2286:, so for a "full solution", one necessity seems to be some sort of acculturation into the practice of double checking code output rather than blindly trusting it.As to the other issue we appear to have differing perspectives on – the hypothetical future usefulness of / annoyance with potential Edit Check cases – I'm not sure if we actually disagree or if we're not understanding each other's prior assumptions.I feel like I would derive value as an editor from a script that warned me if I e.g. left a date or copypasted superscript numeral in an author name field, similar to the thing that prompts me if my edit summary is blank (which doesn't function in Minerva). And I would derive value as a patroller from a process that prompted people e.g. not to change a shortdesc manually set to
680:
648:
1952:
1093:. If I'm rescuing a dead article with all the contributors long gone the first thing I'm doing is upgrading the refs with templates so that the short citations are followable to the long citations. I've never had a problem with this from other users. If we followed that rule, nearly every page created before ~2010 would still be using the legacy citation style (and we'd have a lot more dead links that the bots normally take care of when the refs are formatted as templates.) If I'm more comfortable adding citations by template then I should be able to do that.
410:
718:
659:
811:
790:
617:
752:
592:
375:
666:
2128:
Edit Check might help eventually, as would surfacing CS1 maint messages within the VE interface, as would additing a translation layer on top of Citoid, adding lots and lots of special cases, etc. I personally find that automatically generated citations typically require so much tweaking that it's generally not a timesave even to begin with them unless there are more than eight or nine authors.
1813:: thank you for your comment. Is there is a decription of what is suitable for wikidata and what is not? Also, am I the very first wikipedian, who wants to share a searcheable database (with or without full texts) with others? I would think, that many wiki-articles (or topics) would have such databases by now (especially, if they are created using no-restrictions sources like
2315:
maybe the idea of warning for impending 3rr violation, although a warning for 1rr on affected articles would probably be more valuable), but most of the things I'm envisioning should probably display once, create a moment of education, and then not be triggered again for the same user unless they are disruptively editing against consensus practice, in which case we should
658:
665:
2178:. The first "check" is encouraging new editors to add citations, if they are adding a new paragraph. (Of course there are other times when adding a citation would be appropriate, but it's an easy-ish thing for the software to detect, and it's almost never a bad idea to add a citation if you write, e.g., a whole new paragraph.)
2241:
modals at rookie mistakes that established contributors tend over time towards becoming increasingly frustrated and bitey about.Our documentation is... not really presented in a way that minimises common errors for newer editors. Presenting applicable guidance on an as-needed basis feels like it should be mostly positive.
2281:
I agree (I think you're advocating this; please correct me if not) that improving Citoid's output (in addition to that of scripts like reFill and
Citation bot) is probably a more fruitful avenue for raising the quality of citations added across experience levels. I think this starts with some sort of
1232:
The page already says that style should be consistent, and already included under "Generally considered helpful" is "making citations added by other editors match the existing style (if any). Do not revert someone else's contribution merely because the citation style doesn't match. If you know how to
2314:
English" template, or something similar, although the likelihood is low.Having thought on it a bit instead of getting ready for work, I suppose the initial Edit Check message about adding a reference to new uncited paragraphs might be encountered frequently enough to generate annoyance in users (and
2255:
One of the lessons from the original Clippy was that newbies appreciated its assistance only for a very brief period of time. When you had just bought your first-ever computer, at a cost of almost a month's income, any friendly-looking help was appreciated, especially if you'd never used a computer
2127:
That's probably true without a lot of postprocessing, and the initial algorithmic citations are still pretty bad. I'm not sure what all can be done to make it clear that any citation generation script is a first-pass tool that will almost always produce output requiring manual adjustment. I'm hoping
2341:
could be valuable to people of any experience level. It would be easy to figure out cases where it obviously shouldn't trigger (e.g., 0–4 edits have been made to this page during the last 24 hours; your first edit to this page during the last 24 hours; the most recent edit was made by you; nobody
2087:
trust visual editor/citoid to auto-magically create correct citations; they are dependent on the quality of the metadata that can be scraped from whatever online source. Sure, use ve/citoid to fetch some of the source's metadata but you must check and correct each and every citation that the tool
1107:
In general you shouldn't change referencing styles, unless you are making extensive changes or rewriting the article. As ever "shouldn't" isn't the same as "mustn't", but if anyone objects you will need to find consensus to make the change before continuing. The issue is less one of absolutes, but
521:
have advantages and disadvantages. They provide machine-readable meta data and can be used by editors who don't know how to properly order and format a citation. However, they are intimidating and confusing to most new users, and, if more than a few dozen are used, they make the pages noticeably
2240:
intruding into their editing interface all Comic Sans "Looks like you're populating an infobox! Do you want to navigate away to a tangentially related Help: page instead?" I'm conceptualising the feature I've done exactly zero work on as more like a fully automated
Twinkle, dropping boilerplate
2262:
With that in mind, it's possible that we should design for universal use (e.g., autogenerated refs, because even though they're imperfect, they are very popular with editors of all experience levels), or for bots that autofix the rookie mistakes (e.g., we don't have to revert newbies dropping
433:
Different academic disciplines use different styles because they have different needs and interests. Variations include differences in the choice of information to include, the order in which the information is presented, the punctuation, and the name of the section headings under which the
1321:
Not really clear what you are asking, if you are asking anything. Presumably, you have read the source linked by the url. You have actually consulted this source, right? The page number is in the bottom left margin. If you have not, then you shouldn't be using that source in an en.wiki
2333:
I don't remember what the config plan was for
Reference Check, beyond it only being shown to people with less than 100 edits. So that puts an absolute maximum of 100 encounters, though there was some talk about a maximum number of times it could be displayed, which could be set as low as
1635:
says, either should be fine, so I don't see a reason for a change. "Actual location" doesn't really apply, since the quoted text should be present in both locations. And the "CITED first" order had the advantage of crediting the original/actual author first.
