4139:16:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4121:16:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4091:15:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4068:15:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4047:15:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4033:15:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
4013:15:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
3998:15:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
3984:19:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
3970:17:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
3956:15:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
3945:13:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
3925:13:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
3506:08:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
3492:21:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
3477:20:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
3431:20:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
3399:16:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
3379:15:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
3357:21:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
2600:whereas VA is a bout article
1260:I support removing both. —
15957:MediaWiki Edit Check project
15625:backlog would now have : -->
14989:to an actual article writer.
14401:The crucial part of that is
13645:articles, not old articles.
12411:Proposal: Add a link to the
11442:I stole the box shadow from
10061:Fair, true, and appropriate.
8327:as interpretations of them.
7232:if they might be receptive.
6393:Articles needing coordinates
6205:tracking categories template
5477:Creating Disambiguation page
5372:Hello! I am requesting that
4938:. Changing this requires an
2985:Knowledge:Featured articles*
7:
16372:Support draftification rule
16292:Draftifying is the solution
16216:sources. For example, most
15641:Ancient history of Botswana
14791:Lake Rabon (South Carolina)
14750:Lake Rabon (South Carolina)
13794:gives 8 results, including
13526:Ancient history of Botswana
10406:, which I also quite like.
10180:to a single website. :-) —
9975:Ain't broke, don't fix it.
9861:Knowledge's sister projects
9681:Knowledge's sister projects
8426:Advertising sister projects
7487:is at least worth exploring
6628:made a list of them in the
4575:"? Good God, no. Also, per
4573:similar to how RFAs are run
3319:Knowledge:Protection policy
1851:, per Barkeep and Bilorv. ♠
10:
16790:
16766:23:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
16745:12:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
16728:08:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
16708:23:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
16683:09:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
16664:06:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
16618:13:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
16603:12:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
16588:10:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
16346:11:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
16305:19:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
16287:17:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
16271:written entirely backwards
16260:17:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
16237:16:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
16201:02:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
16175:04:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
16156:04:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
16138:02:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
16110:06:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
16091:04:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
16051:02:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
16034:21:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
16013:01:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
15999:01:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
15985:01:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
15969:12:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
15948:02:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
15930:01:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
15909:16:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
15872:06:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
15848:17:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
15833:16:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
15810:14:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
15785:14:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
15762:11:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
15745:08:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
15723:11:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
15704:06:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
15684:04:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
15665:17:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
15613:20:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
15586:19:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
15569:16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
15548:15:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
15523:07:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
15500:17:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
15485:05:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
15458:20:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
15439:05:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
15414:17:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
15397:15:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
15375:11:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
15352:02:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
15336:17:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
15319:05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
15303:20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
15265:17:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
15243:01:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
15198:14:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
15184:23:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
15155:22:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
15134:21:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
15109:00:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
15081:17:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
15066:17:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
15036:16:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
14972:16:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
14957:15:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
14943:15:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
14929:15:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
14914:05:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
14905:17:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
14874:17:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
14860:16:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
14822:17:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
14807:17:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
14782:15:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
14741:09:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
14718:10:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
14702:20:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
14672:17:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
14658:11:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
14634:09:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
14617:07:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
14492:00:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
14463:20:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
14449:03:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
14430:02:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
14415:02:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
14395:08:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
14380:02:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
14358:22:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
14338:02:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
14323:02:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
14309:21:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
14285:21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
14253:20:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
14213:20:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
14178:17:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
14149:15:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
14128:08:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
14112:17:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
14092:12:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
14064:13:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
14027:14:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
14012:13:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
13998:13:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
13976:13:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
13962:13:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
13952:10:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
13938:17:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
13915:23:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13876:21:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13854:08:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
13838:11:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
13824:02:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
13809:17:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13770:16:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13727:16:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13706:17:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
13691:16:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13674:15:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13655:17:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
13637:15:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13607:08:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
13573:19:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13540:16:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13519:16:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13499:, you're right, it wasn't
13490:16:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13473:15:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13444:15:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13425:15:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13404:15:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13387:14:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13363:14:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13337:13:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13309:12:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13294:12:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13269:11:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13255:09:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13227:08:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13206:08:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13183:08:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13168:07:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13122:07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13106:13:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13082:07:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13064:07:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13042:07:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
13020:20:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
13002:10:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
12985:07:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
12942:20:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
12927:06:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
12909:06:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
12890:06:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
12820:17:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
12789:09:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
12609:04:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
12558:14:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
12536:12:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
12518:10:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
12493:14:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
12475:01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
12461:00:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
12434:00:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
12294:15:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
12278:15:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
12255:11:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
12237:05:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
12200:19:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
12180:19:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
12164:18:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
12139:18:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
12125:16:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
12105:22:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
12089:22:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
12075:22:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
12046:22:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
12028:22:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
12010:22:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
12000:nominally, that'd be DYK.
11996:22:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
11964:20:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
11950:20:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
11934:19:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
11904:19:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
11890:13:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
11188:00:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
11172:00:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
11147:17:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
11037:13:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
11009:13:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
10984:11:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
10970:09:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
10398:(fine, but too white) the
10211:13:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
10190:04:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
10088:09:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
10037:04:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
9929:14:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
9913:10:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
9891:22:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
9876:22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
9851:21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
9832:21:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
9810:20:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
9795:20:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
9770:20:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
9756:20:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
9744:21:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
9728:20:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
9714:20:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
9699:19:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
9665:10:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
9630:11:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
9603:05:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
9578:04:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
9560:04:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
9547:20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
9526:12:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
9512:10:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
9495:22:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
9478:19:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
9461:12:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
9442:01:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
9428:01:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
9414:01:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
9397:12:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
9380:20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
9337:17:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
9312:17:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
9296:14:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
9277:14:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
9259:12:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
9231:07:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
9214:07:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
9188:03:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
9171:20:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
9152:20:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
9124:12:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
9110:12:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
9097:20:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
9072:12:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
9056:11:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
9035:12:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
9012:00:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
8994:17:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
8979:16:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
8954:16:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
8935:12:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
8921:01:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
8902:17:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
8888:14:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
8866:07:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
8845:02:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
8818:02:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
8772:23:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
8758:22:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
8729:21:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
8702:19:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
8687:19:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
8645:19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
8624:15:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
8583:18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
8547:19:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
8488:18:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
8412:10:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
8387:16:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
8366:21:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
8339:18:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
8311:21:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
8296:21:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
8269:20:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
8252:21:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
8216:17:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
8201:17:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
8174:17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
8147:16:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
8125:17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
8091:16:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
8074:07:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
8043:21:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
8024:12:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
7997:21:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
7972:17:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
7946:17:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
7928:16:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
7821:15:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
7788:15:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
7757:13:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
7732:13:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
7702:04:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
7677:16:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
7659:16:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
7632:16:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
7599:16:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
7585:14:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
7567:16:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
7552:16:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
7525:15:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
7504:16:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
7469:15:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
7452:14:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
7417:14:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
7396:13:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
7364:21:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
7339:14:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
7308:03:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
7269:13:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
6772:13:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
6596:20:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
6547:12:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
6527:20:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
6482:12:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
6465:01:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
6232:Special:TrackingCategories
6193:14:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
6175:13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
6161:13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
6134:14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
6113:04:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
6095:13:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
6077:18:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
6068:18:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
6041:17:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
6025:22:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
6004:17:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
5988:16:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
5942:
5931:04:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
5906:17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
5883:14:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
5777:13:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
5763:13:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
5741:13:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
5727:13:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
5699:13:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
5662:17:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
5613:17:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
5599:14:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
5581:05:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
5567:08:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
5549:00:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
5522:10:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
5495:10:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
5471:19:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
5451:16:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
5439:18:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
5424:18:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
5360:09:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
5346:19:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
5326:01:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
5215:
5207:17:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
5171:01:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
5144:mw:Help:Temporary accounts
4899:02:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
3905:02:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
3861:20:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
3839:20:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
3806:20:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
3790:20:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
3768:20:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
3727:20:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
3713:20:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
3697:20:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
3679:20:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
3663:20:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
3649:20:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
3616:20:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
3602:19:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
3586:19:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
3452:, and visible display for
3204:Inside baseball (metaphor)
1170:07:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
16646:23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
16556:22:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
16526:14:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
16504:12:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
16490:10:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
16468:16:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
16438:11:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
16418:16:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
16404:15:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
16385:12:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
16367:21:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
16282:
16255:
15279:Knowledge:Inline citation
14576:sources are described by
13752:12:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
12766:08:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
12738:01:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
12717:22:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
12703:and click on the link in
12691:13:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
12661:13:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
12631:05:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
12585:11:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
12397:22:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
12383:22:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
12369:22:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
12354:11:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
12334:10:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
12310:02:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
11954:I wouldn't bet on it. :/
11734:18:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
11129:19:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
11110:12:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
11094:07:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
11017:eswiki looks really good
10920:01:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
10900:21:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
10882:21:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
10868:18:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
10854:18:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
10840:18:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
10822:18:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
10807:09:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
8446:17:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
7665:I'm neutral on this issue
7284:AI in a very limited form
7242:18:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
7227:17:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
7206:17:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
7191:17:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
7177:17:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
7161:16:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
7134:16:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
7114:11:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
7099:04:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
7074:17:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
7048:15:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
7024:10:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
6981:04:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
6958:04:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
6927:10:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
6903:01:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
6889:09:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
6860:22:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
6838:16:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
6816:16:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
6787:16:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
6750:16:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
6689:05:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
6654:01:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
6297:Pages with template loops
5854:10:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
5506:People's Publishing House
5397:
5368:Reworking Sandbox Heading
5317:17:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
5287:04:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
5273:20:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
5254:13:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
5114:00:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
5103:00:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
4924:15:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
4881:06:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
4862:21:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
4845:17:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
4826:05:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
4815:16:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
4799:00:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
4784:00:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
4769:10:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
4755:05:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
3551:22:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
3537:21:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
3521:21:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
3299:13:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
3275:02:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
3254:00:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
3239:23:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
3220:22:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
3198:16:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
3180:16:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
3167:Knowledge:Metadata gadget
3157:01:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
3135:01:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
3121:15:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
3107:02:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
3078:08:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
3068:I agree with Skdb. Best,
3056:22:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
3033:02:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
3023:Yes, that's a good idea.
3019:20:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
3006:Great work....thank you!
3002:17:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
2972:17:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
2955:07:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
2932:07:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
2915:07:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
2897:03:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
2874:01:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
2857:16:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2844:13:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
2819:06:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
2797:04:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
2772:01:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
2763:per above and because of
2756:03:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
2742:02:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
2714:14:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
2705:00:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
2691:23:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
2674:22:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
2635:21:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
2616:22:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
2592:21:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
2583:16:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
2564:00:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
2546:15:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
2509:21:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2489:Knowledge:Metadata gadget
2480:19:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2456:19:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2442:19:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2425:18:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2398:17:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2379:17:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2363:Knowledge:Metadata gadget
2354:16:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2339:16:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2315:14:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2301:13:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2272:05:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2258:02:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
2240:18:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
2223:17:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
2206:16:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
2193:09:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
2176:07:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
2159:06:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
2134:04:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
2116:03:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
2098:02:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
2077:05:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
2040:02:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
2014:02:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
1992:01:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
1978:01:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
1939:23:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
1925:Knowledge:Metadata gadget
1918:23:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
1897:00:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
1879:00:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
1860:00:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
1844:21:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1825:17:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1806:17:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1789:17:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1762:15:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1748:16:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
1736:15:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1717:16:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1695:09:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1674:07:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1654:04:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1623:03:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1605:02:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1586:01:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1569:01:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1555:00:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1541:00:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1514:01:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
1491:20:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1469:15:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1455:00:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1436:00:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1421:00:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1398:00:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1377:16:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
1363:15:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
1340:19:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
1318:03:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
1303:16:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1291:16:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1274:14:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1254:17:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1239:04:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1209:00:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
1189:00:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
16773:Please do not modify it.
16244:write articles backwards
16076:Schwachhauser Heerstraße
15883:I'm confused about what
15766:No, this particular bar
15165:User:DumbBOT/ProdSummary
14583:What does it mean to be
14502:What do you consider an
13133:No. We already have the
12829:Please do not modify it.
11446:- what do you think now?
11176:And what would that be?
10791:There has been consensus
10704:Other areas of Knowledge
9942:Please do not modify it.
8455:Please do not modify it.
8419:Please do not modify it.
7869:2017 request for comment
6872:with community's grace.
6698:Please do not modify it.
6604:Should (some or all) of
6588:Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson
6519:Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson
6457:Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson
6291:Core tracking categories
5921:instead of asking here.
5790:Please do not modify it.
5671:Please do not modify it.
5178:Please do not modify it.
4512:Penny for your thoughts?
4126:ANI works better than AE
3882:Please do not modify it.
3306:Please do not modify it.
2979:Knowledge:Good articles*
1923:May be referring to the
1220:someone else has read it
1142:Please do not modify it.
84:Village pump (proposals)
15694:, and neither is PROD.
14364:Knowledge:Verifiability
13153:AfC submission/declined
10132:Wikimedia's design team
10094:You may want to review
8612:cf. a recent discussion
7619:I don't oppose the idea
7122:already seem quite busy
6273:Possibly empty category
15859:
15361:as above, contradicts
14276:first turn the tap off
13195:
8608:somewhat larger banner
6630:other bot runs section
6322:Template-loop-category
6207:which is used to mark
5753:is the correct place.
5037:and proposed process.
3755:
3749:
3743:
3462:was removed following
3415:MediaWiki:Nocreatetext
3046:for the FAs and GAs).
2709:Oppose per Curbon7. -
2661:
2655:
2649:
2643:
95:< Older discussions
16674:Bear (disambiguation)
15855:
14864:That's a good point.
14754:Last Train To Fortune
13194:
10589:".Regarding the gist—
8713:and the project that
6452:dedicated templates.
6438:{{Tracking category}}
6252:combination templates
5626:embarrassed today, ~
5508:may be retained as a
5007:meta:CheckUser policy
5003:meta:Oversight policy
4210:No clear motivation.
3751:
3745:
3739:
2748:Senior Captain Thrawn
2657:
2651:
2645:
2639:
2405:These are important.
1224:a year and a half ago
16224:PerfectSoundWhatever
16210:recent backlog drive
15628:strongly recommended
13919:Yet we often say in
13143:AfC submission/draft
13125:(Send talk messages
12836:After the events at
11984:Knowledge: Main Page
10702:Probably a bug, but
8741:Which project is it?
8535:meta:Wikimedia Forum
6362:which the extension
6284:Maintenance category
6240:Maintenance category
5818:Template:Talk header
5448:Sincerely, Novo Tape
5382:be changed to this:
5314:Sincerely, Novo Tape
3345:this appears instead
3327:village pump (ideas)
2785:greater compliance.
2185:The Herald (Benison)
16328:explicitly require
16072:Herrenhof (Mußbach)
15536:Firefangledfeathers
13259:I agree with this.
12966:strongly encouraged
12871:to be eligible for
12542:WP:Contents/Portals
12441:WP:Contents/Portals
12439:There is a link to
12184:Nevermind, there's
11155:I will quote you :"
10220:space either side.
8464:previous discussion
8031:Conditional Support
6566:which the template
6412:which the template
6261:That a redesign of
6213:tracking categories
5823:proposal discussion
5421:Master of Hedgehogs
5323:Master of Hedgehogs
5251:Master of Hedgehogs
2711:Master of Hedgehogs
1475:have clear criteria
16496:CactiStaccingCrane
16477:CactiStaccingCrane
16057:CactiStaccingCrane
16043:CactiStaccingCrane
15887:CactiStaccingCrane
15840:CactiStaccingCrane
15715:CactiStaccingCrane
15692:WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP
15657:CactiStaccingCrane
15492:CactiStaccingCrane
15344:especially opposed
15328:CactiStaccingCrane
15283:third-party source
14866:CactiStaccingCrane
14799:CactiStaccingCrane
14762:Teluk Bahang River
14664:CactiStaccingCrane
14626:CactiStaccingCrane
14422:CactiStaccingCrane
14372:CactiStaccingCrane
14315:CactiStaccingCrane
14004:CactiStaccingCrane
13968:CactiStaccingCrane
13930:CactiStaccingCrane
13830:CactiStaccingCrane
13698:CactiStaccingCrane
13647:CactiStaccingCrane
13261:CactiStaccingCrane
13198:CactiStaccingCrane
13196:
13175:CactiStaccingCrane
13160:CactiStaccingCrane
13074:CactiStaccingCrane
13034:CactiStaccingCrane
12977:CactiStaccingCrane
12919:CactiStaccingCrane
12901:CactiStaccingCrane
12882:CactiStaccingCrane
12830:
12815:Just Step Sideways
12803:unsourced articles
12112:Support a redesign
11272:Hey, I like that!
11153:CactiStaccingCrane
11139:CactiStaccingCrane
10583:Fucking excuse me?
10368:Knowledge? Or the
9817:Related discussion
8673:and, to a degree,
8590:In particular the
8456:
7280:
7257:Support proposal 1
6699:
6271:That the template
6248:Container category
5860:GeoHack preference
5745:You are trying to
5672:
5249:Is it possible? -
3246:CactiStaccingCrane
3190:CactiStaccingCrane
3172:CactiStaccingCrane
2468:ModernDayTrilobite
2365:(Preferences : -->
1661:per Barkeep49. We
1369:CactiStaccingCrane
1143:
16586:
16466:
16436:
15182:
15141:. Try looking at
15132:
14758:Khereshwar Temple
14716:
14656:
14615:
14585:eligible for PROD
14283:
14126:
13852:
13605:
13135:WP:Article wizard
12961:for this proposal
12956:Proposed deletion
12828:
11122:s among the rest!
11087:s among the rest!
11060:www.wikipedia.org
10727:User:Cremastra/MP
10690:my private styles
10662:User:Cremastra/MP
10551:
10197:
10192:
10148:
10120:new design system
10014:
9998:
9953:Hi, Wikipedians,
8950:
8944:
8917:
8911:
8884:
8878:
8843:
8549:
8526:
8471:See examples here
8454:
8432:CONSENSUS AGAINST
8374:you've got there.
8098:Industrial Insect
8084:Industrial Insect
7995:
7715:Knowledge library
7275:
7163:
7147:comment added by
7087:the ChatGPT store
7046:
6956:
6697:
6578:
6577:
6564:tracking category
6509:
6508:
6499:tracking category
6442:tracking category
6424:
6423:
6410:tracking category
6378:
6377:
6360:tracking category
6328:
6327:
6314:tracking category
6277:Tracking category
6263:Tracking category
6244:Tracking category
6054:
5670:
5416:
5415:
4724:
4612:
3184:Courtesy ping to
2733:
2020:brief and neutral
1927:mentioned below.