1079:
When in doubt, leave a note on the talk page. In practice, I don't remember ever being challenged when I have proposed changing citation style on an article. Also, many pages that have more than a couple of references already have a mixed style.
1501:
For the clipping, I'm not doing whatever they did. If someone wants to create a clipping using my ref, they can, because I did fix the link. I'm waiting until I can create a clipping myself without doing something exceedingly complicated.—
1204:
I think the fact that exceptions exist (e.g. for substantial rewrites, merges etc.) should be made more obvious. Overall, the admonishing against updating references is just spelled out too strongly. What about something along these lines:
1142:
On the other hand, many articles have a real mess of referencing, and a project of just cleaning up citations and creating a consistent style is justified. It is best to engage with regular editors on the talk page, if possible (see
573:. You may also cite works of art, videos, music album liner notes, sheet music, interviews, recorded speeches, podcasts, television episodes, maps, public mailing lists, ship registers, and a wide variety of other things that are
1211:
Consistent citation styles are preferred. That being said, use whatever citation style you feel comfortable with. No one is required to know how to use your preferred citation style. If inconsistent citation styles bother you,
488:
are popular with scientists. Editors on
Knowledge may use any style they like, including styles they have made up themselves. It is unusual for Knowledge articles to strictly adhere to a formally published academic
1331:
urls. To do so, does a disservice to readers who aren't editors because they will never get beyond the
Knowledge Library banner page. Use the correct newspapers.com url. There is some discussion about clipping at
1991:, but these are all too old for that.) After they're generated, you can edit it to change anything that you think it got wrong. If you've not tried the visual editor, then this link will probably work for you:
542:
is a citation listed at the end of an article, without any system for linking it to a particular bit of material. In an article that contains more than a couple of sentences, it is more difficult to maintain
532:
requires citations based on the content rather than the grammar. Sometimes, one sentence will require multiple inline citations. In other instances, a whole paragraph will not require any inline citations.
1550:
I didn't mean to get into the issue of how to link to newspapers.com. The problem is not that, but how to make it clear what the page number refers to. It looks like it is the page number of "TV Media".—
1208:
If untemplated references are preferred, take special care to maintain a consistent citation style throughout the article. Similarly, avoid changing templated citation styles without seeking consensus.
1960:
Once you have the URLs, here's an example of what you can expect as an autogenerated ref in the visual editor (though you'll have to switch to wikitext to remove the ref tags), using the first book:
1281:
2192:
I have high hopes for future extended functionality that can provide realtime feedback about mistakes and problematic edits. Something a bit more nuanced and informative than edit filters.
2259:
But after the first jitters wore off, most people learned how to use their new computers quickly, and they equally quickly wanted to get rid of anything that treated them like a newbie.
1249:
While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed.
442:
that will happen if we tell people that they must use the style preferred by scientists in articles about history or the style preferred by artists when writing about science.
1315:
840:
366:
2282:
community configured functionality that hooks into Citoid or VE somewhere, which there was a subthread about at the recent VPR thread on Edit Check.As stated above,
2113:. No autogenerating system is going to turn bad metadata into perfect citations, and I think this is the level of imperfection that you can realistically expect.
2092:
1481:
1420:
1340:
1817:. If no such option exists today, how can I post it for a discussion? OR would you be willing to do it, since you may know better how such thins work here?
1754:
The only place we centrally share structured citation is as wikidata items and I don't think there's an easy way to import from those libraries to wikidata.
1144:
1289:
is the diff. Notice that when you look under references, the page number from the newspaper makes it look like it is a page number in the original source.
1660:
409:
1721:
and other databases. I would like to share these libraries with interested wiki-editors, and I wonder if
Knowledge has a mechanism for such sharing.
771:
598:
1842:
for the BBC's website. It always surprises me that the visual editor doesn't recognize it as a news site, and can't pull most of the information.)
1730:
1256:
That said, I wonder if the community is ready to be done with the idea that "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged".
565:
Yes, signs, including gravestones, that are displayed in public are considered publications. If the article is using citation templates, then use
52:
1650:
I'm too lazy to check, but I think that both options used to be present. Personally I prefer the one that is given now, but both are acceptable.
430:
Why doesn't
Knowledge require everyone to use exactly the same style for formatting citations on every single article, regardless of the subject?
1870:
Can someone please make a series of YouTube videos going through and verbally explaining, with examples everything on the
Knowledge help pages?
1477:. If you have questions about clipping, you should ask at the WP:Newspapers.com talk page. If the current url cannot be translated, remove it.
822:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit
2026:
2010:
1940:
1925:
547:
without using inline citations, but general references can be useful and are not banned. However, they are not adequate if the material is
420:
1197:
1155:
742:
1225:
1137:
1814:
1191:
1131:
1037:
1031:
1003:
975:
969:
138:
2290:
into a vacuous / pleonastic synonym of the article title because they think having no short description is erroneous and are unaware of
1943:, there isn't an automatic way to do that correctly. You will have to look up each one of them manually. The convention is to use the
87:
2122:
2100:
877:
1976:
1521:
1489:
1428:
1387:
1348:
2060:– don't do that; the name of the institute that contributed the source to Internet Archive is irrelevant and may mislead our readers
1810:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
1611:
1102:
1084:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
1570:
1545:
2393:
2146:
1851:
1749:
1578:
1411:
1265:
1242:
867:
765:
2351:
2328:
2276:
2250:
2231:
2209:
2137:
1839:
2398:
653:
93:
2018:
2004:
1089:
It seems to be saying not to add templated citations to already cited pages, which is absurd. Further down the page it says
2187:
1073:
1060:(Note that templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style.)
374:
2342:
except you has edited this page during the last 24 hours) but impossible to detect all the cases where it should trigger.
1909:
1626:
1826:
1804:
505:
2169:
1786:
1763:
1654:
1920:
What's the easy way for a new user to generate citations from archive.org or google.books for the 25 books listed on
1564:
1515:
1405:
1381:
1309:
997:
920:
760:
414:
2294:, or altering variant English spellings to their preferred lect's because they're unaware of valid alternatives and
1933:
1645:
1148:
1064:
Is this saying that I should not add citation templates to an article that does not already use citation templates?
2298:, or altering era styles from BCE/CE to BC/AD or vice versa because they have feelings about it and are unaware of
504:
are now required in new articles, although some older articles may still use the now-deprecated citation system of
926:
2388:
1286:
1187:
1164:, if there isn't one then imposing one style is considered helpful per 'Generally considered helpful' point 3 in
1127:
1091:
an article should not be switched between templated and non-templated citations without good reason and consensus
1027:
965:
944:
552:
2306:, etc.All of these are pretty common, typically reverted, and not bot-addressible because they'd all fall under
522:
slower to load. Editors should use their best judgment to decide which format best suits each specific article.
2218:
would be welcome, but there are a few things that could be handy (e.g., pre-warning about URLs that are on the
1359:. But if you look at the ref, it looks like it is a page number in TV Media, which provided the article to the
33:
1392:
I followed the bot directions and did get the URLs converted. So is the page number all right the way it is?—
1702:
679:
647:
82:
1885:
775:
of
Knowledge's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.
727:
628:
539:
518:
2096:
1485:
1424:
1344:
827:
556:
73:
695:(MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.
1987:
The first is archive.org and the second is books.google.com. (You can also generate citations from an
1533:
1173:
1113:
1013:
951:
481:
133:
1831:
Wikidata has citation/bibliographic information for a large number of scientific papers. I think that
1768:
Thank you for reminding me about WikiData. I do not think I need to export anything from my libraries.
731:
692:
687:
439:
1108:
rather about stopping editors from wasting their time arguing about what reference style to use. --
2219:
1474:
1333:
1047:
735:
501:
37:
2143:
1951:
1718:
1617:
I think I'd put the source that you personally read yourself first, but either is probably okay.