1920:
1832:per Spy-cicle. –
1708:
1539:
1163:
1160:non-admin closure
1141:
16781:
16720:
16719:BluePenguin18 🐧
16696:grandfathered in
16680:
16643:
16638:
16580:
16566:
16456:
16430:
16338:
16314:should not exist
16284:
16279:
16257:
16252:
16225:
16172:
16135:
15890:
15742:
15737:
15446:general citation
15435:
15263:
15256:
15241:
15176:
15174:
15126:
15124:
15071:I've expressed.
14983:At the very most
14857:
14856:
14850:
14835:flowchart of NPP
14710:
14650:
14609:
14391:
14354:
14307:
14282:
14240:
14237:
14176:
14169:
14146:
14139:
14120:
14051:
14048:
13873:
13846:
13783:WP:PROD#Deletion
13768:
13766:
13741:
13735:
13689:
13687:
13634:
13626:
13599:
13594:
13588:
13542:
13516:
13509:
13492:
13470:
13463:
13446:
13422:
13415:
13406:
13385:
13383:
13360:
13353:
13305:
13251:
13246:
13157:
13151:
13147:
13141:
13102:
12960:
12954:
12776:
12757:
12748:
12648:
12645:
12606:
12604:
12599:
12550:
12510:
12491:
12489:
12346:
12331:
12312:
12286:
12247:
12192:
12172:
12151:
12148:
12097:
12062:
12059:
12002:theleekycauldron
11942:
11921:
11918:
11877:
11874:
11843:
11813:
11767:
11712:
11676:
11642:
11608:
11558:
11537:
11500:
11388:
11376:
11352:
11322:
11310:
11217:
11180:
11158:Ignore all rules
11126:
11124:
11102:
11091:
11089:
11033:
11027:
11021:
10996:
10993:
10948:
10912:
10778:
10748:
10714:
10696:attention to it.
10646:
10641:
10623:
10610:
10580:
10562:
10548:
10543:
10541:
10496:
10491:
10462:
10449:
10305:
10297:
10294:~WikiOriginal-9~
10281:
10276:
10249:blank sidebars.
10203:
10195:
10172:
10142:
10124:new default skin
10018:
10013:
10006:
9997:
9996:
9995:
9989:
9921:
9910:
9906:
9901:
9865:
9859:
9830:
9828:
9792:
9785:
9746:
9696:
9689:
9662:
9658:
9653:
9646:
9640:
9622:
9304:
9246:
9243:
9185:
9183:
9169:
9082:
9025:
8971:theleekycauldron
8948:
8942:
8915:
8909:
8882:
8876:
8835:
8814:
8809:
8731:
8655:
8532:
8525:
8493:
8408:
8403:
8358:
8355:
8349:
8288:
8285:
8279:
8244:
8241:
8235:
8226:
8193:
8190:
8166:
8163:
8157:
8117:
8114:
8101:
8089:
8066:
8063:
8016:
8013:
8007:
7989:
7987:
7964:
7961:
7957:And how do you?
7956:
7920:
7917:
7906:
7902:
7896:
7893:
7880:
7852:
7813:
7810:
7796:
7744:
7741:
7724:
7721:
7712:
7690:personally built
7651:
7648:
7642:
7544:
7541:
7535:
7496:
7493:
7488:
7484:
7479:
7444:
7441:
7427:
7383:
7380:
7360:
7354:
7348:
7331:
7328:
7318:
7304:
7298:
7292:
7216:
7142:
7062:
7058:
7045:
7043:
7042:
7039:
7033:
6991:
6969:
6964:
6955:
6953:
6952:
6949:
6943:
6913:
6881:
6876:
6870:
6830:
6825:
6808:
6803:
6797:
6764:
6761:
6742:
6737:
6681:
6678:
6674:and notify me.
6627:
6559:
6558:
6552:
6494:
6493:
6487:
6439:
6435:
6405:
6404:
6398:
6355:
6354:
6348:
6309:
6308:
6302:
6148:
6145:
6091:
6066:
6064:
6053:
6052:
6051:
6045:
5971:
5965:
5954:
5952:
5814:
5808:
5625:
5624:
5623:
5565:
5563:
5510:primary redirect
5466:
5462:
5459:. All the best.
5411:
5405:</center: -->
5401:</center: -->
5386:
5385:
5381:
5375:
5304:
5303:
5293:which renders as
5246:
5244:
5221:
5220:
5205:
5203:
5193:
5192:
5111:
5085:
5029:
4994:
4896:
4873:
4872:BluePenguin18 🐧
4812:
4723:
4721:
4714:
4611:
4585:
4562:
4558:
4552:
4546:
4513:
4494:
4489:
4477:
4464:
4457:
4442:
4394:
4356:
4327:
4283:
4235:
4233:
4184:
3953:
3884:
3831:
3798:
3760:
3705:
3671:
3639:can create it'.
3633:red link example
3594:
3575:
3529:
3461:
3455:
3448:
3442:
3427:
3411:
3405:
3391:
3317:Relevant links:
3297:
3295:
3231:
3119:
3117:Compassionate727
3017:
3011:
2987:
2981:
2970:
2964:
2947:
2913:
2911:
2811:PantheonRadiance
2789:
2788:BluePenguin18 🐧
2740:
2738:
2731:
2728:
2702:
2700:
2666:
2613:
2608:
2507:
2506:
2503:
2497:
2422:
2414:
2336:
2329:
2203:
2131:
2054:
1974:
1969:
1957:
1931:
1916:
1901:
1876:
1871:
1836:
1820:
1786:
1785:
1779:
1778:
1760:
1758:Compassionate727
1715:
1713:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1699:
1690:
1672:
1670:
1652:
1630:per Barkeep49.
1602:
1597:
1533:
1531:
1510:
1505:
1467:
1465:Compassionate727
1360:
1355:
1327:
1300:
1289:
1283:
1265:
1157:
79:
54:
16789:
16788:
16784:
16783:
16782:
16780:
16779:
16778:
16777:
16776:
16718:
16678:
16641:
16636:
16560:
16334:
16275:
16248:
16223:
16208:As seen by the
16193:Musiconeologist
16170:
16133:
16005:OrdinaryGiraffe
15977:OrdinaryGiraffe
15884:
15740:
15735:
15650:actually exists
15433:
15281:to a reliable,
15254:
15252:
15220:
15170:
15120:
14854:
14853:
14848:
14527:inline citation
14393:
14389:
14368:inline citation
14356:
14352:
14299:
14238:
14235:
14211:
14205:
14200:Queen of Hearts
14167:
14165:
14142:
14135:
14049:
14046:
13869:
13764:
13762:
13739:
13733:
13685:
13683:
13671:
13670:it has begun...
13630:
13622:
13592:
13586:
13512:
13505:
13466:
13459:
13418:
13411:
13381:
13379:
13356:
13349:
13303:
13284:, basically.
13253:
13249:
13244:
13155:
13149:
13145:
13139:
13098:
13072:them though :)
13032:to this topic.
12958:
12952:
12833:
12824:
12823:
12822:
12810:
12805:
12774:
12755:
12751:Knowledge:Books
12742:
12646:
12643:
12619:
12602:
12597:
12595:
12546:
12528:Interstellarity
12506:
12502:Interstellarity
12487:
12485:
12467:Interstellarity
12426:Interstellarity
12417:
12380:
12379:it has begun...
12344:
12329:
12284:
12245:
12216:
12190:
12170:
12149:
12146:
12095:
12060:
12057:
11940:
11919:
11916:
11875:
11872:
11841:
11811:
11765:
11710:
11674:
11640:
11606:
11556:
11535:
11498:
11386:
11370:
11350:
11320:
11306:
11215:
11178:
11123:
11119:
11116:
11100:
11088:
11084:
11081:
11031:
11025:
11019:
10994:
10991:
10946:
10910:
10776:
10746:
10712:
10644:
10635:
10621:
10608:
10604:is incompatable
10595:Thebiguglyalien
10574:
10560:
10546:
10539:Thebiguglyalien
10537:
10498:
10494:
10489:
10460:
10445:
10301:
10291:
10283:
10279:
10274:
10201:
10016:
10000:
9993:
9991:
9990:
9982:
9981:it has begun...
9951:
9946:
9945:
9919:
9908:
9904:
9899:
9863:
9857:
9839:volunteer weeks
9826:
9824:
9788:
9781:
9692:
9685:
9673:
9660:
9656:
9651:
9644:
9638:
9618:
9406:OrdinaryGiraffe
9302:
9244:
9241:
9181:
9179:
9161:
9150:
9144:
9139:Queen of Hearts
9076:
9050:Peter Southwood
9018:a lot of essays
9004:JuxtaposedJacob
8967:Yeah, obviously
8823:Absolutely not.
8816:
8812:
8807:
8649:
8557:
8550:
8506:Commander Keane
8495:
8459:
8450:
8449:
8448:
8433:
8428:
8423:
8422:
8406:
8401:
8363:
8356:
8353:
8343:
8293:
8286:
8283:
8273:
8249:
8242:
8239:
8233:
8220:
8198:
8191:
8188:
8171:
8164:
8161:
8151:
8122:
8115:
8112:
8095:
8082:
8071:
8064:
8061:
8052:Financial Times
8021:
8014:
8011:
8001:
7983:
7969:
7962:
7959:
7950:
7925:
7918:
7915:
7911:
7910:
7909:
7903:
7899:
7894:
7890:
7857:
7836:
7818:
7811:
7808:
7794:
7742:
7739:
7729:
7722:
7719:
7706:
7656:
7649:
7646:
7636:
7549:
7542:
7539:
7529:
7501:
7494:
7491:
7486:
7482:
7473:
7460:
7449:
7442:
7439:
7421:
7408:
7381:
7378:
7358:
7352:
7346:
7336:
7329:
7326:
7312:
7302:
7296:
7290:
7219:ExclusiveEditor
7210:
7183:ExclusiveEditor
7106:Barnards.tar.gz
7066:ExclusiveEditor
7060:
7052:
7040:
7037:
7036:
7031:
7016:ExclusiveEditor
6985:
6967:
6962:
6950:
6947:
6946:
6941:
6919:ExclusiveEditor
6907:
6886:
6879:
6874:
6864:
6848:ExclusiveEditor
6835:
6828:
6823:
6813:
6806:
6801:
6794:Barnards.tar.gz
6791:
6779:Barnards.tar.gz
6769:
6762:
6759:
6747:
6740:
6735:
6729:Note: AIs like
6721:ExclusiveEditor
6702:
6693:
6692:
6691:
6686:
6679:
6676:
6666:
6661:
6623:
6610:
6581:
6568:Citation needed
6556:
6512:
6491:
6437:
6433:
6430:
6402:
6384:
6364:SyntaxHighlight
6352:
6334:
6306:
6201:
6146:
6143:
6102:
6087:
6062:
6060:
6049:
6047:
6046:
5998:Peter Southwood
5969:
5963:
5956:
5950:
5948:
5941:
5862:
5821:details at the
5812:
5806:
5799:
5794:
5793:
5767:I see. Thanks.
5686:
5675:
5666:
5665:
5664:
5645:
5640:
5621:
5561:
5559:
5530:
5479:
5469:
5464:
5460:
5417:
5402:<center: -->
5398:<center: -->
5391:
5379:
5377:sandbox heading
5373:
5370:
5306:
5299:
5298:
5242:
5240:
5227:
5226:
5218:
5214:
5201:
5199:
5190:
5187:
5182:
5181:
5109:
5083:
5027:
4992:
4932:
4907:
4891:
4871:
4842:
4819:Per Sandstein.
4810:
4717:
4715:
4693:ConcurrentState
4665:ConcurrentState
4636:ConcurrentState
4581:
4556:
4550:
4544:
4541:
4492:
4487:
4475:
4455:
4453:
4438:
4392:
4354:
4325:
4281:
4231:
4229:
4217:
4216:it has begun...
4182:
4177:
3951:
3937:Interstellarity
3932:
3917:Interstellarity
3912:
3880:
3873:
3829:
3796:
3758:
3703:
3669:
3592:
3557:
3527:
3459:
3453:
3446:
3440:
3423:
3409:
3403:
3389:
3315:
3310:
3309:
3293:
3291:
3283:page protection
3229:
3114:
3007:
2983:
2977:
2960:
2945:
2920:This 2022 study
2909:
2907:
2882:
2827:
2787:
2777:Strongly oppose
2736:
2726:
2724:
2698:
2696:
2664:
2627:Hey man im josh
2611:
2606:
2501:
2495:
2493:
2492:
2418:
2410:
2376:
2332:
2325:
2199:
2129:
2048:
1976:
1972:
1967:
1929:
1906:
1904:Queen of Hearts
1874:
1869:
1834:
1816:
1783:
1782:
1776:The Night Watch
1774:
1773:
1755:
1711:
1709:
1703:
1701:
1700:
1688:
1668:
1666:
1631:
1600:
1595:
1527:
1512:
1508:
1503:
1462:
1385:
1358:
1351:
1349:its objective.
1325:
1298:
1279:
1263:
1201:Interstellarity
1196:
1181:Interstellarity
1146:
1136:
1131:
80:
77:
74:
48:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
16787:
16770:
16769:
16768:
16747:
16737:FailedMusician
16730:
16710:
16689:
16688:
16687:
16686:
16685:
16637:==References==
16626:
16625:
16624:
16623:
16622:
16621:
16620:
16574:fixes problems
16532:
16531:
16530:
16529:
16528:
16470:
16444:
16443:
16442:
16441:
16440:
16387:
16369:
16348:
16307:
16289:
16267:Strong support
16264:
16263:
16262:
16203:
16181:
16180:
16179:
16178:
16177:
16118:
16117:
16116:
16115:
16114:
16113:
16112:
16079:
16068:
16061:w:de:Sandstein
16039:
16019:
16018:
16017:
16016:
16015:
15971:
15950:
15932:
15911:
15878:
15877:
15876:
15875:
15874:
15860:
15853:
15817:
15816:
15815:
15814:
15813:
15812:
15790:
15789:
15788:
15787:
15747:
15727:
15726:
15725:
15686:
15669:
15668:
15667:
15653:
15636:
15632:
15588:
15576:per Levivich.
15571:
15550:
15529:
15528:
15527:
15526:
15525:
15462:
15461:
15460:
15416:
15399:
15377:
15356:
15355:
15354:
15340:
15339:
15338:
15309:
15308:
15307:
15306:
15305:
15206:
15205:
15204:
15203:
15202:
15201:
15200:
15113:
15112:
15111:
15097:
15096:
15095:
15094:
15093:
15092:
15091:
15090:
15089:
15088:
15087:
15086:
15085:
15084:
15083:
15042:
15016:
15005:
15002:
14998:
14990:
14878:
14877:
14876:
14838:also consider
14828:
14827:
14826:
14825:
14824:
14743:
14725:
14724:
14723:
14722:
14721:
14720:
14678:
14677:
14676:
14675:
14674:
14602:
14601:
14600:
14599:
14592:
14581:
14546:
14519:
14506:article? An un
14494:
14473:
14472:
14471:
14470:
14469:
14468:
14467:
14466:
14465:
14417:
14399:
14398:
14397:
14387:
14350:
14344:
14343:
14342:
14341:
14340:
14287:
14255:
14218:Strong support
14215:
14207:
14203:
14183:Strong support
14180:
14155:
14154:
14153:
14152:
14151:
14094:
14072:
14071:
14070:
14069:
14068:
14067:
14066:
14037:
14036:
14035:
14034:
14033:
14032:
14031:
14030:
14029:
13878:
13862:
13861:
13860:
13859:
13858:
13857:
13856:
13772:
13756:
13755:
13754:
13712:
13711:
13710:
13709:
13708:
13669:
13659:
13658:
13657:
13611:
13610:
13609:
13575:
13556:
13555:
13554:
13553:
13552:
13551:
13550:
13549:
13548:
13547:
13546:
13545:
13544:
13543:
13365:
13340:
13339:
13311:
13297:
13296:
13274:
13273:
13272:
13271:
13237:
13229:
13214:
13213:
13212:
13211:
13210:
13209:
13208:
13188:
13110:
13109:
13108:
13100:
13086:
13085:
13084:
13026:
13025:
13024:
13023:
13022:
12973:
12972:
12969:
12962:
12945:
12944:
12931:
12930:
12929:
12865:1st April 2024
12834:
12825:
12812:
12811:
12808:
12807:
12806:
12804:
12797:
12796:
12795:
12794:
12793:
12792:
12791:
12768:
12726:
12723:
12693:
12663:
12618:
12615:
12614:
12613:
12612:
12611:
12566:
12565:
12564:
12563:
12562:
12561:
12560:
12497:
12496:
12495:
12481:
12416:
12409:
12408:
12407:
12406:
12405:
12404:
12403:
12402:
12401:
12400:
12399:
12378:
12317:
12316:
12315:
12314:
12313:
12296:
12215:
12212:
12211:
12210:
12209:
12208:
12207:
12206:
12205:
12204:
12203:
12202:
12109:
12108:
12107:
12091:
12077:
12052:
12051:
12050:
12049:
12048:
11976:
11975:
11974:
11973:
11972:
11971:
11970:
11969:
11968:
11967:
11966:
11936:
11867:
11866:
11865:
11864:
11863:
11862:
11861:
11860:
11859:
11858:
11857:
11856:
11855:
11854:
11853:
11777:
11746:
11745:
11744:
11743:
11742:
11741:
11740:
11739:
11738:
11737:
11736:
11707:
11603:
11585:
11584:
11583:
11530:
11529:
11528:
11527:
11526:
11525:
11524:
11510:
11476:
11447:
11440:User:Cremastra
11432:
11418:
11417:
11416:
11398:
11383:
11366:
11365:
11364:
11363:
11362:
11316:
11308:
11298:
11284:
11247:
11228:
11227:
11195:
11194:
11193:
11192:
11191:
11190:
11135:
11134:
11133:
11132:
11131:
11121:
11086:
11076:
11075:
11074:
11041:
11040:
11039:
11015:
11014:
11013:
11012:
11011:
10988:I like it too
10934:
10933:
10932:
10931:
10930:
10929:
10928:
10927:
10926:
10925:
10924:
10923:
10922:
10908:It looks cool
10906:
10905:
10904:
10903:
10902:
10809:
10788:
10772:
10758:
10709:
10708:
10707:
10706:appears twice.