1152:
1081:
529:
466:
2302:, or altering ordinals from English words to numeric representations because they're unaware of
691:, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the
2347:
2272:
2227:
2183:
2118:
2000:
1915:
1847:
1745:
1622:
1541:
1455:
1261:
1221:
1098:
1069:
823:
818:
795:
730:
procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the
English Knowledge
1881:
1678:
1558:
1509:
1399:
1375:
1368:
I'm not sure how to convert the newspapers.com URL because of the problem that I linked to.—
1303:
991:
914:
634:
457:
111:
1328:
2307:
2237:
1832:
1822:
1782:
1726:
1682:
1238:
903:
492:
Isn't everyone required to use clickable footnotes like this to cite sources in an article?
476:
446:
a style that they believe is appropriate for the individual article in question and should
118:
2197:
2088:
creates. Be responsible and don't create a mess that other editors will have to clean up.
8:
2324:
2246:
2205:
2133:
1965:
1955:
Auto-citing a source using the visual editor – look for the "Cite" button in the toolbar.
1690:
1494:
The page number is not the page number of Sunday TV Magazine, but the TV Magazine of the
1055:
1048:
602:
574:
544:
515:
Why doesn't Knowledge require everyone to use citation templates in every single article?
496:
461:
443:
63:
984:
Thanks. I looked at an article that used notes and it didn't make sense what was done.—
2165:
1905:
1898:
Have you searched YouTube? There are a whole bunch of solid introduction videos there.
1698:
1580:
1437:
568:
103:
78:
2343:
2268:
2223:
2179:
2114:
2030:
2014:
1996:
1929:
1921:
1843:
1741:
1632:
1618:
1537:
1257:
1217:
1213:
1165:
1094:
1065:
447:
59:
389:
2291:
1893:
1877:
1800:
1641:
1552:
1503:
1393:
1369:
1297:
985:
908:
896:
772:
guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Knowledge policies
548:
509:
470:
is commonly used by historians and in the fine arts. Other US style guides include
2310:, and could be the valid result of a talkpage discussion, conformance with a "Use
2075:– don't do that; omit corporate designations unless required for disambiguation:
1818:
1778:
1759:
1722:
1694:
1607:
1361:
1355:
1234:
485:
2033:: And like so, so, many automatically created citations, those are both flawed.
2320:
2242:
2201:
2153:
2129:
1710:
1686:
2175:
385:
2382:
2338:
2284:
No autogenerating system is going to turn bad metadata into perfect citations
2264:
2142:
I guess there is a reason why I just plod along building citations manually.
2106:
1944:
1651:
1145:
Talk:Joseph Conrad/Archive 2#Convert footnotes to Explanatory footnotes (efn)
835:
717:
1473:
Apparently, others have solved the clipping issue. That is why I linked to
1296:, so access to the source is currently limited to Knowledge library users.—
936:
601:. For talk archives from the previous Manual of Style (footnotes) page see
525:
Isn't there a rule that every single sentence requires an inline citation?
2319:
to annoy them, which might help them stop without technical restriction.
2303:
2193:
2159:
1899:
1796:
1674:
1637:
810:
789:
435:
390:
2295:
2110:
1771:
I can just post a Zotero file (or its archived version) on to WikiData.
1755:
1737:
1603:
1282:
Source is not the newspaper, but it looks like source has a page number
830:
and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the
2196:, it's not currently implemented on English Knowledge at all, and the
1992:
1865:
831:
471:
2009:
Thank you, I didn't know about that button, that will help. Cheers.
1452:
names along with the page number and issue date. You could write a
759:
For information on Knowledge's approach to the establishment of new
1714:
751:
387:
2299:
1670:
1586:
Maybe this is really minor. Currently, WP:SAYWHERE has the order
1631:
I'm used to the "cited in" order given in the example. And like
2215:
1706:
1666:
907:
and I can't find any explanation of what I should have done.—
391:
2066:– don't do that; write the name as it appears in the source:
2048:– don't do that; write the name as it appears in the source:
2039:– don't do that; write the name as it appears in the source:
1293:
1602:
That would place the actual location of the material first.
1988:
1673:
libraries with detailed bibliography and full-text pdfs of
438:
on Knowledge, and the community does not want to have the
1329:
https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/
549:
one of four types of content requiring an inline citation
2105:
The first one also has the title in librarian-preferred
464:
is the authoritative source. For American English the
1993:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Sydney_Moseley?veaction=edit
1873:
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
1149:
Talk:Vaquita#Clean up needed - especially referencing
474:
which is used by sociologists and psychologists, and
1970:. Robarts - University of Toronto. London : Cassell.
28:
1416:
Use the page number as it is written in the source.
1008:No worries, learning is part of the experience. --
1596:Smith (2009), p. 99, cited in Jones (2010), p. 29.
1838:(For myself, I keep wishing someone will do some
2380:
1661:sharing Zotero libraries with other wiki-editors
1600:Jones (2010), p. 29, citing Smith (2009), p. 99.
1964:Moseley, Sydney A. (Sydney Alexander) (1916).
1444:Look in the lower left margin. It gives both
2256:before, and might not even know how to type.
745:carefully and exercise caution when editing.
839:
1774:Let me give it a try and see how it works.
1353:The page number is the page number in the
448:never edit-war over the style of citations
1876:I look forward to hearing from you soon.
627:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
1950:
685:This page falls within the scope of the
597:To find archives of this talk page, see
2058:|others=Robarts - University of Toronto
1974:
1963:
434:information is presented. There is no
2381:
2263:Facebook links into articles, because
575:published and accessible to the public
1840:mw:Citoid/Creating Zotero translators
846:and a volunteer will visit you there.
816:This page is within the scope of the
741:Contributors are urged to review the
701:Knowledge:WikiProject Manual of Style
535:Aren't general references prohibited?
738:. Both areas are subjects of debate.
704:Template:WikiProject Manual of Style
616:
614:
610:
586:
399:
15:
2037:|first=Sydney A. (Sydney Alexander)
633:It is of interest to the following
36:for discussing improvements to the
13:
2267:does it faster than humans can).
1975:Moseley, Sydney Alexander (1916).
1835:has done some of the work on that.
750:
716:
559:that uses some general references.
480:which is used in humanities. The
14:
2410:
2109:, even though most citations use
1677:publications. The topics cover
943:doesn't do anything. See my edit
809:
788:
678:
664:
657:
646:
615:
590:
506:inline parenthetical referencing
408:
373:
53:Click here to start a new topic.
2287:
2214:I have my doubts about whether
1978:The Truth about the Dardanelles
1967:The truth about the Dardanelles
1590:. Should not it take the order
1253:Maybe we should put it in bold.
855:Template:Knowledge Help Project
553:Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.
2352:19:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2329:11:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2277:07:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2251:06:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2232:05:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2210:04:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2188:04:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2170:03:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2077:|publisher=Cassell and Company
2053:|publisher=Cassell and Company
1292:Also, I should point out that
842:ask for help on your talk page
453:What styles are commonly used?
1:
2394:High-importance Help articles
2147:22:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
2138:22:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
2123:07:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
2101:07:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
2019:05:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
2005:05:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
1934:05:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
1910:03:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1886:18:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
1703:persistent organic pollutants
1160:Yeah you shouldn't change an
50:Put new text under old text.
2399:Knowledge Help Project pages
1462:|magazine=Sunday TV Magazine
1147:). Sometimes, nobody cares:
872:This page has been rated as
458:many published style manuals
7:
2073:|publisher=Cassell, Limited
2046:|publisher=London : Cassell
1995:It works like Google Docs.
1852:17:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1827:15:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1805:11:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1795:meant for arbitrary files.
1787:10:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1764:08:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1750:23:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
1731:15:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
1655:07:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1646:05:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1627:23:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
1612:17:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
1571:17:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
1546:04:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
1522:17:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
1490:22:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
1429:22:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
1412:22:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
1388:22:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
1349:22:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
1316:21:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
1266:04:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
1243:02:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
1226:02:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
1198:10:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
1156:23:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
1138:22:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
1103:20:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
1085:18:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
1074:17:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
460:. For British English the
58:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
2415:
878:project's importance scale
726:This page falls under the
499:(also called "<ref: -->
482:Council of Science Editors
425:Frequently asked questions
101:
1705:etc. The data came from
1038:18:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
1004:17:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
976:17:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
927:16:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
871:
826:, where you can join the
804:
758:
724:
688:Knowledge:Manual of Style
673:
641:
88:Be welcoming to newcomers
22:Skip to table of contents
2220:Knowledge:Spam blacklist
1579:Order of the example in
707:Manual of Style articles
21:
2064:|first=Sydney Alexander
1719:CORE (research service)
761:policies and guidelines
530:Knowledge:Verifiability
467:Chicago Manual of Style
2389:NA-Class Help articles
2158:What is "Edit Check"?
1956:
1233:fix it, then fix it."
852:Knowledge:Help Project
819:Knowledge Help Project
755:
721:
83:avoid personal attacks
1954:
1679:lithium-ion batteries
1294:I can't create a clip
754:
736:article titles policy
720:
545:text-source integrity
444:Editors should choose
367:Auto-archiving period
2236:Right, nobody wants
2200:are yet but dreams.
1922:Sydney_Moseley#Works
1740:, are you around?