10700:
10697:
10693:
10685:
10682:
10659:
10658:
10657:
10656:
10655:
10654:
10653:
10652:
10651:
10618:
10593:—I think what
10533:
10519:
10502:
10482:
10478:
10477:
10476:
10475:
10474:
10473:
10472:
10455:
10447:
10437:
10396:the Chinese MP
10377:
10362:
10313:
10312:
10311:
10287:
10267:
10263:
10262:
10261:
10217:
10216:
10215:
10214:
10213:
10198:
10170:
10108:
10092:
10091:
10090:
10076:
10062:
10059:
10049:216.147.126.60
10041:
10040:
10039:
9980:
9960:Best regards,
9950:
9947:
9939:
9938:
9937:
9936:
9935:
9934:
9933:
9932:
9931:
9835:
9834:
9813:
9812:
9777:
9776:
9775:
9774:
9773:
9772:
9749:
9748:
9747:
9672:
9669:
9668:
9667:
9632:
9607:
9606:
9605:
9562:
9549:
9528:
9514:
9497:
9480:
9463:
9446:
9445:
9444:
9430:
9399:
9382:
9339:
9316:
9315:
9314:
9279:
9261:
9233:
9216:
9190:
9182:Rhododendrites
9173:
9154:
9146:
9142:
9132:
9131:
9130:
9129:
9128:
9127:
9126:
9058:
9039:
9038:
9037:
8996:
8981:
8964:
8963:
8962:
8961:
8960:
8959:
8958:
8957:
8956:
8868:
8847:
8820:
8800:
8778:
8777:
8776:
8775:
8774:
8742:
8736:
8735:
8734:
8733:
8732:
8629:
8628:
8627:
8626:
8616:Biohistorian15
8604:
8572:
8565:
8564:
8556:
8553:
8552:
8551:
8531:
8528:
8527:
8475:
8474:
8460:
8451:
8435:
8434:
8431:
8430:
8429:
8427:
8424:
8416:
8415:
8414:
8393:
8392:
8391:
8390:
8389:
8379:Clarinetguy097
8375:
8361:
8321:
8320:
8319:
8318:
8317:
8316:
8315:
8314:
8313:
8291:
8256:
8255:
8254:
8247:
8196:
8176:
8169:
8130:
8129:
8128:
8127:
8120:
8077:
8076:
8069:
8045:
8028:
8027:
8026:
8019:
7976:
7975:
7974:
7967:
7953:Clarinetguy097
7938:Clarinetguy097
7923:
7908:
7907:
7897:
7887:
7886:
7882:
7878:
7876:
7874:
7872:
7864:WP:INDICSCRIPT
7861:
7859:
7856:
7854:
7853:
7840:
7838:
7834:
7833:
7826:
7825:
7824:
7823:
7816:
7763:
7762:
7761:
7760:
7759:
7727:
7683:
7682:
7681:
7680:
7679:
7654:
7610:
7609:
7608:
7607:
7606:
7605:
7604:
7603:
7602:
7601:
7547:
7512:
7511:
7510:
7509:
7508:
7507:
7506:
7499:
7458:
7447:
7406:
7403:Absolutely not
7399:
7398:
7373:Strong Support
7370:
7369:
7368:
7367:
7366:
7334:
7286:
7285:
7272:
7271:
7253:
7252:
7251:
7250:
7249:
7248:
7247:
7246:
7245:
7244:
7164:
7136:
7118:
7117:
7116:
7082:
7081:
7080:
7079:
7078:
7077:
7076:
7012:
7011:
7008:
7007:
7004:
7003:
6999:
6998:
6995:
6994:
6983:
6932:
6931:
6930:
6929:
6893:
6892:
6891:
6884:
6844:
6843:
6842:
6841:
6840:
6833:
6811:
6767:
6752:
6745:
6725:
6703:
6694:
6684:
6668:
6667:
6664:
6663:
6662:
6660:
6657:
6609:
6602:
6601:
6600:
6599:
6598:
6579:
6576:
6575:
6560:
6550:
6549:
6532:
6531:
6530:
6529:
6510:
6507:
6506:
6495:
6485:
6484:
6428:
6422:
6421:
6406:
6382:
6376:
6375:
6356:
6332:
6326:
6325:
6310:
6288:
6287:
6280:
6269:
6266:
6227:
6226:
6223:
6220:
6209:category pages
6200:
6197:
6196:
6195:
6181:all the way up
6177:
6163:
6138:
6137:
6136:
6122:
6119:
6100:
6097:
6089:
6079:
6070:
6043:
6029:
6028:
6027:
6013:
6010:
5993:
5955:
5947:
5940:
5937:
5936:
5935:
5934:
5933:
5861:
5858:
5857:
5856:
5798:
5795:
5787:
5786:
5785:
5784:
5783:
5782:
5781:
5780:
5779:
5716:
5715:
5714:
5684:
5678:
5676:
5667:
5647:
5646:
5643:
5642:
5641:
5639:
5636:
5635:
5634:
5633:
5632:
5601:
5583:
5569:
5529:
5526:
5525:
5524:
5478:
5475:
5474:
5473:
5468:
5465:a smart kitten
5453:
5441:
5414:
5413:
5408:</span: -->
5393:
5392:
5389:
5384:
5369:
5366:
5365:
5364:
5363:
5362:
5334:
5333:
5332:
5331:
5330:
5329:
5328:
5307:
5296:
5294:
5216:
5213:
5210:
5186:
5183:
5175:
5174:
5173:
5158:
5136:
5135:
5134:
5133:
5132:
5131:
5130:
5129:
5128:
5127:
5126:
5125:
5124:
5123:
5122:
5121:
5120:
5119:
5118:
5117:
5116:
4931:
4928:
4927:
4926:
4906:
4903:
4902:
4901:
4883:
4864:
4847:
4838:
4828:
4817:
4803:
4802:
4801:
4771:
4757:
4742:
4728:
4711:
4710:
4709:
4708:
4707:
4706:
4705:
4704:
4703:
4631:
4616:
4605:
4590:
4566:
4538:
4518:
4500:
4482:
4468:
4447:
4431:
4401:
4383:
4382:
4381:
4380:
4379:
4378:
4377:
4376:
4375:
4320:
4290:
4289:
4288:
4259:
4258:
4257:
4222:
4215:
4208:
4194:
4176:
4173:
4172:
4171:
4170:
4169:
4168:
4167:
4166:
4165:
4164:
4163:
4162:
4161:
4160:
4159:
4109:
4105:
4097:
4056:
4053:
4021:
4020:
4019:
4018:
4017:
4016:
4015:
3958:
3947:
3931:
3928:
3911:
3910:
3909:
3908:
3907:
3875:
3874:
3872:
3869:
3868:
3867:
3866:
3865:
3864:
3863:
3853:Daniel Quinlan
3848:move-protected
3826:so I made one.
3818:
3817:
3816:
3815:
3814:
3813:
3812:
3811:
3810:
3809:
3808:
3774:
3737:
3736:
3735:
3734:
3733:
3732:
3731:
3730:
3729:
3637:administrators
3628:
3624:
3620:
3619:
3618:
3568:Daniel Quinlan
3555:
3554:
3553:
3508:
3498:Daniel Quinlan
3494:
3479:
3469:184.152.68.190
3435:
3434:
3433:
3425:
3368:
3367:
3314:
3311:
3303:
3302:
3301:
3278:
3277:
3261:
3260:
3259:
3258:
3257:
3256:
3224:
3223:
3222:
3163:
3162:
3161:
3160:
3159:
3111:
3110:
3109:
3095:
3094:
3093:
3090:
3087:
3083:readers, when
3066:
3065:
3064:
3063:
3062:
3061:
3060:
3059:
3058:
2974:
2936:
2935:
2934:
2881:
2878:
2877:
2876:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2826:
2823:
2822:
2821:
2799:
2774:
2758:
2744:
2716:
2707:
2699:Rhododendrites
2693:
2676:
2637:
2620:
2619:
2618:
2585:
2568:
2567:
2566:
2511:
2496:Chris Troutman
2482:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2427:
2400:
2381:
2372:
2356:
2341:
2317:
2303:
2274:
2260:
2242:
2225:
2208:
2195:
2178:
2161:
2136:
2118:
2100:
2090:ARandomName123
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2043:
2042:
1994:
1980:
1960:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1912:
1910:
1862:
1846:
1827:
1808:
1791:
1764:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1728:featured lists
1721:
1720:
1719:
1676:
1656:
1625:
1607:
1588:
1571:
1557:
1543:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1496:
1493:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1400:
1384:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1365:
1342:
1320:
1305:
1293:
1276:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1211:
1195:
1192:
1173:
1147:
1138:
1137:
1135:
1132:
92:
76:
75:
73:
72:
71:
70:
65:
60:
55:
43:
38:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
16786:
16774:
16767:
16763:
16759:
16755:
16751:
16748:
16746:
16742:
16738:
16734:
16731:
16729:
16725:
16721:
16714:
16711:
16709:
16705:
16701:
16697:
16693:
16690:
16684:
16681:
16675:
16671:
16667:
16666:
16665:
16661:
16657:
16653:
16649:
16648:
16647:
16644:
16634:
16630:
16627:
16619:
16615:
16611:
16606:
16605:
16604:
16600:
16596:
16591:
16590:
16589:
16584:
16579:
16575:
16570:
16564:
16559:
16558:
16557:
16553:
16549:
16545:
16541:
16536:
16533:
16527:
16523:
16519:
16515:
16511:
16507:
16506:
16505:
16501:
16497:
16493:
16492:
16491:
16487:
16483:
16478:
16474:
16471:
16469:
16464:
16460:
16455:
16454:
16448:
16445:
16439:
16434:
16429:
16425:
16421:
16420:
16419:
16415:
16411:
16407:
16406:
16405:
16401:
16397:
16396:
16391:
16388:
16386:
16382:
16378:
16373:
16370:
16368:
16364:
16360:
16359:Draken Bowser
16356:
16352:
16349:
16347:
16343:
16339:
16337:
16331:
16327:
16323:
16319:
16315:
16311:
16308:
16306:
16303:
16300:
16299:
16293:
16290:
16288:
16285:
16280:
16278:
16272:
16268:
16265:
16261:
16258:
16253:
16251:
16245:
16240:
16239:
16238:
16234:
16230:
16226:
16219:
16215:
16211:
16207:
16204:
16202:
16198:
16194:
16189:
16185:
16182:
16176:
16173:
16167:
16163:
16159:
16158:
16157:
16153:
16149:
16145:
16141:
16140:
16139:
16136:
16130:
16126:
16122:
16119:
16111:
16107:
16103:
16099:
16094:
16093:
16092:
16088:
16084:
16080:
16077:
16073:
16069:
16066:
16062:
16058:
16054:
16053:
16052:
16048:
16044:
16040:
16037:
16036:
16035:
16031:
16027:
16023:
16020:
16014:
16010:
16006:
16002:
16001:
16000:
15996:
15992:
15988:
15987:
15986:
15982:
15978:
15975:
15972:
15970:
15966:
15962:
15958:
15954:
15951:
15949:
15945:
15941:
15938:on the site.
15936:
15933:
15931:
15927:
15923:
15919:
15915:
15912:
15910:
15907:
15904:
15903:
15899:
15894:
15888:
15882:
15879:
15873:
15869:
15865:
15861:
15858:
15854:
15851:
15850:
15849:
15845:
15841:
15836:
15835:
15834:
15830:
15826:
15822:
15819:
15818:
15811:
15807:
15803:
15802:
15796:
15795:
15794:
15793:
15792:
15791:
15786:
15782:
15778:
15773:
15769:
15765:
15764:
15763:
15759:
15755:
15751:
15748:
15746:
15743:
15738:
15731:
15728:
15724:
15720:
15716:
15711:
15707:
15706:
15705:
15701:
15697:
15696:InfiniteNexus
15693:
15690:
15687:
15685:
15681:
15677:
15673:
15670:
15666:
15662:
15658:
15654:
15652:in real life?
15651:
15647:
15642:
15637:
15633:
15629:
15624:
15620:
15616:
15615:
15614:
15610:
15606:
15601:
15596:
15592:
15589:
15587:
15583:
15579:
15575:
15572:
15570:
15566:
15562:
15558:
15554:
15551:
15549:
15545:
15541:
15537:
15533:
15530:
15524:
15521:
15520:
15517:
15516:
15511:
15510:
15503:
15502:
15501:
15497:
15493:
15488:
15487:
15486:
15483:
15482:
15479:
15478:
15473:
15472:
15466:
15463:
15459:
15455:
15451:
15447:
15442:
15441:
15440:
15437:
15436:
15429:
15425:
15420:
15417:
15415:
15411:
15407:
15403:
15400:
15398:
15394:
15390:
15386:
15381:
15378:
15376:
15372:
15368:
15364:
15360:
15357:
15353:
15350:
15345:
15341:
15337:
15333:
15329:
15326:fabrication?
15324:
15323:
15322:
15321:
15320:
15317:
15313:
15310:
15304:
15300:
15296:
15292:
15288:
15284:
15280:
15276:
15272:
15268:
15267:
15266:
15262:
15261:
15257:
15250:
15246:
15245:
15244:
15239:
15235:
15231:
15227:
15223:
15218:
15214:
15210:
15207:
15199:
15195:
15191:
15187:
15186:
15185:
15180:
15175:
15173:
15172:Novem Linguae
15166:
15162:
15158:
15157:
15156:
15152:
15148:
15144:
15140:
15137:
15136:
15135:
15130:
15125:
15123:
15122:Novem Linguae
15117:
15114:
15110:
15106:
15102:
15098:
15082:
15078:
15074:
15069:
15068:
15067:
15063:
15059:
15055:
15051:
15047:
15043:
15039:
15038:
15037:
15033:
15029:
15025:
15021:
15017:
15014:
15010:
15006:
15003:
14999:
14996:
14991:
14988:
14984:
14980:
14975:
14974:
14973:
14969:
14965:
14960:
14959:
14958:
14954:
14950:
14946:
14945:
14944:
14940:
14936:
14932:
14931:
14930:
14926:
14922:
14917:
14916:
14915:
14912:
14908:
14907:
14906:
14902:
14898:
14894:
14890:
14886:
14882:
14879:
14875:
14871:
14867:
14863:
14862:
14861:
14858:
14851:
14845:
14841:
14836:
14832:
14829:
14823:
14819:
14815:
14810:
14809:
14808:
14804:
14800:
14796:
14792:
14788:
14785:
14784:
14783:
14779:
14775:
14771:
14767:
14763:
14759:
14755:
14751:
14747:
14744:
14742:
14738:
14734:
14730:
14727:
14726:
14719:
14714:
14709:
14705:
14704:
14703:
14699:
14695:
14691:
14687:
14683:
14679:
14673:
14669:
14665:
14661:
14660:
14659:
14654:
14649:
14645:
14641:
14640:encyclopaedic
14637:
14636:
14635:
14631:
14627:
14623:
14620:
14619:
14618:
14613:
14608:
14604:
14603:
14597:
14593:
14590:
14586:
14582:
14579:
14575:
14571:
14567:
14563:
14559:
14555:
14551:
14547:
14544:
14540:
14539:WP:LISTVERIFY
14536:
14532:
14528:
14524:
14523:inline source
14520:
14517:
14513:
14509:
14505:
14501:
14500:
14498:
14495:
14493:
14489:
14485:
14481:
14477:
14474:
14464:
14460:
14456:
14452:
14451:
14450:
14446:
14442:
14437:
14433:
14432:
14431:
14427:
14423:
14418:
14416:
14412:
14408:
14404:
14400:
14396:
14392:
14385:
14384:
14383:
14382:
14381:
14377:
14373:
14369:
14365:
14361:
14360:
14359:
14355:
14348:
14345:
14339:
14335:
14331:
14326:
14325:
14324:
14320:
14316:
14312:
14311:
14310:
14306:
14303:
14296:
14291:
14288:
14286:
14281:
14280:Seraphimblade
14277:
14272:
14269:to do things
14267:
14263:
14259:
14256:
14254:
14250:
14246:
14242:
14241:
14231:
14227:
14223:
14219:
14216:
14214:
14210:
14201:
14197:
14192:
14188:
14184:
14181:
14179:
14175:
14174:
14170:
14163:
14159:
14156:
14150:
14147:
14145:
14140:
14138:
14131:
14130:
14129:
14124:
14119:
14115:
14114:
14113:
14109:
14105:
14104:
14098:
14095:
14093:
14089:
14085:
14080:
14076:
14075:Strong oppose
14073:
14065:
14061:
14057:
14053:
14052:
14042:
14038:
14028:
14024:
14020:
14015:
14014:
14013:
14009:
14005:
14001:
14000:
13999:
13995:
13991:
13987:
13983:
13979:
13978:
13977:
13973:
13969:
13965:
13964:
13963:
13960:
13959:Donald Albury
13955:
13954:
13953:
13949:
13945:
13941:
13940:
13939:
13935:
13931:
13927:
13922:
13918:
13917:
13916:
13912:
13908:
13903:
13898:
13894:
13890:
13886:
13882:
13879:
13877:
13874:
13872:
13866:
13863:
13855:
13850:
13845:
13841:
13840:
13839:
13835:
13831:
13827:
13826:
13825:
13821:
13817:
13812:
13811:
13810:
13806:
13802:
13797:
13793:
13788:
13784:
13780:
13776:
13773:
13771:
13767:
13760:
13757:
13753:
13749:
13745:
13738:
13730:
13729:
13728:
13724:
13720:
13716:
13713:
13707:
13703:
13699:
13694:
13693:
13692:
13688:
13681:
13680:systemic bias
13677:
13676:
13675:
13672:
13667:
13663:
13660:
13656:
13652:
13648:
13644:
13640:
13639:
13638:
13635:
13633:
13627:
13625:
13620:
13619:SportingFlyer
13615:
13612:
13608:
13603:
13598:
13591:
13584:
13580:
13576:
13574:
13570:
13566:
13565:🌺 Cremastra
13562:
13558:
13557:
13541:
13538:
13535:
13534:
13527:
13522:
13521:
13520:
13517:
13515:
13510:
13508:
13502:
13498:
13494:
13493:
13491:
13488:
13485:
13484:
13476:
13475:
13474:
13471:
13469:
13464:
13462:
13456:
13452:
13448:
13447:
13445:
13442:
13439:
13438:
13431:
13428:
13427:
13426:
13423:
13421:
13416:
13414:
13408:
13407:
13405:
13402:
13399:
13398:
13390:
13389:
13388:
13384:
13377:
13373:
13369:
13366:
13364:
13361:
13359:
13354:
13352:
13345:
13342:
13341:
13338:
13335:
13332:
13327:
13323:
13321:
13315:
13312:
13310:
13307:
13306:
13299:
13298:
13295:
13291:
13287:
13286:🌺 Cremastra
13283:
13279:
13276:
13275:
13270:
13266:
13262:
13258:
13257:
13256:
13252:
13247:
13242:
13241:
13234:
13230:
13228:
13224:
13220:
13215:
13207:
13203:
13199:
13193:
13189:
13186:
13185:
13184:
13180:
13176:
13171:
13170:
13169:
13165:
13161:
13154:
13144:
13136:
13132:
13131:
13130:
13128:
13123:
13119:
13115:
13111:
13107:
13103:
13095:
13091:
13087:
13083:
13079:
13075:
13071:
13067:
13066:
13065:
13061:
13057:
13053:
13049:
13045:
13044:
13043:
13039:
13035:
13031:
13027:
13021:
13017:
13013:
13009:
13005:
13004:
13003:
12999:
12995:
12991:
12990:
12989:
12988:
12987:
12986:
12982:
12978:
12970:
12967:
12963:
12957:
12950:
12949:
12948:
12943:
12940:
12939:Donald Albury
12935:
12932:
12928:
12924:
12920:
12916:
12912:
12911:
12910:
12906:
12902:
12898:
12894:
12893:
12892:
12891:
12887:
12883:
12878:
12874:
12870:
12866:
12861:
12859:
12855:
12851:
12847:
12843:
12839:
12832:
12821:
12818:
12816:
12802:
12790:
12786:
12782:
12778:
12769:
12767:
12763:
12759:
12752:
12746:
12741:
12740:
12739:
12735:
12731:
12727:
12724:
12720:
12719:
12718:
12714:
12710:
12709:StarryGrandma
12706:
12702:
12698:
12694:
12692:
12688:
12684:
12683:😸 Cremastra
12680:
12676:
12672:
12668:
12664:
12662:
12658:
12654:
12650:
12649:
12639:
12635:
12634:
12633:
12632:
12628:
12624:
12610:
12607:
12605:
12600:
12592:
12588:
12587:
12586:
12583:
12581:
12580:
12579:Modest Genius
12575:
12570:
12567:
12559:
12555:
12551:
12549:
12543:
12539:
12538:
12537:
12533:
12529:
12525:
12521:
12520:
12519:
12515:
12511:
12509:
12503:
12498:
12494:
12490:
12482:
12478:
12477:
12476:
12472:
12468:
12464:
12463:
12462:
12458:
12454:
12450:
12446:
12442:
12438:
12437:
12436:
12435:
12431:
12427:
12422:
12414:
12398:
12394:
12390:
12386:
12385:
12384:
12381:
12376:
12372:
12371:
12370:
12366:
12362:
12357:
12356:
12355:
12351:
12347:
12341:
12337:
12336:
12335:
12332:
12326:
12325:almost nobody
12322:
12318:
12311:
12307:
12303:
12297:
12295:
12291:
12287:
12281:
12280:
12279:
12276:
12275:
12272:
12271:
12266:
12265:
12258:
12257:
12256:
12252:
12248:
12241:
12240:
12239:
12238:
12235:
12234:
12231:
12230:
12225:
12224:
12201:
12197:
12193:
12187:
12183:
12182:
12181:
12177:
12173:
12167:
12166:
12165:
12161:
12157:
12153:
12152:
12142:
12141:
12140:
12136:
12132:
12128:
12127:
12126:
12122:
12118:
12113:
12110:
12106:
12102:
12098:
12092:
12090:
12086:
12082:
12081:🌺 Cremastra
12078:
12076:
12072:
12068:
12064:
12063:
12053:
12047:
12043:
12039:
12034:
12031:
12030:
12029:
12025:
12021:
12017:
12013:
12012:
12011:
12007:
12003:
11999:
11998:
11997:
11993:
11989:
11985:
11981:
11977:
11965:
11961:
11957:
11956:🌺 Cremastra
11953:
11952:
11951:
11947:
11943:
11937:
11935:
11931:
11927:
11923:
11922:
11911:
11907:
11906:
11905:
11901:
11897:
11896:🌺 Cremastra
11893:
11892:
11891:
11887:
11883:
11879:
11878:
11868:
11852:
11848:
11844:
11838:
11837:
11836:
11832:
11828:
11827:71.239.86.150
11824:
11823:
11822:
11818:
11814:
11808:
11807:
11806:
11802:
11798:
11793:
11792:
11791:
11787:
11783:
11778:
11776:
11772:
11768:
11762:
11761:
11760:
11756:
11752:
11747:
11735:
11731:
11727:
11723:
11722:
11721:
11717:
11713:
11705:
11704:
11703:
11699:
11698:contributions
11695:
11691:
11690:User:Khajidha
11687:
11686:
11685:
11681:
11677:
11671:
11670:
11669:
11665:
11664:contributions
11661:
11657:
11656:User:Khajidha
11653:
11652:
11651:
11647:
11643:
11637:
11636:
11635:
11631:
11630:contributions
11627:
11623:
11622:User:Khajidha
11619:
11618:
11617:
11613:
11609:
11601:
11600:
11599:
11595:
11591:
11586:
11582:
11578:
11574:
11569:
11568:
11567:
11563:
11559:
11553:
11552:
11551:
11547:
11543:
11539:
11531:
11523:
11519:
11515:
11514:🌺 Cremastra
11511:
11509:
11505:
11501:
11495:
11491:
11490:
11489:
11485:
11481:
11480:71.239.86.150
11477:
11475:
11471:
11467:
11466:🌺 Cremastra
11463:
11462:
11461:
11457:
11453:
11448:
11445:
11441:
11437:
11433:
11431:
11427:
11423:
11422:71.239.86.150
11419:
11415:
11411:
11407:
11402:
11399:
11397:
11393:
11389:
11381:
11380:
11379:
11375:
11374:
11373:The Wordsmith
11367:
11361:
11357:
11353:
11347:
11346:
11345:
11341:
11337:
11333:
11332:
11331:
11327:
11323:
11317:
11315:
11311:
11303:
11299:
11297:
11293:
11289:
11288:🌺 Cremastra
11285:
11283:
11279:
11275:
11271:
11270:
11269:
11265:
11261:
11257:
11253:
11248:
11246:
11242:
11238:
11233:
11230:
11229:
11226:
11222:
11218:
11212:
11211:
11210:
11209:
11206:
11205:
11204: Relativity
11200:
11189:
11185:
11181:
11175:
11174:
11173:
11169:
11165:
11161:
11159:
11154:
11150:
11149:
11148:
11144:
11140:
11136:
11130:
11127:
11125:
11113:
11112:
11111:
11107:
11103:
11097:
11096:
11095:
11092:
11090:
11077:
11073:
11069:
11065:
11061:
11057:
11056:
11055:
11051:
11047:
11042:
11038:
11034:
11028:
11022:
11016:
11010:
11006:
11002:
10998:
10997:
10987:
10986:
10985:
10981:
10977:
10973:
10972:
10971:
10967:
10963:
10959:
10958:
10957:
10953:
10949:
10943:
10939:
10938:like eswiki's
10935:
10921:
10917:
10913:
10907:
10901:
10897:
10893:
10892:🌺 Cremastra
10889:
10885:
10884:
10883:
10879:
10875:
10871:
10870:
10869:
10865:
10861:
10860:🌺 Cremastra
10857:
10856:
10855:
10851:
10847:
10843:
10842:
10841:
10837:
10833:
10832:🌺 Cremastra
10829:
10825:
10824:
10823:
10819:
10815:
10810:
10808:
10804:
10800:
10796:
10792:
10789:
10787:
10783:
10779:
10773:
10771:
10767:
10763:
10759:
10757:
10753:
10749:
10742:
10741:
10740:
10736:
10732:
10731:🌺 Cremastra
10728:
10725:
10724:
10723:
10719:
10715:
10710:
10705:
10701:
10698:
10694:
10691:
10686:
10683:
10680:
10679:
10677:
10676:
10675:
10671:
10667:
10666:🌺 Cremastra
10663:
10660:
10650:
10647:
10639:
10634:
10633:
10632:
10628:
10624:
10616:
10615:
10614:
10611:
10605:
10601:
10596:
10592:
10588:
10584:
10578:
10573:
10572:
10571:
10567:
10563:
10556:
10555:
10554:
10549:
10542:
10540:
10534:
10532:
10528:
10524:
10523:71.239.86.150
10520:
10518:
10515:
10512:
10511:
10507:
10503:
10501:
10497:
10492:
10487:
10486:
10479:
10471:
10467:
10463:
10456:
10454:
10450:
10442:
10438:
10436:
10432:
10428:
10423:
10419:
10418:
10417:
10413:
10409:
10408:🌺 Cremastra
10405:
10401:
10397:
10392:
10391:
10390:
10386:
10382:
10378:
10375:
10371:
10367:
10363:
10360:
10356:
10352:
10348:
10344:
10340:
10336:
10332:
10328:
10327:
10326:
10322:
10318:
10317:🌺 Cremastra
10314:
10310:
10306:
10304:
10298:
10296:
10295:
10288:
10286:
10282:
10277:
10272:
10271:
10264:
10260:
10256:
10252:
10247:
10246:
10245:
10241:
10237:
10233:
10232:
10231:
10227:
10223:
10218:
10212:
10208:
10204:
10194:
10193:
10191:
10187:
10183:
10179:
10176:
10171:
10169:
10165:
10161:
10156:
10153:
10152:
10151:
10146:
10141:
10137:
10133:
10129:
10125:
10121:
10117:
10113:
10109:
10107:
10104:
10101:
10097:
10093:
10089:
10085:
10081:
10077:
10075:
10071:
10067:
10066:ProofCreature
10063:
10060:
10058:
10054:
10050:
10046:
10042:
10038:
10034:
10033:
10028:
10027:
10022:
10021:
10011:
10010:
10009:
10005:
10004:
10003:The Wordsmith
9988:
9987:
9986:
9983:
9978:
9974:
9973:
9972:
9971:
9967:
9963:
9958:
9954:
9943:
9930:
9926:
9922:
9916:
9915:
9914:
9911:
9907:
9902:
9894:
9893:
9892:
9888:
9884:
9879:
9878:
9877:
9873:
9869:
9862:
9855:
9854:
9853:
9852:
9848:
9844:
9840:
9833:
9829:
9822:
9818:
9815:
9814:
9811:
9807:
9803:
9802:🌺 Cremastra
9799:
9798:
9797:
9796:
9793:
9791:
9786:
9784:
9771:
9767:
9763:
9762:🌺 Cremastra
9759:
9758:
9757:
9754:
9753:Donald Albury
9750:
9745:
9741:
9737:
9731:
9730:
9729:
9725:
9721:
9717:
9716:
9715:
9711:
9707:
9706:🌺 Cremastra
9703:
9702:
9701:
9700:
9697:
9695:
9690:
9688:
9682:
9678:
9666:
9663:
9659:
9654:
9643:
9636:
9633:
9631:
9627:
9623:
9621:
9615:
9611:
9608:
9604:
9600:
9596:
9592:
9588:
9584:
9581:
9580:
9579:
9575:
9571:
9566:
9563:
9561:
9557:
9553:
9550:
9548:
9544:
9540:
9536:
9532:
9529:
9527:
9524:
9523:
9518:
9515:
9513:
9509:
9505:
9501:
9498:
9496:
9492:
9488:
9484:
9481:
9479:
9476:
9473:
9472:
9467:
9464:
9462:
9458:
9454:
9450:
9447:
9443:
9439:
9435:
9431:
9429:
9425:
9421:
9420:🌺 Cremastra
9417:
9416:
9415:
9411:
9407:
9403:
9400:
9398:
9394:
9390:
9386:
9383:
9381:
9377:
9373:
9369:
9368:when relevant
9365:
9360:
9356:
9352:
9348:
9343:
9340:
9338:
9334:
9330:
9325:
9320:
9317:
9313:
9309:
9305:
9299:
9298:
9297:
9294:
9291:
9288:
9283:
9280:
9278:
9274:
9270:
9265:
9262:
9260:
9256:
9252:
9248:
9247:
9237:
9234:
9232:
9228:
9224:
9220:
9217:
9215:
9211:
9207:
9203:
9198:
9194:
9191:
9189:
9184:
9177:
9174:
9172:
9168:
9165:
9158:
9155:
9153:
9149:
9140:
9136:
9133:
9125:
9121:
9117:
9116:🌺 Cremastra
9113:
9112:
9111:
9108:
9106:
9105:
9104:Modest Genius
9100:
9099:
9098:
9094:
9090:
9089:🌺 Cremastra
9086:
9080:
9079:Modest Genius
9075:
9074:
9073:
9070:
9068:
9067:
9066:Modest Genius
9062:
9059:
9057:
9053:
9051:
9047:
9043:
9040:
9036:
9032:
9028:
9027:🌺 Cremastra
9024:
9019:
9015:
9014:
9013:
9009:
9005:
9000:
8997:
8995:
8991:
8987:
8982:
8980:
8976:
8972:
8968:
8965:
8955:
8951:
8945:
8938:
8937:
8936:
8932:
8928:
8927:🌺 Cremastra
8924:
8923:
8922:
8918:
8912:
8905:
8904:
8903:
8899:
8895:
8894:🌺 Cremastra
8891:
8890:
8889:
8885:
8879:
8872:
8869:
8867:
8864:
8863:
8858:
8857:
8851:
8848:
8846:
8842:
8838:
8834:
8833:
8828:
8824:
8821:
8819:
8815:
8810:
8805:
8804:
8798:
8794:
8793:Wikifunctions
8790:
8786:
8782:
8779:
8773:
8769:
8765:
8761:
8760:
8759:
8755:
8751:
8750:🌺 Cremastra
8747:
8743:
8740:
8737:
8730:
8726:
8722:
8716:
8712:
8708:
8705:
8704:
8703:
8699:
8695:
8690:
8689:
8688:
8684:
8680:
8679:🌺 Cremastra
8676:
8672:
8668:
8664:
8659:
8653:
8648:
8647:
8646:
8642:
8638:
8634:
8631:
8630:
8625:
8621:
8617:
8613:
8609:
8605:
8601:
8597:
8593:
8589:
8586:
8585:
8584:
8580:
8576:
8575:🌺 Cremastra
8573:
8571:
8567:
8566:
8562:
8559:
8558:
8548:
8544:
8540:
8539:🌺 Cremastra
8536:
8530:
8529:
8523:
8519:
8518:The Wordsmith
8515:
8511:
8507:
8503:
8499:
8492:
8491:
8490:
8489:
8485:
8481:
8480:🌺 Cremastra
8472:
8469:
8468:
8467:
8465:
8458:
8447:
8443:
8439:
8420:
8413:
8410:
8409:
8404:
8397:
8394:
8388:
8384:
8380:
8376:
8373:
8369:
8368:
8367:
8364:
8359:
8347:
8342:
8341:
8340:
8336:
8332:
8331:
8325:
8322:
8312:
8308:
8304:
8299:
8298:
8297:
8294:
8289:
8277:
8272:
8271:
8270:
8266:
8262:
8257:
8253:
8250:
8245:
8231:
8224:
8223:Chipmunkdavis
8219:
8218:
8217:
8213:
8209:
8204:
8203:
8202:
8199:
8194:
8185:
8181:
8177:
8175:
8172:
8167:
8155:
8154:Chipmunkdavis
8150:
8149:
8148:
8144:
8140:
8135:
8132:
8131:
8126:
8123:
8118:
8109:
8105:
8099:
8094:
8093:
8092:
8088:
8085:
8079:
8078:
8075:
8072:
8067:
8057:
8053:
8049:
8046:
8044:
8040:
8036:
8035:DarklitShadow
8032:
8029:
8025:
8022:
8017:
8005:
8004:Novem Linguae
8000:
7999:
7998:
7993:
7988:
7986:
7985:Novem Linguae
7980:
7977:
7973:
7970:
7965:
7954:
7949:
7948:
7947:
7943:
7939:
7935:
7932:
7931:
7930:
7929:
7926:
7921:
7901:
7892:
7888:
7885:
7881:
7870:
7866:
7865:
7850:
7846:
7845:
7831:
7828:
7827:
7822:
7819:
7814:
7804:
7800:
7791:
7790:
7789:
7785:
7784:
7779:
7778:
7773:
7772:
7771:Jack Reynolds
7767:
7764:
7758:
7754:
7750:
7746:
7745:
7735:
7734:
7733:
7730:
7725:
7716:
7710:
7705:
7704:
7703:
7699:
7695:
7691:
7687:
7684:
7678:
7674:
7670:
7666:
7662:
7661:
7660:
7657:
7652:
7640:
7635:
7634:
7633:
7629:
7625:
7621:
7620:
7615:
7612:
7611:
7600:
7596:
7592:
7588:
7587:
7586:
7582:
7578:
7574:
7570:
7569:
7568:
7564:
7560:
7555:
7554:
7553:
7550:
7545:
7533:
7528:
7527:
7526:
7522:
7518:
7513:
7505:
7502:
7497:
7477:
7472:
7471:
7470:
7467:
7466:
7465:
7455:
7454:
7453:
7450:
7445:
7436:
7435:perplexity.ai
7432:
7425:
7420:
7419:
7418:
7415:
7414:
7413:
7404:
7401:
7400:
7397:
7393:
7389:
7385:
7384:
7374:
7371:
7365:
7361:
7355:
7349:
7342:
7341:
7340:
7337:
7332:
7323:
7316:
7311:
7310:
7309:
7305:
7299:
7293:
7288:
7287:
7283:
7278:
7274:
7273:
7270:
7266:
7262:
7258:
7255:
7254:
7243:
7239:
7235:
7230:
7229:
7228:
7224:
7220:
7214:
7209:
7208:
7207:
7203:
7199:
7194:
7193:
7192:
7188:
7184:
7180:
7179:
7178:
7174:
7170:
7165:
7162:
7158:
7154:
7150:
7149:Nononsense101
7146:
7140:
7137:
7135:
7131:
7127:
7123:
7119:
7115:
7111:
7107:
7102:
7101:
7100:
7096:
7092:
7088:
7083:
7075:
7071:
7067:
7056:
7051:
7050:
7049:
7044:
7034:
7027:
7026:
7025:
7021:
7017:
7013:
7009:
7005:
7000:
6996:
6989:
6984:
6982:
6978:
6974:
6961:
6960:
6959:
6954:
6944:
6937:
6934:
6933:
6928:
6924:
6920:
6916:
6911:
6910:Awesome Aasim
6906:
6905:
6904:
6901:
6898:
6894:
6890:
6887:
6882:
6877:
6868:
6863:
6862:
6861:
6857:
6853:
6852:🌺 Cremastra
6849:
6845:
6839:
6836:
6831:
6826:
6819:
6818:
6817:
6814:
6809:
6804:
6795:
6790:
6789:
6788:
6784:
6780:
6776:
6775:
6774:
6773:
6770:
6765:
6757:
6756:
6751:
6748:
6743:
6738:
6732:
6727:
6724:
6722:
6717:
6715:
6711:
6701:
6690:
6687:
6682:
6673:
6656:
6655:
6651:
6648:
6645:
6642:
6639:
6635:
6634:Snowmanonahoe
6631:
6626:
6621:
6616:
6615:
6607:
6597:
6593:
6589:
6585:
6584:
6583:
6582:
6573:
6569:
6565:
6561:
6554:
6553:
6548:
6545:
6542:
6538:
6534:
6533:
6528:
6524:
6520:
6516:
6515:
6514:
6513:
6504:
6500:
6496:
6489:
6488:
6483:
6480:
6477:
6473:
6469:
6468:
6467:
6466:
6462:
6458:
6453:
6449:
6447:
6443:
6427:
6419:
6415:
6414:Coord missing
6411:
6407:
6400:
6399:
6396:
6394:
6389:
6388:
6381:
6373:
6369:
6365:
6361:
6357:
6350:
6349:
6346:
6344:
6339:
6338:
6331:
6323:
6319:
6315:
6311:
6304:
6303:
6300:
6298:
6293:
6292:
6285:
6281:
6278:
6274:
6270:
6267:
6264:
6260:
6259:
6258:
6255:
6253:
6249:
6245:
6241:
6235:
6233:
6224:
6221:
6218:
6217:
6216:
6214:
6210:
6206:
6194:
6190:
6186:
6182:
6178:
6176:
6172:
6168:
6164:
6162:
6158:
6154:
6150:
6149:
6139:
6135:
6131:
6127:
6123:
6120:
6116:
6115:
6114:
6110:
6106:
6098:
6096:
6092:
6084:
6080:
6078:
6075:
6074:Donald Albury
6071:
6069:
6065:
6058:
6044:
6042:
6038:
6034:
6033:🌺 Cremastra
6030:
6026:
6022:
6018:
6014:
6011:
6007:
6006:
6005:
6001:
5999:
5994:
5992:
5991:
5990:
5989:
5985:
5981:
5976:
5973:
5968:
5959:
5953:
5946:
5932:
5928:
5924:
5920:
5916:
5912:
5911:Magnus Manske
5909:
5908:
5907:
5904:
5903:
5900:
5899:
5894:
5893:
5887:
5886:
5885:
5884:
5880:
5876:
5872:
5868:
5855:
5851:
5847:
5843:
5839:
5838:
5837:
5836:
5832:
5828:
5824:
5819:
5811:
5804:
5791:
5778:
5774:
5770:
5766:
5765:
5764:
5760:
5756:
5752:
5748:
5744:
5743:
5742:
5738:
5734:
5730:
5729:
5728:
5724:
5720:
5717:
5712:
5708:
5705:
5704:
5703:
5702:
5701:
5700:
5696:
5692:
5683:
5679:
5674:
5663:
5659:
5655:
5651:
5631:
5630:
5616:
5615:
5614:
5610:
5606:
5602:
5600:
5596:
5595:contributions
5592:
5588:
5587:User:Khajidha
5584:
5582:
5578:
5574:
5570:
5568:
5564:
5557:
5553:
5552:
5551:
5550:
5546:
5542:
5537:
5533:
5523:
5519:
5515:
5511:
5507:
5503:
5499:
5498:
5497:
5496:
5492:
5488:
5487:Pallav.journo
5482:
5472:
5467:
5458:
5454:
5452:
5449:
5445:
5442:
5440:
5436:
5432:
5428:
5427:
5426:
5425:
5422:
5412:
5395:
5394:
5388:
5387:
5383:
5378:
5361:
5357:
5353:
5349:
5348:
5347:
5343:
5339:
5335:
5327:
5324:
5320:
5319:
5318:
5315:
5311:
5308:
5305:
5302:
5295:
5292:</div: -->
5290:
5289:
5288:
5284:
5280:
5276:
5275:
5274:
5270:
5266:
5262:
5258:
5257:
5256:
5255:
5252:
5247:
5245:
5238:
5235:
5234:
5230:
5225:
5209:
5208:
5204:
5197:
5179:
5172:
5168:
5164:
5159:
5157:
5153:
5149:
5145:
5141:
5137:
5115:
5112:
5106:
5105:
5104:
5100:
5096:
5091:
5090:
5089:
5086:
5079:
5078:
5077:
5073:
5069:
5064:
5063:
5062:
5058:
5054:
5050:
5049:
5048:
5044:
5040:
5035:
5034:
5033:
5030:
5023:
5022:
5021:
5017:
5013:
5008:
5004:
5000:
4999:
4998:
4995:
4989:
4985:
4984:
4983:
4979:
4975:
4970:
4969:
4968:
4964:
4960:
4956:
4955:
4954:
4953:
4949:
4945:
4941:
4937:
4925:
4921:
4920:contributions
4917:
4913:
4909:
4908:
4900:
4897:
4894:
4887:
4884:
4882:
4878:
4874:
4868:
4865:
4863:
4859:
4855:
4851:
4848:
4846:
4841:
4836:
4832:
4829:
4827:
4824:
4823:
4822: Relativity
4818:
4816:
4813:
4808:
4804:
4800:
4796:
4792:
4787:
4786:
4785:
4781:
4777:
4772:
4770:
4766:
4762:
4758:
4756:
4753:
4750:
4749:
4743:
4741:
4737:
4733:
4729:
4727:
4722:
4720:
4712:
4702:
4698:
4694:
4690:
4689:
4688:
4684:
4680:
4676:
4675:
4674:
4670:
4666:
4662:
4661:
4660:
4656:
4652:
4647:
4646:
4645:
4641:
4637:
4632:
4630:
4626:
4622:
4617:
4615:
4610:
4609:Seraphimblade
4606:
4604:
4600:
4596:
4591:
4589:
4586:
4584:
4578:
4574:
4570:
4567:
4565:
4561:
4559:
4553:
4547:
4539:
4537:
4533:
4529:
4528:
4522:
4519:
4517:
4514:
4508:
4507:
4501:
4499:
4496:
4495:
4490:
4483:
4481:
4478:
4472:
4469:
4467:
4463:
4462:
4458:
4451:
4448:
4446:
4443:
4441:
4435:
4432:
4430:
4426:
4423:
4420:
4417:
4414:
4410:
4409:Snowmanonahoe
4405:
4402:
4400:
4396:
4395:
4388:
4384:
4374:
4370:
4366:
4362:
4361:
4360:
4357:
4351:
4350:
4349:
4345:
4341:
4337:
4333:
4332:
4331:
4328:
4321:
4319:
4315:
4311:
4306:
4305:
4304:
4300:
4296:
4291:
4287:
4284:
4278:
4275:The one from
4274:
4273:
4272:
4268:
4264:
4260:
4256:
4252:
4248:
4244:
4240:
4239:
4238:
4234:
4227:
4223:
4221:
4218:
4213:
4209:
4207:
4203:
4199:
4195:
4193:
4189:
4185:
4179:
4178:
4158:
4154:
4150:
4146:
4142:
4141:
4140:
4136:
4132:
4127:
4124:
4123:
4122:
4118:
4114:
4110:
4106:
4103:
4098:
4094:
4093:
4092:
4088:
4084:
4080:
4076:
4071:
4070:
4069:
4065:
4061:
4057:
4054:
4050:
4049:
4048:
4044:
4040:
4036:
4035:
4034:
4030:
4026:
4022:
4014:
4010:
4006:
4001:
4000:
3999:
3995:
3991:
3987:
3986:
3985:
3981:
3977:
3973:
3972:
3971:
3967:
3963:
3959:
3957:
3954:
3948:
3946:
3942:
3938:
3935:As proposer.
3934:
3933:
3927:
3926:
3922:
3918:
3906:
3902:
3898:
3894:
3891:
3890:
3889:
3886:
3883:
3877:
3876:
3862:
3858:
3854:
3849:
3844:
3843:
3842:
3841:
3840:
3836:
3832:
3827:
3823:
3819:
3807:
3803:
3799:
3793:
3792:
3791:
3787:
3783:
3779:
3775:
3773:alternatives.
3771:
3770:
3769:
3765:
3761:
3754:
3748:
3742:
3738:
3728:
3724:
3720:
3716:
3715:
3714:
3710:
3706:
3700:
3699:
3698:
3694:
3690:
3686:
3682:
3681:
3680:
3676:
3672:
3666:
3665:
3664:
3660:
3656:
3652:
3651:
3650:
3646:
3642:
3638:
3634:
3629:
3625:
3621:
3617:
3613:
3609:
3605:
3604:
3603:
3599:
3595:
3589:
3588:
3587:
3583:
3579:
3573:
3569:
3565:
3561:
3556:
3552:
3548:
3544:
3540:
3539:
3538:
3534:
3530:
3524:
3523:
3522:
3518:
3514:
3509:
3507:
3503:
3499:
3495:
3493:
3489:
3485:
3480:
3478:
3474:
3470:
3465:
3458:
3451:
3445:
3444:pp-move-indef
3439:
3436:
3432:
3428:
3420:
3416:
3408:
3402:
3401:
3400:
3396:
3392:
3386:
3383:
3382:
3381:
3380:
3376:
3372:
3365:
3361:
3360:
3359:
3358:
3354:
3350:
3346:
3342:
3338:
3333:
3329:
3328:
3324:
3320:
3307:
3300:
3296:
3289:
3284:
3280:
3279:
3276:
3272:
3268:
3263:
3262:
3255:
3251:
3247:
3242:
3241:
3240:
3236:
3232:
3225:
3221:
3217:
3213:
3209:
3205:
3201:
3200:
3199:
3195:
3191:
3187:
3183:
3182:
3181:
3177:
3173:
3168:
3164:
3158:
3154:
3150:
3146:
3142:
3138:
3137:
3136:
3132:
3128:
3124:
3123:
3122:
3118:
3112:
3108:
3104:
3100:
3096:
3091:
3088:
3085:
3084:
3081:
3080:
3079:
3075:
3071:
3067:
3057:
3053:
3049:
3045:
3041:
3036:
3035:
3034:
3030:
3026:
3022:
3021:
3020:
3016:
3010:
3005:
3004:
3003:
2999:
2995:
2991:
2986:
2980:
2975:
2973:
2969:
2963:
2958:
2957:
2956:
2952:
2948:
2942:
2937:
2933:
2929:
2925:
2924:Shells-shells
2921:
2918:
2917:
2916:
2912:
2905:
2904:probably true
2901:
2900:
2899:
2898:
2894:
2890:
2886:
2875:
2871:
2867:
2862:
2858:
2855:
2852:
2847:
2846:
2845:
2841:
2837:
2833:
2829:
2828:
2820:
2816:
2812:
2807:
2803:
2800:
2798:
2794:
2790:
2783:
2778:
2775:
2773:
2770:
2766:
2762:
2759:
2757:
2753:
2749:
2745:
2743:
2739:
2729:
2721:
2717:
2715:
2712:
2708:
2706:
2701:
2694:
2692:
2688:
2684:
2680:
2677:
2675:
2671:
2667:
2660:
2654:
2648:
2642:
2638:
2636:
2632:
2628:
2624:
2621:
2617:
2614:
2609:
2603:
2599:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2590:
2586:
2584:
2580:
2576:
2572:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2557:
2553:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2543:
2539:
2535:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2519:
2515:
2514:Strong oppose
2512:
2510:
2504:
2498:
2490:
2486:
2483:
2481:
2477:
2473:
2469:
2464:
2461:
2457:
2453:
2449:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2428:
2426:
2423:
2421:
2415:
2413:
2408:
2407:SportingFlyer
2404:
2401:
2399:
2395:
2391:
2390:
2385:
2382:
2380:
2375:
2370:
2367:Appearance).
2366:Gadgets : -->
2364:
2360:
2357:
2355:
2352:
2349:
2345:
2342:
2340:
2337:
2335:
2330:
2328:
2321:
2318:
2316:
2312:
2308:
2304:
2302:
2298:
2295:
2292:
2289:
2286:
2282:
2281:Snowmanonahoe
2278:
2275:
2273:
2270:
2269:
2268: Relativity
2264:
2263:Strong oppose
2261:
2259:
2255:
2251:
2246:
2243:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2232:MartinPoulter
2229:
2226:
2224:
2220:
2216:
2212:
2209:
2207:
2204:
2202:
2196:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2182:
2179:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2165:
2162:
2160:
2157:
2156:
2153:
2152:
2147:
2146:
2140:
2137:
2135:
2132:
2126:
2122:
2119:
2117:
2114:
2111:
2110:
2104:
2101:
2099:
2095:
2091:
2087:
2084:
2078:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2052:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2041:
2037:
2036:contributions
2033:
2029:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2002:
1998:
1995:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1979:
1975:
1970:
1965:
1964:
1956:
1951:
1948:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1926:
1922:
1921:
1919:
1915:
1909:
1905:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1894:
1893:contributions
1890:
1886:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1877:
1872:
1866:
1863:
1861:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1847:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1831:
1828:
1826:
1823:
1821:
1819:
1812:
1809:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1792:
1790:
1787:
1780:
1777:
1769:
1765:
1763:
1759:
1754:Per Barkeep.
1753:
1749:
1746:
1743:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1692:
1691:
1684:
1680:
1677:
1675:
1671:
1664:
1660:
1657:
1655:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1629:
1626:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1606:
1603:
1598:
1592:
1589:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1578:🌺 Cremastra
1575:
1572:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1545:Per Barkeep.
1544:
1542:
1537:
1532:
1530:
1529:Novem Linguae
1524:
1521:
1515:
1511:
1506:
1501:
1500:
1494:
1492:
1488:
1487:contributions
1484:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1466:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1451:contributions
1448:
1444:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1418:
1417:contributions
1414:
1410:
1406:
1401:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1386:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1364:
1361:
1356:
1354:
1353:Bluerasberry
1347:
1343:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1321:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1306:
1304:
1301:
1294:
1292:
1288:
1282:
1277:
1275:
1272:
1270:
1266:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1212:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1199:As proposer.
1198:
1197:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1172:
1171:
1168:
1167:
1161:
1155:
1151:
1145:
1130:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
941:
937:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
278:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
96:
91:
89:
85:
69:
68:Miscellaneous
66:
64:
61:
59:
56:
52:
47:
44:
42:
39:
37:
34:
33:
32:
31:
27:
26:
19:
16772:
16749:
16732:
16712:
16691:
16632:
16628:
16595:AusLondonder
16568:
16563:AusLondonder
16548:AusLondonder
16534:
16472:
16451:
16446:
16394:
16393:
16389:
16371:
16350:
16335:
16325:
16317:
16313:
16309:
16297:
16291:
16276:
16266:
16249:
16213:
16205:
16187:
16183:
16160:No, because
16148:WhatamIdoing
16120:
16097:
16083:WhatamIdoing
16021:
15973:
15952:
15940:funplussmart
15934:
15918:Sungodtemple
15913:
15900:
15892:
15880:
15856:
15820:
15800:
15799:
15767:
15749:
15729:
15709:
15688:
15676:Adumbrativus
15671:
15649:
15627:
15599:
15590:
15573:
15556:
15552:
15531:
15514:
15508:
15506:
15476:
15470:
15468:
15464:
15450:WhatamIdoing
15431:
15418:
15402:MILD SUPPORT
15401:
15379:
15358:
15343:
15311:
15295:WhatamIdoing
15290:
15286:
15259:
15212:
15208:
15190:Phil Bridger
15171:
15161:Phil Bridger
15147:Phil Bridger
15143:the evidence
15138:
15121:
15115:
15023:
15022:sources for
15019:
15012:
15008:
14994:
14986:
14982:
14978:
14880:
14830:
14794:
14745:
14728:
14694:WhatamIdoing
14639:
14595:
14588:
14584:
14573:
14565:
14557:
14549:
14522:
14515:
14511:
14507:
14503:
14496:
14475:
14455:WhatamIdoing
14435:
14402:
14367:
14346:
14289:
14275:
14265:
14261:
14257:
14234:
14229:
14221:
14217:
14190:
14186:
14182:
14172:
14157:
14143:
14136:
14102:
14101:
14096:
14078:
14074:
14045:
13925:
13901:
13896:
13892:
13880:
13870:
13864:
13786:
13774:
13758:
13737:unreferenced
13714:
13661:
13642:
13641:This is for
13629:
13621:
13613:
13590:unreferenced
13533:Usedtobecool
13531:
13513:
13506:
13500:
13497:Usedtobecool
13483:Usedtobecool
13481:
13467:
13460:
13451:Usedtobecool
13437:Usedtobecool
13435:
13419:
13412:
13397:Usedtobecool
13395:
13367:
13357:
13350:
13343:
13319:
13313:
13304:Lee Vilenski
13301:
13277:
13239:
13232:
13219:Phil Bridger
13124:
13046:Do you mean
13012:WhatamIdoing
12994:Phil Bridger
12974:
12965:
12946:
12933:
12876:
12868:
12864:
12862:
12853:
12849:
12845:
12835:
12826:
12800:
12799:Deprecating
12745:MikeYahooCom
12730:MikeYahooCom
12697:MikeYahooCom
12679:Special:Book
12675:Special:Book
12667:MikeYahooCom
12642:
12638:MikeYahooCom
12623:MikeYahooCom
12620:
12594:
12578:
12576:, not here.