1683:sodium-ion batteries
904:The Iron Lady (film)
477:The MLA Style Manual
1981:. Cassell, Limited.
1916:citation generator?
1691:international order
1592:CITING citing CITED
1534:WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT
932:You're looking for
603:Help talk:Footnotes
555:is an example of a
502:shortened footnotes
462:Oxford Style Manual
1957:
1699:nuclear submarines
1450:Sunday TV Magazine
756:
743:awareness criteria
728:contentious topics
722:
629:content assessment
562:Can I cite a sign?
519:Citation templates
94:dispute resolution
55:
2093:Trappist the monk
1777:Have a good day.
1482:Trappist the monk
1475:WP:Newspapers.com
1441:
1421:Trappist the monk
1341:Trappist the monk
1334:WP:Newspapers.com
1196:
1181:
1177:
1171:
1136:
1121:
1117:
1111:
1036:
1021:
1017:
1011:
974:
959:
955:
949:
892:
891:
888:
887:
884:
883:
783:
782:
779:
778:
609:
608:
585:
584:
540:general reference
423:
398:
397:
74:Assume good faith
51:
27:
26:
2406:
2289:
2162:
2157:
2078:
2074:
2069:
2068:|first=Sydney A.
2065:
2059:
2054:
2051:
2050:|location=London
2047:
2042:
2041:|first=Sydney A.
2038:
1982:
1971:
1902:
1897:
1567:
1561:
1555:
1518:
1512:
1506:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1435:
1408:
1402:
1396:
1384:
1378:
1372:
1312:
1306:
1300:
1250:
1247:From the lead:
1184:
1179:
1175:
1169:
1124:
1119:
1115:
1109:
1024:
1019:
1015:
1009:
1000:
994:
988:
962:
957:
953:
947:
941:
935:
923:
917:
911:
860:
859:
856:
853:
850:
845:
824:the project page
813:
806:
805:
800:
792:
785:
784:
769:. Additionally,
709:
708:
705:
702:
699:
682:
675:
674:
669:
668:
667:
662:
661:
660:
650:
643:
642:
620:
619:
618:
611:
594:
593:
587:
572:
557:featured article
486:Vancouver styles
413:
412:
400:
392:
378:
377:
368:
121:
114:
29:
16:
2414:
2413:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2379:
2378:
2160:
2151:
2076:
2072:
2067:
2063:
2057:
2052:
2049:
2045:
2040:
2036:
1947:for such lists.
1918:
1900:
1891:
1868:
1833:Daniel Mietchen
1695:nuclear warfare
1665:I have several
1663:
1588:CITED by CITING
1584:
1565:
1559:
1553:
1532:Is this just a
1516:
1510:
1504:
1496:Concord Monitor
1465:
1461:
1453:
1446:Concord Monitor
1406:
1400:
1394:
1382:
1376:
1370:
1362:Concord Monitor
1356:Concord Monitor
1310:
1304:
1298:
1284:
1248:
1053:
998:
992:
986:
942:, <note: -->
939:
933:
921:
915:
909:
901:I messed up on
899:
874:High-importance
857:
854:
851:
848:
847:
799:High‑importance
798:
732:Manual of Style
706:
703:
700:
698:Manual of Style
697:
696:
693:Manual of Style
663:
656:
654:Manual of Style
591:
581:
580:
566:
551:. The article
426:
424:
394:
393:
388:
365:
127:
126:
125:
124:
117:
110:
106:
99:
69:
12:
11:
5:
2412:
2402:
2401:
2396:
2391:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2337:A warning for
2335:
2260:
2257:
2149:
2089:
2086:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2070:
2061:
2055:
2043:
2023:
2021:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1972:
1958:
1948:
1917:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1867:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1836:
1775:
1772:
1769:
1752:
1711:Web of Science
1687:flow batteries
1662:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1648:
1629:
1594:? That is, in
1583:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1499:
1478:
1471:
1469:
1466:|via=] / '']''
1442:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1417:
1366:
1337:
1325:
1323:
1283:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1254:
1251:
1229:
1228:
1209:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1162:existing style
1052:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
979:
978:
898:
895:
890:
889:
886:
885:
882:
881:
870:
864:
863:
861:
849:Knowledge Help
836:Help Directory
814:
802:
801:
796:Knowledge Help
793:
781:
780:
777:
776:
757:
747:
746:
740:
723:
713:
712:
710:
683:
671:
670:
651:
639:
638:
632:
621:
607:
606:
595:
583:
582:
579:
578:
563:
560:
536:
533:
526:
523:
516:
513:
493:
490:
454:
451:
431:
427:
407:
406:
405:
403:
396:
395:
386:
384:
383:
380:
379:
129:
128:
123:
122:
115:
107:
102:
100:
98:
97:
90:
85:
76:
70:
68:
67:
56:
47:
46:
43:
42:
41:
38:Citing sources
25:
24:
19:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2411:
2400:
2397:
2395:
2392:
2390:
2387:
2386:
2384:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2340:
2336:
2332:
2331:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2318:
2313:
2309:
2308:WP:CONTEXTBOT
2305:
2301:
2297:
2293:
2285:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2261:
2258:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2239:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2207:
2203:
2199:
2198:stretch goals
2195:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2185:
2181:
2177:
2176:mw:Edit check
2173:
2172:
2171:
2167:
2163:
2155:
2150:
2148:
2145:
2144:Donald Albury
2141:
2140:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2107:Sentence case
2104:
2103:
2102:
2098:
2094:
2090:
2084:
2082:
2071:
2062:
2056:
2044:
2035:
2034:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2022:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1980:
1979:
1973:
1969:
1968:
1962:
1961:
1959:
1953:
1949:
1946:
1945:first edition
1942:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1895:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1874:
1871:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1834:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1773:
1770:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1656:
1653:
1649:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1634:
1630:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1582:
1572:
1568:
1566:contributions
1562:
1556:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1523:
1519:
1517:contributions
1513:
1507:
1500:
1497:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1476:
1472:
1470:
1468:or some such.
1457:
1456:cite magazine
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1438:edit conflict
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1409:
1407:contributions
1403:
1397:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1385:
1383:contributions
1379:
1373:
1367:
1364:
1363:
1358:
1357:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1335:
1330:
1326:
1324:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1313:
1311:contributions
1307:
1301:
1295:
1290:
1288:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1252:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1231:
1230:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1210:
1207:
1206:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1193:
1189:
1183:
1182:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1154:
1153:Donald Albury
1150:
1146:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1135:
1133:
1129:
1123:
1122:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1082:Donald Albury
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1050:
1039:
1035:
1033:
1029:
1023:
1022:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1001:
999:contributions
995:
989:
983:
982:
981:
980:
977:
973:
971:
967:
961:
960:
945:
938:
931:
930:
929:
928:
924:
922:contributions
918:
912:
906:
905:
897:Note, not ref
894:
879:
875:
869:
866:
865:
862:
858:Help articles
844:
843:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
820:
815:
812:
808:
807:
803:
797:
794:
791:
787:
786:
774:
773:
768:
767:
762:
753:
749:
748:
744:
739:
737:
733:
729:
719:
715:
714:
711:
694:
690:
689:
684:
681:
677:
676:
672:
655:
652:
649:
645:
644:
640:
636:
630:
626:
622:
613:
612:
604:
600:
596:
589:
588:
576:
570:
564:
561:
558:
554:
550:
546:
541:
537:
534:
531:
527:
524:
520:
517:
514:
511:
507:
503:
498:
494:
491:
487:
483:
479:
478:
473:
469:
468:
463:
459:
455:
452:
449:
445:
441:
437:
432:
429:
428:
422:
419:
416:
411:
404:
402:
401:
382:
381:
376:
372:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
137:
135:
131:
130:
120:
116:
113:
109:
108:
105:
95:
91:
89:
86:
84:
80:
77:
75:
72:
71:
65:
61:
60:Learn to edit
57:
54:
49:
48:
45:
44:
39:
35:
31:
30:
23:
20:
18:
17:
2344:WhatamIdoing
2316:
2311:
2283:
2269:WhatamIdoing
2224:WhatamIdoing
2180:WhatamIdoing
2115:WhatamIdoing
2031:WhatamIdoing
1997:WhatamIdoing
1977:
1966:
1919:
1875:
1872:
1869:
1844:WhatamIdoing
1792:
1791:Wikidata is
1742:WhatamIdoing
1664:
1633:WhatamIdoing
1619:WhatamIdoing
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1585:
1538:WhatamIdoing
1495:
1449:
1445:
1360:
1354:
1291:
1285:
1258:WhatamIdoing
1218:Schierbecker
1185:
1180:isinterested
1172:
1161:
1125:
1120:isinterested
1112:
1095:Schierbecker
1090:
1066:Schierbecker
1063:
1059:
1056:WP:CITESHORT
1054:
1049:WP:CITESHORT
1025:
1020:isinterested
1012:
963:
958:isinterested
950:
902:
900:
893:
873:
841:
817:
770:
764:
725:
686:
635:WikiProjects
625:project page
624:
475:
465:
417:
370:
132:
32:This is the
2304:MOS:ORDINAL
1894:Cole Massi1
1878:Cole Massi1
1675:Open Access
1581:WP:SAYWHERE
1554:Vchimpanzee
1536:problem?