12547:
12507:
12449:Sungodtemple
12418:
12269:
12263:
12261:
12228:
12222:
12220:
12217:
12145:
12111:
12056:
11979:
11915:
11871:
11400:
11372:
11252:less is more
11232:I am dubious
11231:
11203:
11196:
11156:
11117:
11082:
10990:
10703:
10599:
10590:
10586:
10582:
10538:
10508:
10484:
10302:
10293:
10292:
10269:
10135:
10128:particularly
10127:
10111:
10031:
10025:
10019:
10002:
9959:
9955:
9952:
9941:
9897:
9836:
9816:
9789:
9782:
9778:
9720:AndyTheGrump
9693:
9686:
9680:
9674:
9649:
9634:
9619:
9613:
9609:
9582:
9564:
9556:push to talk
9551:
9534:
9530:
9520:
9516:
9499:
9482:
9470:
9465:
9448:
9401:
9384:
9367:
9354:
9350:
9346:
9341:
9323:
9318:
9281:
9263:
9240:
9235:
9218:
9192:
9175:
9156:
9134:
9103:
9084:
9065:
9060:
9041:
8998:
8966:
8870:
8861:
8856:Dennis Brown
8855:
8849:
8831:
8826:
8822:
8802:
8780:
8764:AndyTheGrump
8745:
8738:
8714:
8710:
8707:AndyTheGrump
8694:AndyTheGrump
8662:
8657:
8656:They're Wiki
8652:AndyTheGrump
8637:AndyTheGrump
8632:
8607:
8599:
8591:
8587:
8568:
8560:
8510:WhatamIdoing
8476:
8461:
8452:
8418:
8399:
8395:
8371:
8329:
8328:
8323:
8183:
8179:
8133:
8107:
8103:
8047:
8030:
7984:
7978:
7933:
7912:
7900:
7891:
7883:
7862:
7848:
7842:
7835:
7829:
7782:
7776:
7770:
7765:
7738:
7685:
7664:
7618:
7617:
7613:
7591:CAlbon (WMF)
7573:CAlbon (WMF)
7559:CAlbon (WMF)
7532:CAlbon (WMF)
7517:CAlbon (WMF)
7463:
7462:
7411:
7410:
7402:
7377:
7372:
7281:
7276:
7256:
7143:— Preceding
7138:
7126:Sean.hoyland
7091:Mebigrouxboy
6973:Mebigrouxboy
6935:
6754:
6753:
6728:
6718:
6714:WP:EDITORIAL
6709:
6707:
6706:Proposal 1:
6705:
6695:
6646:
6640:
6617:
6611:
6454:
6450:
6431:
6425:
6390:
6386:
6385:
6379:
6340:
6336:
6335:
6329:
6294:
6290:
6289:
6256:
6251:
6236:
6228:
6202:
6180:
6142:
5977:
5974:
5960:
5957:
5951:Task T360255
5923:WhatamIdoing
5897:
5891:
5889:
5863:
5800:
5789:
5746:
5706:
5687:
5680:
5677:
5668:
5627:
5541:Onegreatjoke
5538:
5534:
5531:
5483:
5480:
5443:
5431:23.245.44.64
5418:
5403:<big: -->
5399:<big: -->
5396:
5371:
5321:I did it. -
5300:
5265:Phil Bridger
5248:
5239:
5236:
5231:
5228:
5188:
5177:
5148:WhatamIdoing
5140:m:IP masking
4987:
4933:
4892:
4885:
4866:
4849:
4830:
4821:
4747:
4732:TrangaBellam
4718:
4582:
4572:
4568:
4542:
4526:
4525:
4520:
4505:
4485:
4470:
4460:
4449:
4439:
4433:
4421:
4415:
4403:
4390:
4335:
4310:Phil Bridger
4277:15 years ago
4226:WP:NOTBROKEN
4125:
4101:
4078:
4074:
3976:Phil Bridger
3913:
3887:
3881:
3878:
3847:
3782:JuniperChill
3752:
3746:
3740:
3641:JuniperChill
3560:JuniperChill
3437:
3384:
3371:JuniperChill
3369:
3363:
3349:JuniperChill
3334:
3330:
3316:
3305:
3212:WhatamIdoing
3207:
3186:WhatamIdoing
3099:WhatamIdoing
3048:WhatamIdoing
3025:WhatamIdoing
2889:WhatamIdoing
2883:
2851:Animal lover
2831:
2805:
2804:removal and
2801:
2781:
2776:
2769:Brandmeister
2760:
2719:
2678:
2658:
2652:
2646:
2640:
2622:
2601:
2597:
2570:
2533:
2529:
2513:
2484:
2462:
2429:
2417:
2409:
2402:
2388:
2387:
2383:
2358:
2348:Animal lover
2343:
2333:
2326:
2319:
2293:
2287:
2276:
2267:
2262:
2244:
2227:
2210:
2200:
2180:
2163:
2150:
2144:
2142:
2138:
2120:
2108:
2102:
2085:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2024:WP:RFCBEFORE
2000:
1996:
1962:
1949:
1864:
1848:
1829:
1818:Spy-cicle💥
1817:
1810:
1793:
1775:
1767:
1742:Animal lover
1732:push to talk
1723:
1686:
1678:
1665:, not less.
1658:
1627:
1590:
1573:
1528:
1522:
1498:
1352:
1261:
1227:
1219:
1215:
1174:
1164:
1153:
1148:
1139:
1119:
276:
97:
93:
81:
30:Village pump
28:
16480:behind it.
16424:agreed here
16129:WP:DRAFTIFY
15406:Redacted II
14849:✠ SunDawn ✠
14686:WP:TERTIARY
14566:independent
14550:independent
14543:WP:LEADCITE
14521:What is an
13796:one article
13775:Mild oppose
13561:WP:DRAFTIFY
13314:This again?
12569:WP:Contents
12445:WP:Contents
12421:WP:Contents
12413:WP:Contents
12008:• she/her)
11237:Ad Orientem
10372:version or
9453:– robertsky
9287:Writ Keeper
8977:• she/her)
8789:Wikispecies
8206:response."
7851:etc. .....
7614:Unnecessary
7002:guidelines.
6572:maintenance
6503:maintenance
6446:maintenance
6418:maintenance
6368:maintenance
6318:maintenance
6057:Phabricator
5945:Phabricator
5943:Tracked in
5810:Talk header
5654:NotAGenious
5222:Moved from
4595:Vanamonde93
4577:HJ Mitchell
4571:A process "
4506:HJ Mitchell
2448:Vanamonde93
2434:Vanamonde93
16298:CaptainEek
15772:WP:BITEing
15768:should not
15367:Goldsztajn
15287:completely
15255:The Banner
14508:referenced
14484:Eluchil404
14168:The Banner
13944:Goldsztajn
13926:explicitly
13816:ForksForks
13666:* Pppery *
13318:consensus
13070:depreciate
13048:depreciate
12701:Help:Books
12673:I believe
12389:Riad Salih
12375:* Pppery *
12361:Riad Salih
12131:Riad Salih
11235:to mind. -
11164:Riad Salih
10976:Riad Salih
10795:ObserveOwl
10427:Riad Salih
10400:French one
10381:Riad Salih
10370:Portuguese
10155:Riad Salih
10023:(He/Him |
9977:* Pppery *
9962:Riad Salih
9821:discussion
9642:commonscat
9595:Mitch Ames
9539:Dronebogus
9471:CaptainEek
9206:Mitch Ames
8943:EPRICAVARK
8910:EPRICAVARK
8877:EPRICAVARK
8832:S Marshall
8533:Notified:
8438:Ganesha811
8362:Notify Me!
8292:Notify Me!
8248:Notify Me!
8197:Notify Me!
8170:Notify Me!
8121:Notify Me!
8070:Notify Me!
8059:for sure.
8020:Notify Me!
7968:Notify Me!
7924:Notify Me!
7884:References
7817:Notify Me!
7803:ClueBot NG
7777:talk to me
7728:Notify Me!
7655:Notify Me!
7577:HerBauhaus
7548:Notify Me!
7500:Notify Me!
7448:Notify Me!
7335:Notify Me!
7261:HerBauhaus
7055:Swatjester
6988:Swatjester
6885:Notify Me!
6834:Notify Me!
6812:Notify Me!
6768:Notify Me!
6746:Notify Me!
6685:Notify Me!
6562:This is a
6497:This is a
6408:This is a
6358:This is a
6312:This is a
5915:mw:GeoHack
5842:subst:DNAU
5825:. Thanks,
4835:Ivanvector
4748:CaptainEek
4719:Sandstein
4621:Courcelles
4551:Howl at me
4456:The Banner
4212:* Pppery *
3685:Brianna Wu
3484:~ ToBeFree
2866:Goldsztajn
2602:importance
2589:Guerillero
2556:Epicgenius
2538:Epicgenius
2369:Ivanvector
2307:Courcelles
2109:CaptainEek
1547:Nikkimaria
1264:Fourthords
100:Archives:
51:persistent
16758:Thryduulf
16633:PROD PLUS
16631:creating
16610:Thryduulf
16514:WP:MINREF
16395:North8000
16336:Toadspike
16330:WP:BEFORE
16322:WP:BEFORE
16102:Elemimele
16065:sandstone
16026:Elemimele
15991:Thryduulf
15801:North8000
15741:(discuss)
15646:WP:NEXIST
15561:JoelleJay
15385:WP:BEFORE
15363:WP:NEXIST
15249:WP:BEFORE
15217:WP:BEFORE
15058:Thryduulf
14964:Thryduulf
14935:Thryduulf
14855:(contact)
14844:WP:NEXIST
14535:WP:GENREF
14531:WP:MINREF
14504:unsourced
14441:Thryduulf
14407:Thryduulf
14390:wjemather
14353:wjemather
14330:Thryduulf
14295:WP:NEXIST
14230:knowledge
14196:WP:BURDEN
14103:North8000
14084:Thryduulf
14043:is true.
14019:Thryduulf
13990:Thryduulf
13957:notable?
13921:WP:BURDEN
13885:WP:NEXIST
13282:WP:BURDEN
13052:deprecate
12722:document.
12548:Toadspike
12524:Toadspike
12508:Toadspike
12345:Aaron Liu
12285:Aaron Liu
12246:Aaron Liu
12191:Aaron Liu
12171:Aaron Liu
12117:—Femke 🐦
12096:Aaron Liu
11941:Aaron Liu
11910:Cremastra
11842:Aaron Liu
11812:Aaron Liu
11766:Aaron Liu
11726:QuicoleJR
11711:Aaron Liu
11675:Aaron Liu
11641:Aaron Liu
11607:Aaron Liu
11557:Aaron Liu
11499:Aaron Liu
11452:Galobtter
11406:Galobtter
11387:Aaron Liu
11351:Aaron Liu
11336:Galobtter
11321:Aaron Liu
11260:Galobtter
11216:Aaron Liu
11179:Aaron Liu
11101:Aaron Liu
10947:Aaron Liu
10911:Aaron Liu
10874:QuicoleJR
10846:QuicoleJR
10828:QuicoleJR
10814:QuicoleJR
10803:my doings
10799:chit-chat
10777:Aaron Liu
10762:Galobtter
10747:Aaron Liu
10713:Aaron Liu
10638:Aaron Liu
10622:Aaron Liu
10577:Aaron Liu
10561:Aaron Liu
10461:Aaron Liu
10422:Cremastra
10359:RudolfRed
10351:Mir Novov
10343:Cremastra
10236:RudolfRed
10202:Aaron Liu
10064:I agree.
9920:Aaron Liu
9868:Thryduulf
9677:main page
9620:Toadspike
9570:spintheer
9303:Aaron Liu
8667:WP:NOTDIC
8665:violates
8603:approach!
8596:Karl Marx
8592:Wikiquote
8498:Aaron Liu
8407:Hurricane
8354:Exclusive
8346:North8000
8330:North8000
8284:Exclusive
8240:Exclusive
8189:Exclusive
8178:Also, at
8162:Exclusive
8113:Exclusive
8062:Exclusive
8012:Exclusive
7960:Exclusive
7916:Exclusive
7809:Exclusive
7720:Exclusive
7647:Exclusive
7540:Exclusive
7492:Exclusive
7440:Exclusive
7327:Exclusive
7322:WP:CHOICE
6915:WP:CHOICE
6875:Exclusive
6867:Cremastra
6824:Exclusive
6802:Exclusive
6760:Exclusive
6736:Exclusive
6677:Exclusive
6665:WITHDRAWN
6167:QuicoleJR
5338:QuicoleJR
5237:To this:
5163:Thryduulf
5053:Barkeep49
4895:(she/her)
4854:QuicoleJR
4791:Barkeep49
4776:Aquillion
4679:Thryduulf
4651:Thryduulf
4527:North8000
4493:Hurricane
4365:Thryduulf
4340:Thryduulf
4295:Thryduulf
4183:Aaron Liu
4145:Thryduulf
4131:Thryduulf
4083:Thryduulf
4052:examples.
4039:Thryduulf
4005:Thryduulf
3897:Galobtter
3830:Aaron Liu
3797:Aaron Liu
3759:Aaron Liu
3719:QuicoleJR
3704:Aaron Liu
3689:QuicoleJR
3670:Aaron Liu
3655:QuicoleJR
3608:QuicoleJR
3593:Aaron Liu
3578:QuicoleJR
3564:Aaron Liu
3543:QuicoleJR
3528:Aaron Liu
3513:QuicoleJR
3390:Aaron Liu
3267:Galobtter
3230:Aaron Liu
3149:Galobtter
3070:Barkeep49
3040:Main Page
2885:Barkeep49
2665:Aaron Liu
2612:(discuss)
2518:WP:READER
2389:North8000
2168:—Femke 🐦
2061:somewhere
2057:statement
1984:Galobtter
1930:Aaron Liu
1875:(discuss)
1601:Theorist❤
1561:Thryduulf
1428:Barkeep49
1390:Barkeep49
46:Proposals
41:Technical
16679:xaosflux
16652:Xaosflux
16642:xaosflux
16410:Blueboar
16277:Remsense
16250:Remsense
16125:WP:BITEy
15961:Ingratis
15926:contribs
15864:Ingratis
15825:Ingratis
15736:Hawkeye7
15605:SnowFire
15578:Ajpolino
15544:contribs
15389:Skynxnex
15271:Headbomb
15222:Headbomb
15101:Levivich
15073:Levivich
15041:helpful.
15028:Levivich
15001:sources.
14995:blogging
14949:Levivich
14921:Levivich
14897:Levivich
14814:SilkTork
14787:SilkTork
14774:SilkTork
14574:tertiary
14558:tertiary
14480:WP:BITEy
14305:a·po·des
14271:backward
14249:contribs
14060:contribs
13907:James500
13871:Toadette
13507:Schazjmd
13461:Schazjmd
13430:Schazjmd
13413:Schazjmd
13056:Johnuniq
12809:REJECTED
12785:contribs
12657:contribs
12457:contribs
12340:Xaosflux
12330:xaosflux
12160:contribs
12071:contribs
12033:DYKRULES
11980:concrete
11930:contribs
11886:contribs
11782:Zanahary
11573:Levivich
11546:contribs
11494:mw:Codex
11274:Zanahary
11064:Levivich
11046:Levivich
11032:Contribs
11005:contribs
10962:Pksois23
10942:ruwiki's
10645:——Serial
10609:——Serial
10379:Regards
10182:andrybak
10080:Pksois23
9909:Chequers
9783:Schazjmd
9687:Schazjmd
9661:Chequers
9372:SnowFire
9364:Anabasis
9329:Levivich
9269:SilkTork
9255:contribs
9167:a·po·des
8827:stupider
8797:Wikinews
8785:Wikidata
8054:is just
7877:3)......
7875:2)......
7844:MOS:NAME
7783:email me
7753:contribs
7736:Agreed!
7669:Gedditor
7639:Gedditor
7624:Gedditor
7476:Rosguill
7464:Rosguill
7459:signed,
7424:Rosguill
7412:Rosguill
7407:signed,
7392:contribs
7359:Contribs
7303:Contribs
7157:contribs
7145:unsigned
6710:notably'
6672:idea lab
6644:contribs
6612:Thread:
6157:contribs
6105:jlwoodwa
5967:redirect
5875:Sbowers3
5867:Sbowers3
5846:Mathglot
5827:Mathglot
5352:Pksois23
5110:xaosflux
5084:xaosflux
5028:xaosflux
4993:xaosflux
4557:My hunts
4440:Toadette
4419:contribs
4355:xaosflux
4326:xaosflux
4282:xaosflux
4247:Levivich
4149:Levivich
4113:Levivich
4060:Levivich
4025:Levivich
3990:Levivich
3952:xaosflux
3572:ToBeFree
3464:this TfD
3139:There's
3127:Blueboar
2998:contribs
2836:Blueboar
2607:Hawkeye7
2575:Zanahary
2552:rebuttal
2476:contribs
2291:contribs
2250:Johnuniq
2201:Toadette
2069:SnowFire
2006:SnowFire
1911:she/they
1870:Hawkeye7
1633:Headbomb
1619:contribs
1596:❤History
1336:contribs
1299:——Serial
1246:Levivich
1231:Levivich
58:Idea lab
16750:Comment
16535:Comment
16473:Comment
16447:Support
16390:Comment
16351:Support
16214:require
16166:WP:BITE
15974:Support
15953:Comment
15750:Support
15730:Support
15600:plainly
15574:Support
15553:Support
15532:Support
15419:Support
15020:require
14987:useless
14889:WP:NPOV
14881:Support
14733:Curbon7
14622:Joe Roe
14562:WP:PSTS
14516:sources
14497:Comment
14266:in hand
14258:Support
14158:Support
14097:Support
13902:propose
13865:Comment
13801:Visviva
13501:created
13453:, from
13344:Support
13278:Support
12934:Support
12873:WP:PROD
12671:Cocobb8
12302:Frostly
11118:Stefen
11083:Stefen
10374:Turkish
10366:Spanish
10347:Joe Roe
10178:changes
9736:Frostly
9591:Commons
9522:Lindsay
9487:Artem.G
9197:sororal
8721:Frostly
8675:WP:NPOV
8663:clearly
8520:, and
8514:Theklan
8502:Harvici
8048:Comment
7934:Oppose:
7873:1).....
7830:Comment
7709:Kjerish
7694:Kjerish
7282:Support
7139:Support
6897:Awesome
6124:- (OP)
5755:CanonNi
5719:CanonNi
5707:Comment
5629:Lindsay
5444:Support
5279:Ktkvtsh
4959:Wehwalt
4807:the wub
4476:Fastily
4404:Oppose.
4336:written
4245:essay.
4243:WP:AINT
4102:for rfa
3893:WP:SNOW
3822:WP:US/R
3778:WP:US/R
3570:, and
3457:pp-move
3438:Comment
3385:Support
2902:That's
2832:readers
2806:Support
2732:he/they
2683:Curbon7
2598:quality
2463:Oppose.
2086:Oppose:
2001:quality
1310:Visviva
1166:JML1148
1150:WP:SNOW
16733:Oppose
16713:Oppose
16692:Oppose
16629:Oppose
16569:should
16206:Oppose
16184:Oppose
16162:WP:BLP
16121:Oppose
16022:Oppose
15935:Oppose
15914:Oppose
15881:Oppose
15821:Oppose
15754:Stifle
15689:Oppose
15672:Oppose
15595:WP:CSB
15591:Oppose
15557:inline
15465:Oppose
15434:buidhe
15380:Oppose
15359:Oppose
15312:Oppose
15209:Oppose
15116:Oppose
15054:WP:AGF
14893:WP:NOR
14891:, and
14840:WP:ATD
14831:Oppose
14795:inline
14746:Oppose
14729:Oppose
14578:WP:NOR
14554:WP:GNG
14541:, and
14476:Oppose
14347:Oppose
14293:where
14290:Oppose
14262:Before
14162:WP:CIR
14079:can be
14041:WP:CCS
13897:inline
13893:inline
13889:WP:ATD
13881:Oppose
13759:Oppose
13715:Oppose
13662:Oppose
13643:recent
13614:Oppose
13514:(talk)
13468:(talk)
13420:(talk)
13376:WP:NPP
13331:Anomie
13322:change
13316:While
13094:Ahecht
13090:WP:AfC
12758:rose64
12603:(talk)
12038:Certes
11797:Andrew
11751:Andrew
11590:Andrew
11444:ptwiki
11436:Ahecht
11302:Ahecht
11199:eswiki
10441:Ahecht
10355:Pppery
10339:Certes
10335:Anomie
10331:331dot
10251:Certes
10222:Certes
10160:331dot
10100:Anomie
10017:mer764
9883:isaacl
9843:isaacl
9790:(talk)
9694:(talk)
9434:isaacl
9389:Stifle
9202:inline
9048:· · ·
9046:Isaacl
8986:isaacl
8396:Oppose
8357:Editor
8324:Oppose
8303:isaacl
8287:Editor
8276:Isaacl
8261:isaacl
8243:Editor
8230:WP:NPV
8192:Editor
8165:Editor
8134:Oppose
8116:Editor
8087:(talk)
8065:Editor
8050:: The
8015:Editor
7979:Oppose
7963:Editor
7919:Editor
7905:future
7812:Editor
7766:Oppose
7723:Editor
7686:Oppose
7650:Editor
7543:Editor
7495:Editor
7485:(idea)
7443:Editor
7431:Google
7330:Editor
7277:Oppose
7234:isaacl
7213:Isaacl
7198:isaacl
7169:isaacl
7041:Jester
6951:Jester
6880:Editor
6829:Editor
6807:Editor
6763:Editor
6741:Editor
6680:Editor
6625:Pppery
6541:Anomie
6476:Anomie
6434:module
6185:SWinxy
6083:Ahecht
5888:Same.
5805:. The
5769:Hewer7
5751:WP:VPP
5747:change
5733:Hewer7
5691:Hewer7
5650:WP:VPP
5514:Certes
5261:WP:VPT
5095:isaacl
5068:isaacl
5039:isaacl
5012:isaacl
4974:isaacl
4944:isaacl
4912:voorts
4893:Amanda
4886:Oppose
4867:Oppose
4850:Oppose
4831:Oppose
4761:Stifle
4569:Oppose
4545:NW1223
4521:Oppose
4471:Oppose
4450:Oppose
4434:Oppose
4387:Bilorv
4198:Mach61
4096:names.
3962:SWinxy
3627:green.
3419:Ahecht
3145:WP:GAR
3141:WP:FAR
2946:SD0001
2802:Oppose
2761:Oppose
2727:sawyer
2679:Oppose
2623:Oppose
2571:Oppose
2526:WP:FAR
2522:WP:GAR
2485:Oppose
2430:Oppose
2403:Oppose
2384:Oppose
2359:Oppose
2344:Oppose
2320:Oppose
2277:Oppose
2245:Oppose
2228:Oppose
2211:Oppose
2181:Oppose
2164:Oppose
2139:Oppose
2121:Oppose
2103:Oppose
2051:Voorts
2028:voorts
1997:Oppose
1950:Oppose
1902:Link?
1885:voorts
1865:Oppose
1857:(talk)
1849:Oppose
1835:SD0001
1830:Oppose
1811:Oppose
1794:Oppose
1784:(talk)
1724:Oppose
1683:Bilorv
1679:Oppose
1659:Oppose
1628:Oppose
1591:Oppose
1574:Oppose
1523:Oppose
1479:voorts
1443:voorts
1409:voorts
1359:(talk)
36:Policy
16510:WP:IC
16463:typo?
16459:help!
16218:lists
15989:Why?
15777:Kusma
15342:I am
15251:too.
14979:maybe
14646:). –
14556:) or
14512:cited
14247:• ✏️
14209:stalk
14137:Green
14058:• ✏️
13719:Kusma
13368:Query
13351:Green
13240:novov
12655:• ✏️
12598:Aza24
12480:know.
12158:• ✏️
12069:• ✏️
11928:• ✏️
11884:• ✏️
11120:Tower
11085:Tower
11029:) (✏
11020:vghfr
11003:• ✏️
10485:novov
10270:novov
10020:KCTV5
9905:Spiel
9657:Spiel
9504:Kusma
9355:topic
9253:• ✏️
9200:link
9148:stalk
8803:novov
8711:worse
8522:Vghfr
8056:doing
7751:• ✏️
7390:• ✏️
7356:) (✏
7347:vghfr
7315:Vghfr
7300:) (✏
7291:vghfr
6900:Aasim
6650:typos
6155:• ✏️
5644:MOVED
5605:Kusma
5573:Bduke
4840:Edits
4583:Ponyo
4560:: -->
4425:typos
3208:maybe
2941:WP:FA
2854:|666|
2374:Edits
2351:|666|
2327:Green
2297:typos
1963:novov
1914:stalk
1798:Sohom
1745:|666|
1499:novov
88:start
16:<
16762:talk
16741:talk
16704:talk
16670:Broc
16660:talk
16656:Broc
16614:talk
16599:talk
16583:talk
16552:talk
16542:and
16522:talk
16518:Broc
16512:and
16500:talk
16486:talk
16482:Broc
16433:talk
16414:talk
16400:talk
16381:talk
16377:Broc
16363:talk
16357:up.
16342:talk
16326:must
16318:must
16197:talk
16188:name
16171:A412
16152:talk
16144:A412
16134:A412
16106:talk
16087:talk
16074:and
16047:talk
16030:talk
16009:talk
15995:talk
15981:talk
15965:talk
15944:talk
15922:talk
15898:Tera
15868:talk
15844:talk
15829:talk
15806:talk
15781:talk
15758:talk
15719:talk
15700:talk
15680:talk
15661:talk
15609:talk
15582:talk
15565:talk
15540:talk
15496:talk
15454:talk
15410:talk
15393:talk
15371:talk
15349:Zero
15332:talk
15316:Zero
15299:talk
15260:talk
15194:talk
15179:talk
15159:Hi @
15151:talk
15129:talk
15105:talk
15077:talk
15062:talk
15050:WP:N
15046:WP:V
15032:talk
14968:talk
14953:talk
14939:talk
14925:talk
14911:Zero
14901:talk
14885:WP:V
14870:talk
14818:talk
14803:talk
14778:talk
14737:talk
14713:talk
14698:talk
14668:talk
14653:talk
14630:talk
14612:talk
14488:talk
14459:talk
14445:talk
14426:talk
14411:talk
14376:talk
14334:talk
14319:talk
14302:Wug·
14245:talk
14243:(💬
14236:Coco
14226:hoax
14204:they
14173:talk
14123:talk
14108:talk
14088:talk
14056:talk
14054:(💬
14047:Coco
14023:talk
14008:talk
13994:talk
13986:WP:V
13982:WP:V
13972:talk
13948:talk
13934:talk
13911:talk
13849:talk
13834:talk
13820:talk
13805:talk
13779:WP:V
13765:Sdkb
13748:talk
13744:Broc
13723:talk
13702:talk
13686:Sdkb
13651:talk
13602:talk
13569:talk
13392:out.
13382:Sdkb
13290:talk
13265:talk
13233:once
13223:talk
13202:talk
13179:talk
13164:talk
13148:and
13127:here
13118:talk
13101:PAGE
13099:TALK
13078:talk
13060:talk
13038:talk
13016:talk
12998:talk
12981:talk
12923:talk
12905:talk
12886:talk
12867:and
12840:and
12781:talk
12762:talk
12760:🌹 (
12753:. --
12734:talk
12713:talk
12705:this
12687:talk
12653:talk
12651:(💬
12644:Coco
12627:talk
12574:T:MP
12554:talk
12532:talk
12514:talk
12488:Sdkb
12471:talk
12453:talk
12430:talk
12393:talk
12365:talk
12350:talk
12321:JPxG
12306:talk
12290:talk
12251:talk
12196:talk
12176:talk
12156:talk
12154:(💬
12147:Coco
12135:talk
12121:talk
12101:talk
12085:talk
12067:talk
12065:(💬
12058:Coco
12042:talk
12024:talk
12020:YTKJ
12006:talk
11992:talk
11988:YTKJ
11960:talk
11946:talk
11926:talk
11924:(💬
11917:Coco
11900:talk
11882:talk
11880:(💬
11873:Coco
11847:talk
11831:talk
11817:talk
11801:talk
11786:talk
11771:talk
11755:talk
11730:talk
11716:talk
11694:talk
11680:talk
11660:talk
11646:talk
11626:talk
11612:talk
11594:talk
11577:talk
11562:talk
11542:talk
11518:talk
11504:talk
11484:talk
11470:talk
11456:talk
11426:talk
11410:talk
11392:talk
11356:talk
11340:talk
11326:talk
11309:PAGE
11307:TALK
11292:talk
11278:talk
11264:talk
11241:talk
11221:talk
11184:talk
11168:talk
11143:talk
11106:talk
11068:talk
11050:talk
11026:Talk
11001:talk
10999:(💬
10992:Coco
10980:talk
10966:talk
10952:talk
10916:talk
10896:talk
10878:talk
10864:talk
10850:talk
10836:talk
10818:talk
10782:talk
10766:talk
10752:talk
10735:talk
10718:talk
10670:talk
10627:talk
10600:hein
10566:talk
10547:talk
10527:talk
10506:Tera
10466:talk
10448:PAGE
10446:TALK
10431:talk
10412:talk
10385:talk
10329:Hi @
10321:talk
10303:talk
10255:talk
10240:talk
10226:talk
10207:talk
10186:talk
10164:talk
10145:talk
10084:talk
10070:talk
10053:talk
9966:talk
9925:talk
9900:Ϣere
9887:talk
9872:talk
9847:talk
9827:Sdkb
9806:talk
9766:talk
9740:talk
9724:talk
9710:talk
9675:The
9652:Ϣere
9626:talk
9599:talk
9574:talk
9543:talk
9535:want
9508:talk
9491:talk
9457:talk
9438:talk
9424:talk
9410:talk
9393:talk
9376:talk
9351:word
9333:talk
9324:this
9308:talk
9273:talk
9251:talk
9249:(💬
9242:Coco
9227:talk
9210:talk
9164:Wug·
9143:they
9120:talk
9093:talk
9085:help
9031:talk
9020:...
9008:talk
8990:talk
8975:talk
8949:talk
8931:talk
8916:talk
8898:talk
8883:talk
8791:and
8768:talk
8754:talk
8725:talk
8698:talk
8683:talk
8671:WP:V
8641:talk
8620:talk
8600:much
8588:Yes.
8579:talk
8543:talk
8484:talk
8442:talk
8402:Java
8383:talk
8335:talk
8307:talk
8265:talk
8212:talk
8184:may
8143:talk
8104:max,
8039:talk
7992:talk
7942:talk
7799:bots
7749:talk
7747:(💬
7740:Coco
7698:talk
7673:talk
7628:talk
7595:talk
7581:talk
7563:talk
7521:talk
7388:talk
7386:(💬
7379:Coco
7353:Talk
7297:Talk
7265:talk
7238:talk
7223:talk
7202:talk
7187:talk
7173:talk
7153:talk
7130:talk
7110:talk
7095:talk
7089:. -
7070:talk
7038:SWAT
7020:talk
6977:talk
6948:SWAT
6923:talk
6856:talk
6783:talk
6731:SIDE
6638:talk
6620:PAWS
6592:talk
6523:talk
6461:talk
6246:and
6189:talk
6171:talk
6153:talk
6151:(💬
6144:Coco
6130:talk
6109:talk
6101:Home
6090:PAGE
6088:TALK
6063:Sdkb
6037:talk
6021:talk
5984:talk
5927:talk
5879:talk
5871:talk
5850:talk
5831:talk
5773:talk
5759:talk
5737:talk
5723:talk
5695:talk
5658:talk
5609:talk
5591:talk
5577:talk
5562:Sdkb
5554:Per
5545:talk
5518:talk
5491:talk
5435:talk
5356:talk
5342:talk
5309:See
5283:talk
5269:talk
5202:Sdkb
5167:talk
5152:talk
5099:talk
5072:talk
5057:talk
5043:talk
5016:talk
4988:well
4978:talk
4963:talk
4948:talk
4916:talk
4858:talk
4811:"?!"
4795:talk
4780:talk
4765:talk
4736:talk
4697:talk
4683:talk
4669:talk
4655:talk
4640:talk
4625:talk
4599:talk
4579:.--
4548:<
4532:talk
4488:Java
4461:talk
4413:talk
4393:talk
4369:talk
4344:talk
4314:talk
4299:talk
4267:talk
4263:Izno
4251:talk
4232:Sdkb
4224:Per
4202:talk
4188:talk
4153:talk
4135:talk
4117:talk
4087:talk
4064:talk
4043:talk
4029:talk
4009:talk
3994:talk
3980:talk
3966:talk
3941:talk
3921:talk
3901:talk
3857:talk
3835:talk
3802:talk
3786:talk
3764:talk
3723:talk
3709:talk
3693:talk
3675:talk
3659:talk
3645:talk
3612:talk
3598:talk
3582:talk
3547:talk
3533:talk
3517:talk
3502:talk
3488:talk
3473:talk
3426:PAGE
3424:TALK
3395:talk
3375:talk
3353:talk
3341:here
3339:and
3337:here
3321:and
3294:czar
3271:talk
3250:talk
3235:talk
3216:talk
3194:talk
3176:talk
3153:talk
3143:and
3131:talk
3103:talk
3074:talk
3052:talk
3029:talk
3009:Moxy
2994:talk
2990:Elli
2982:and
2962:Moxy
2951:talk
2928:talk
2910:Sdkb
2893:talk
2870:talk
2840:talk
2815:talk
2752:talk
2737:talk
2723:up.
2687:talk
2670:talk
2631:talk
2579:talk
2560:talk
2542:talk
2534:less
2530:more
2524:and
2502:talk
2472:talk
2452:talk
2438:talk
2394:talk
2311:talk
2285:talk
2254:talk
2236:talk
2219:talk
2215:Ktin
2189:talk
2172:talk
2130:A412
2127:. ~
2094:talk
2073:talk
2065:this
2055:The
2032:talk
2010:talk
1988:talk
1935:talk
1908:talk
1889:talk
1840:talk
1802:talk
1712:Sdkb
1689:talk
1669:Sdkb
1615:talk
1611:Elli
1582:talk
1565:talk
1551:talk
1536:talk
1483:talk
1447:talk
1432:talk
1413:talk
1394:talk
1373:talk
1332:talk
1314:talk
1281:Moxy
1250:talk
1235:talk
1205:talk
1185:talk
1154:keep
16698:.--
16578:Joe
16516:).
16453:Guy
16428:Joe
16098:are
15902:tix
15708:It
15519:🗯️
15481:🗯️
15291:new
15219:.
15024:all
15013:not
15009:are
14708:Joe
14648:Joe
14607:Joe
14436:all
14239:bb8
14187:all
14118:Joe
14050:bb8
13887:or
13844:Joe
13597:Joe
13320:can
13050:or
12877:one
12860:).
12854:new
12850:old
12846:not
12801:new
12756:Red
12647:bb8
12274:🗯️
12233:🗯️
12150:bb8
12061:bb8
12016:DYK
11920:bb8
11876:bb8
11799:🐉(
11753:🐉(
11696:) (
11662:) (
11628:) (
11592:🐉(
11023:(✉
10995:bb8
10888:fr:
10587:you
10510:tix
10140:Joe
10136:not
10112:lot
10047:”.
9614:all
9402:Yes
9353:or
9347:far
9245:bb8
9236:Yes
9223:CMD
9186:\\
9176:Yes
9135:Yes
8561:Yes
8208:CMD
8180:max
8139:CMD
8108:may
7913:--
7743:bb8
7382:bb8
7350:(✉
7294:(✉
6211:as
6147:bb8
5902:🗯️
5648:to
5593:) (
5461:—
5198:.
5169:)
4079:why
4075:why
3347:).
2782:can
2703:\\
2155:🗯️
2096:)
1853:PMC
1269:=Λ=
1216:any
1128:213
1124:212
1120:211
1116:210
1112:209
1108:208
1104:207
1100:206
1096:205
1092:204
1088:203
1084:202
1080:201
1076:200
1072:199
1068:198
1064:197
1060:196
1056:195
1052:194
1048:193
1044:192
1040:191
1036:190
1032:189
1028:188
1024:187
1020:186
1016:185
1012:184
1008:183
1004:182
1000:181
996:180
992:179
988:178
984:177
980:176
976:175
972:174
968:173
964:172
960:171
956:170
952:169
948:168
944:167
940:166
936:165
932:164
928:163
924:162
920:161
916:160
912:159
908:158
904:157
900:156
896:155
892:154
888:153
884:152
880:151
876:150
872:149
868:148
864:147
860:146
856:145
852:144
848:143
844:142
840:141
836:140
832:139
828:138
824:137
820:136
816:135
812:134
808:133
804:132
800:131
796:130
792:129
788:128
784:127
780:126
776:125
772:124
768:123
764:122
760:121
756:120
752:119
748:118
744:117
740:116
736:115
732:114
728:113
724:112
720:111
716:110
712:109
708:108
704:107
700:106
696:105
692:104
688:103
684:102
680:101
676:100
63:WMF
16764:)
16743:)
16726:)
16724:💬
16722:(
16706:)
16662:)
16616:)
16601:)
16554:)
16524:)
16502:)
16488:)
16461:-
16416:)
16402:)
16383:)
16365:)
16344:)
16246:.
16235:)
16231:;
16199:)
16154:)
16108:)
16089:)
16063:(=
16049:)
16032:)
16011:)
15997:)
15983:)
15967:)
15955:-
15946:)
15928:)
15924:•
15870:)
15846:)
15831:)
15808:)
15783:)
15760:)
15721:)
15710:is
15702:)
15682:)
15663:)
15621:,
15611:)
15584:)
15567:)
15546:)
15542:/
15509:jp
15498:)
15471:jp
15456:)
15430:)
15426:·
15412:)
15395:)
15373:)
15334:)
15301:)
15236:·
15232:·
15228:·
15196:)
15153:)
15107:)
15079:)
15064:)
15052:,
15048:,
15034:)
14970:)
14955:)
14941:)
14927:)
14903:)
14887:,
14872:)
14820:)
14805:)
14780:)
14768:,
14764:,
14760:,
14756:,
14752:,
14739:)
14700:)
14692:.
14670:)
14632:)
14589:if
14572:;
14537:,
14533:,
14490:)
14461:)
14447:)
14428:)
14413:)
14378:)
14336:)
14321:)
14300:—
14278:.
14251:)
14191:23
14110:)
14090:)
14062:)
14025:)
14010:)
13996:)
13974:)
13950:)
13936:)
13913:)
13836:)
13822:)
13807:)
13750:)
13740:}}
13734:{{
13725:)
13704:)
13653:)
13593:}}
13587:{{
13571:)
13537:☎️
13530:—
13487:☎️
13480:—
13441:☎️
13434:—
13401:☎️
13394:—
13292:)
13267:)
13250:c)
13245:(t
13225:)
13204:)
13181:)
13166:)
13156:}}
13150:{{
13146:}}
13140:{{
13120:)
13104:)
13080:)
13062:)
13054:?
13040:)
13018:)
13000:)
12983:)
12975:-
12959:}}
12953:{{
12925:)
12907:)
12888:)
12787:)
12783:•
12777:DJ
12773:Th
12764:)
12736:)
12715:)
12689:)
12681:)
12659:)
12629:)
12556:)
12534:)
12516:)
12473:)
12459:)
12455:•
12432:)
12395:)
12367:)
12352:)
12308:)
12300:—
12292:)
12264:jp
12253:)
12223:jp
12198:)
12188:!
12178:)
12162:)
12137:)
12123:)
12103:)
12087:)
12073:)
12044:)
12026:)
11994:)
11962:)
11948:)
11932:)
11902:)
11888:)
11849:)
11833:)
11819:)
11803:)
11788:)
11773:)
11757:)
11732:)
11718:)
11700:)
11682:)
11666:)
11648:)
11632:)
11614:)
11596:)
11579:)
11564:)
11548:)
11544:•
11538:DJ
11534:Th
11520:)
11506:)
11486:)
11472:)
11458:)
11428:)
11412:)
11394:)
11358:)
11342:)
11328:)
11312:)
11294:)
11280:)
11266:)
11243:)
11223:)
11186:)
11170:)
11145:)
11108:)
11070:)
11052:)
11035:)
11007:)
10982:)
10968:)
10954:)
10918:)
10898:)
10890:.
10880:)
10866:)
10852:)
10838:)
10820:)
10805:)
10801:•
10784:)
10768:)
10754:)
10737:)
10720:)
10672:)
10629:)
10568:)
10529:)
10495:c)
10490:(t
10468:)
10451:)
10433:)
10414:)
10387:)
10323:)
10307:)
10280:c)
10275:(t
10257:)
10242:)
10228:)
10209:)
10188:)
10166:)
10098:.
10086:)
10072:)
10055:)
10035:)
10029:•
9968:)
9927:)
9889:)
9874:)
9864:}}
9858:{{
9849:)
9808:)
9768:)
9742:)
9734:—
9726:)
9712:)
9645:}}
9639:{{
9635:No
9628:)
9610:No
9601:)
9576:)
9565:No
9558:)
9552:No
9545:)
9531:No
9517:No
9510:)
9500:No
9493:)
9483:No
9466:No
9459:)
9449:No
9440:)
9426:)
9412:)
9395:)
9385:No
9378:)
9342:No
9335:)
9319:No
9310:)
9282:No
9275:)
9264:No
9257:)
9229:)
9219:No
9212:)
9193:No
9162:—
9157:No
9122:)
9095:)
9061:No
9054::
9042:No
9033:)
9010:)
8999:No
8992:)
8952:)
8933:)
8919:)
8900:)
8886:)
8871:No
8862:2¢
8859:-
8850:No
8813:c)
8808:(t
8787:,
8770:)
8756:)
8727:)
8719:—
8700:)
8685:)
8643:)
8633:No
8622:)
8581:)
8545:)
8537:.
8516:,
8512:,
8508:,
8504:,
8500:,
8486:)
8466:)
8444:)
8385:)
8372:if
8337:)
8309:)
8267:)
8214:)
8145:)
8041:)
7944:)
7841:1.
7786:)
7780:|
7755:)
7700:)
7675:)
7630:)
7597:)
7583:)
7565:)
7523:)
7394:)
7362:)
7306:)
7267:)
7240:)
7225:)
7204:)
7189:)
7175:)
7159:)
7155:•
7132:)
7124:.
7112:)
7097:)
7072:)
7022:)
6979:)
6936:No
6925:)
6858:)
6785:)
6652:)
6632:.
6594:)
6525:)
6463:)
6395:.
6345:.
6299:.
6254:.
6191:)
6173:)
6159:)
6132:)
6111:)
6093:)
6039:)
6023:)
6015:-
6002::
5986:)
5978:-
5970:}}
5964:{{
5929:)
5892:jp
5881:)
5873:)
5852:)
5833:)
5813:}}
5807:{{
5775:)
5761:)
5739:)
5725:)
5697:)
5660:)
5611:)
5597:)
5579:)
5547:)
5520:)
5493:)
5437:)
5380:}}
5374:{{
5358:)
5344:)
5285:)
5271:)
5154:)
5101:)
5074:)
5059:)
5045:)
5018:)
4980:)
4965:)
4950:)
4942:.
4922:)
4879:)
4877:💬
4875:(
4860:)
4843:)
4837:(/
4797:)
4782:)
4767:)
4738:)
4699:)
4685:)
4671:)
4657:)
4642:)
4627:)
4601:)
4534:)
4509:|
4427:)
4397:)
4371:)
4346:)
4316:)
4301:)
4269:)
4253:)
4228:.
4204:)
4190:)
4155:)
4137:)
4119:)
4089:)
4066:)
4045:)
4031:)
4011:)
3996:)
3982:)
3968:)
3943:)
3923:)
3903:)
3859:)
3837:)
3824:,
3804:)
3788:)
3766:)
3725:)
3711:)
3695:)
3677:)
3661:)
3647:)
3614:)
3600:)
3584:)
3566:,
3562:,
3549:)
3535:)
3519:)
3504:)
3490:)
3475:)
3460:}}
3454:{{
3447:}}
3441:{{
3429:)
3410:}}
3407:Pp
3404:{{
3397:)
3377:)
3355:)
3273:)
3252:)
3237:)
3218:)
3196:)
3188:.
3178:)
3155:)
3147:.
3133:)
3105:)
3076:)
3054:)
3031:)
3000:)
2996:|
2953:)
2930:)
2895:)
2872:)
2842:)
2817:)
2795:)
2793:💬
2791:(
2767:.
2754:)
2734:*
2730:*
2720:if
2689:)
2672:)
2633:)
2604:.
2581:)
2562:)
2544:)
2478:)
2474:•
2454:)
2440:)
2396:)
2377:)
2371:(/
2313:)
2299:)
2256:)
2238:)
2221:)
2191:)
2174:)
2145:jp
2075:)
2038:)
2026:.
2012:)
1990:)
1973:c)
1968:(t
1937:)
1895:)
1855:♠
1842:)
1804:)
1768:me
1734:)
1693:)
1647:·
1643:·
1639:·
1621:)
1617:|
1584:)
1567:)
1553:)
1509:c)
1504:(t
1489:)
1477:.
1453:)
1434:)
1419:)
1396:)
1375:)
1338:)
1334:•
1328:DJ
1324:Th
1316:)
1267:|
1252:)
1237:)
1207:)
1187:)
1126:,
1122:,
1118:,
1114:,
1110:,
1106:,
1102:,
1098:,
1094:,
1090:,
1086:,
1082:,
1078:,
1074:,
1070:,
1066:,
1062:,
1058:,
1054:,
1050:,
1046:,
1042:,
1038:,
1034:,
1030:,
1026:,
1022:,
1018:,
1014:,
1010:,
1006:,
1002:,
998:,
994:,
990:,
986:,
982:,
978:,
974:,
970:,
966:,
962:,
958:,
954:,
950:,
946:,
942:,
938:,
934:,
930:,
926:,
922:,
918:,
914:,
910:,
906:,
902:,
898:,
894:,
890:,
886:,
882:,
878:,
874:,
870:,
866:,
862:,
858:,
854:,
850:,
846:,
842:,
838:,
834:,
830:,
826:,
822:,
818:,
814:,
810:,
806:,
802:,
798:,
794:,
790:,
786:,
782:,
778:,
774:,
770:,
766:,
762:,
758:,
754:,
750:,
746:,
742:,
738:,
734:,
730:,
726:,
722:,
718:,
714:,
710:,
706:,
702:,
698:,
694:,
690:,
686:,
682:,
678:,
674:,
672:99
670:,
668:98
666:,
664:97
662:,
660:96
658:,
656:95
654:,
652:94
650:,
648:93
646:,
644:92
642:,
640:91
638:,
636:90
634:,
632:89
630:,
628:88
626:,
624:87
622:,
620:86
618:,
616:85
614:,
612:84
610:,
608:83
606:,
604:82
602:,
600:81
598:,
596:80
594:,
592:79
590:,
588:78
586:,
584:77
582:,
580:76
578:,
576:75
574:,
572:74
570:,
568:73
566:,
564:72
562:,
560:71
558:,
556:70
554:,
552:69
550:,
548:68
546:,
544:67
542:,
540:66
538:,
536:65
534:,
532:64
530:,
528:63
526:,
524:62
522:,
520:61
518:,
516:60
514:,
512:59
510:,
508:58
506:,
504:57
502:,
500:56
498:,
496:55
494:,
492:54
490:,
488:53
486:,
484:52
482:,
480:51
478:,
476:50
474:,
472:49
470:,
468:48
466:,
464:47
462:,
460:46
458:,
456:45
454:,
452:44
450:,
448:43
446:,
444:42
442:,
440:41
438:,
436:40
434:,
432:39
430:,
428:38
426:,
424:37
422:,
420:36
418:,
416:35
414:,
412:34
410:,
408:33
406:,
404:32
402:,
400:31
398:,
396:30
394:,
392:29
390:,
388:28
386:,
384:27
382:,
380:26
378:,
376:25
374:,
372:24
370:,
368:23
366:,
364:22
362:,
360:21
358:,
356:20
354:,
352:19
350:,
348:18
346:,
344:17
342:,
340:16
338:,
336:15
334:,
332:14
330:,
328:13
326:,
324:12
322:,
320:11
318:,
316:10
314:,
310:,
306:,
302:,
298:,
294:,
290:,
286:,
282:,
274:AR
272:,
270:AQ
268:,
266:AP
264:,
262:AO
260:,
258:AN
256:,
254:AM
252:,
250:AL
248:,
246:AK
244:,
242:AJ
240:,
238:AI
236:,
234:AH
232:,
230:AG
228:,
226:AF
224:,
222:AE
220:,
218:AD
216:,
214:AC
212:,
210:AB
208:,
206:AA
204:,
200:,
196:,
192:,
188:,
184:,
180:,
176:,
172:,
168:,
164:,
160:,
156:,
152:,
148:,
144:,
140:,
136:,
132:,
128:,
124:,
120:,
116:,
112:,
108:,
104:,
16760:(
16739:(
16702:(
16668:@
16658:(
16650:@
16612:(
16597:(
16585:)
16581:(
16565::
16561:@
16550:(
16520:(
16498:(
16484:(
16475:@
16465:)
16457:(
16435:)
16431:(
16412:(
16398:(
16379:(
16361:(
16355:V
16340:(
16302:⚓
16283:诉
16256:诉
16233:c
16229:t
16227:(
16195:(
16150:(
16142:@
16104:(
16085:(
16055:@
16045:(
16028:(
16007:(
15993:(
15979:(
15963:(
15942:(
15920:(
15906:₵
15889::
15885:@
15866:(
15842:(
15827:(
15804:(
15779:(
15775:—
15756:(
15717:(
15698:(
15678:(
15659:(
15607:(
15580:(
15563:(
15538:(
15515:g
15512:×
15494:(
15477:g
15474:×
15452:(
15428:c
15424:t
15422:(
15408:(
15391:(
15369:(
15330:(
15297:(
15269:@
15240:}
15238:b
15234:p
15230:c
15226:t
15224:{
15192:(
15181:)
15177:(
15168:–
15149:(
15131:)
15127:(
15103:(
15075:(
15060:(
15030:(
14966:(
14951:(
14937:(
14923:(
14899:(
14868:(
14816:(
14801:(
14776:(
14735:(
14715:)
14711:(
14696:(
14666:(
14655:)
14651:(
14628:(
14614:)
14610:(
14560:(
14552:(
14545:?
14486:(
14457:(
14443:(
14424:(
14409:(
14374:(
14332:(
14317:(
14206:/
14202:/
14144:C
14125:)
14121:(
14106:(
14086:(
14021:(
14006:(
13992:(
13970:(
13946:(
13932:(
13909:(
13851:)
13847:(
13832:(
13818:(
13803:(
13746:(
13721:(
13700:(
13649:(
13632:C
13628:·
13624:T
13604:)
13600:(
13567:(
13495:@
13449:@
13358:C
13334:⚔
13288:(
13263:(
13221:(
13200:(
13177:(
13162:(
13129:)
13116:(
13096:(
13076:(
13058:(
13036:(
13014:(
12996:(
12979:(
12921:(
12903:(
12884:(
12779:(
12775:e
12747::
12743:@
12732:(
12711:(
12695:@
12685:(
12669:@
12665:@
12636:@
12625:(
12552:(
12530:(
12522:@
12512:(
12500:@
12469:(
12451:(
12428:(
12391:(
12363:(
12348:(
12338:@
12319:@
12304:(
12288:(
12270:g
12267:×
12249:(
12229:g
12226:×
12194:(
12174:(
12133:(
12119:(
12099:(
12083:(
12040:(
12022:(
12004:(
11990:(
11958:(
11944:(
11908:@
11898:(
11845:(
11829:(
11815:(
11784:(
11769:(
11728:(
11714:(
11692:(
11678:(
11658:(
11644:(
11624:(
11610:(
11575:(
11560:(
11540:(
11536:e
11516:(
11502:(
11482:(
11468:(
11454:(
11434:@
11424:(
11408:(
11390:(
11354:(
11338:(
11324:(
11304:(
11290:(
11276:(
11262:(
11239:(
11219:(
11182:(
11166:(
11151:@
11141:(
11104:(
11066:(
11048:(
10978:(
10964:(
10950:(
10914:(
10894:(
10876:(
10862:(
10848:(
10834:(
10826:@
10816:(
10797:(
10780:(
10764:(
10750:(
10733:(
10716:(
10668:(
10640::
10636:@
10625:(
10579::
10575:@
10564:(
10550:)
10544:(
10525:(
10514:₵
10464:(
10443:(
10429:(
10420:@
10410:(
10383:(
10376:?
10361:@
10357:@
10353:@
10349:@
10345:@
10341:@
10337:@
10333:@
10319:(
10299:(
10253:(
10238:(
10224:(
10205:(
10184:(
10162:(
10147:)
10143:(
10103:⚔
10082:(
10068:(
10051:(
10032:c
10026:t
9994:1
9992:+
9964:(
9923:(
9885:(
9870:(
9845:(
9804:(
9764:(
9738:(
9722:(
9708:(
9624:(
9597:(
9572:(
9541:(
9506:(
9489:(
9475:⚓
9455:(
9436:(
9422:(
9408:(
9391:(
9374:(
9331:(
9306:(
9293:♔
9290:⚇
9271:(
9225:(
9208:(
9145:/
9141:/
9118:(
9091:(
9081::
9077:@
9029:(
9006:(
8988:(
8973:(
8946:(
8941:L
8929:(
8913:(
8908:L
8896:(
8880:(
8875:L
8841:C
8839:/
8837:T
8766:(
8752:(
8746:p
8723:(
8717:?
8696:(
8681:(
8658:m
8654::
8650:@
8639:(
8618:(
8577:(
8541:(
8524::
8496:@
8482:(
8473:.
8440:(
8381:(
8348::
8344:@
8333:(
8305:(
8278::
8274:@
8263:(
8225::
8221:@
8210:(
8156::
8152:@
8141:(
8100::
8096:@
8037:(
8006::
8002:@
7994:)
7990:(
7955::
7951:@
7940:(
7774:(
7711::
7707:@
7696:(
7671:(
7641::
7637:@
7626:(
7593:(
7579:(
7571:@
7561:(
7534::
7530:@
7519:(
7478::
7474:@
7426::
7422:@
7317::
7313:@
7263:(
7236:(
7221:(
7215::
7211:@
7200:(
7185:(
7171:(
7151:(
7128:(
7108:(
7093:(
7068:(
7057::
7053:@
7032:⇒
7018:(
6990::
6986:@
6975:(
6942:⇒
6921:(
6912::
6908:@
6869::
6865:@
6854:(
6846:@
6796::
6792:@
6781:(
6723:)
6647:·
6641:·
6636:(
6590:(
6544:⚔
6521:(
6479:⚔
6459:(
6374:.
6324:.
6187:(
6169:(
6128:(
6107:(
6085:(
6050:1
6048:+
6035:(
6019:(
5982:(
5925:(
5898:g
5895:×
5877:(
5869:(
5848:(
5829:(
5771:(
5757:(
5735:(
5721:(
5713:.
5693:(
5656:(
5607:(
5589:(
5575:(
5543:(
5516:(
5489:(
5433:(
5354:(
5340:(
5281:(
5267:(
5165:(
5150:(
5142:/
5097:(
5070:(
5055:(
5041:(
5014:(
4976:(
4961:(
4946:(
4918:/
4914:(
4856:(
4793:(
4778:(
4763:(
4752:⚓
4734:(
4695:(
4681:(
4667:(
4653:(
4638:(
4623:(
4597:(
4554:•
4530:(
4422:·
4416:·
4411:(
4389:(
4367:(
4342:(
4312:(
4297:(
4265:(
4249:(
4200:(
4186:(
4151:(
4143:@
4133:(
4115:(
4100:(
4085:(
4062:(
4041:(
4027:(
4007:(
3992:(
3978:(
3964:(
3939:(
3919:(
3899:(
3855:(
3833:(
3800:(
3784:(
3762:(
3721:(
3707:(
3691:(
3673:(
3657:(
3643:(
3610:(
3596:(
3580:(
3574::
3558:@
3545:(
3531:(
3515:(
3500:(
3486:(
3471:(
3421:(
3393:(
3373:(
3351:(
3269:(
3248:(
3233:(
3214:(
3192:(
3174:(
3151:(
3129:(
3115:—
3101:(
3072:(
3050:(
3027:(
3012:-
2992:(
2965:-
2949:(
2926:(
2891:(
2868:(
2838:(
2813:(
2750:(
2685:(
2668:(
2629:(
2577:(
2558:(
2540:(
2505:)
2499:(
2470:(
2450:(
2436:(
2420:C
2416:·
2412:T
2392:(
2334:C
2309:(
2294:·
2288:·
2283:(
2252:(
2234:(
2217:(
2187:(
2170:(
2151:g
2148:×
2113:⚓
2092:(
2071:(
2053::
2049:@
2034:/
2030:(
2008:(
1986:(
1933:(
1891:/
1887:(
1838:(
1800:(
1756:—
1704:1
1702:+
1685:(
1651:}
1649:b
1645:p
1641:c
1637:t
1635:{
1613:(
1580:(
1563:(
1549:(
1538:)
1534:(
1485:/
1481:(
1463:—
1449:/
1445:(
1430:(
1415:/
1411:(
1392:(
1371:(
1330:(
1326:e
1312:(
1284:-
1271:|
1248:(
1233:(
1203:(
1183:(
1162:)
1158:(
312:9
308:8
304:7
300:6
296:5
292:4
288:3
284:2
280:1
277:·
202:Z
198:Y
194:X
190:W
186:V
182:U
178:T
174:S
170:R
166:Q
162:P
158:O
154:N
150:M
146:L
142:K
138:J
134:I
130:H
126:G
122:F
118:E
114:D
110:C
106:B
102:A
98:·
53:)
49:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.