1505:Vchimpanzee
1395:Vchimpanzee
1371:Vchimpanzee
1327:Do not use
1299:Vchimpanzee
987:Vchimpanzee
910:Vchimpanzee
766:WP:PROPOSAL
763:, refer to
436:house style
2383:Categories
2296:MOS:ENGVAR
2238:Wikipe-tan
2111:Title case
1819:Walter Tau
1779:Walter Tau
1723:Walter Tau
1235:Nikkimaria
1166:WP:CITEVAR
828:discussion
734:, and the
500:tags") or
456:There are
2321:Folly Mox
2292:WP:SDNONE
2243:Folly Mox
2202:Folly Mox
2154:Folly Mox
2130:Folly Mox
1815:The Lense
832:Help Menu
599:this list
569:cite sign
510:WP:PARREF
497:Footnotes
472:APA style
104:Shortcuts
96:if needed
79:Be polite
34:talk page
2312:Regional
2265:XLinkBot
1715:The Lens
1598:instead
1322:article.
1051:question
440:holy war
134:Archives
64:get help
2300:MOS:ERA
2027:Enri999
2011:Enri999
1941:Enri999
1926:Enri999
1671:EndNote
1176:ctively
1116:ctively
1016:ctively
954:ctively
876:on the
371:75 days
112:WT:CITE
2339:WP:3RR
2216:Clippy
2194:Rjjiii
2085:cannot
1866:Videos
1811:Gawaon
1797:Gawaon
1707:Scopus
1667:Zotero
1638:Gawaon
1214:fix it
1058:says,
631:scale.
489:style.
2334:once.
1809:Dear
1756:Mvolz
1738:Mvolz
1604:Ifly6
1460:with
1168:. --
946:. --
838:. Or
623:This
528:No.
508:(see
495:Yes.
139:Index
119:WT:CS
92:Seek
40:page.
2348:talk
2325:talk
2317:want
2288:none
2273:talk
2247:talk
2228:talk
2206:talk
2184:talk
2174:See
2166:talk
2134:talk
2119:talk
2097:talk
2083:You
2015:talk
2001:talk
1989:ISBN
1930:talk
1906:talk
1882:talk
1848:talk
1823:talk
1801:talk
1783:talk
1760:talk
1746:talk
1727:talk
1669:and
1652:Zero
1642:talk
1623:talk
1608:talk
1560:talk
1542:talk
1511:talk
1486:talk
1464:and
1448:and
1425:talk
1401:talk
1377:talk
1345:talk
1305:talk
1287:This
1262:talk
1239:talk
1222:talk
1099:talk
1070:talk
993:talk
916:talk
868:High
484:and
421:edit
415:view
81:and
2222:).
2161:Rjj
1901:Rjj
1793:not
1569:•
1520:•
1410:•
1386:•
1314:•
1190:» °
1170:LCU
1130:» °
1110:LCU
1030:» °
1010:LCU
1002:•
968:» °
948:LCU
937:efn
925:•
834:or
2385::
2350:)
2327:)
2275:)
2249:)
2230:)
2208:)
2186:)
2168:)
2136:)
2121:)
2099:)
2029:;
2017:)
2003:)
1932:)
1924:?
1908:)
1884:)
1850:)
1825:)
1803:)
1785:)
1762:)
1748:)
1729:)
1717:,
1713:,
1709:,
1701:,
1697:,
1693:,
1689:,
1685:,
1681:,
1644:)
1625:)
1610:)
1563:•
1557:•
1544:)
1514:•
1508:•
1488:)
1458:}}
1454:{{
1427:)
1404:•
1398:•
1380:•
1374:•
1347:)
1308:•
1302:•
1264:)
1241:)
1224:)
1216:.
1192:∆t
1151:.
1132:∆t
1101:)
1072:)
1032:∆t
996:•
990:•
970:∆t
940:}}
934:{{
919:•
913:•
571:}}
567:{{
538:A
512:).
369::
363:56
361:,
359:55
357:,
355:54
353:,
351:53
349:,
347:52
345:,
343:51
341:,
339:50
337:,
335:49
333:,
331:48
329:,
327:47
325:,
323:46
321:,
319:45
317:,
315:44
313:,
311:43
309:,
307:42
305:,
303:41
301:,
299:40
297:,
295:39
293:,
291:38
289:,
287:37
285:,
283:36
281:,
279:35
277:,
275:34
273:,
271:33
269:,
267:32
265:,
263:31
261:,
259:30
257:,
255:29
253:,
251:28
249:,
247:27
245:,
243:26
241:,
239:25
237:,
235:24
233:,
231:23
229:,
227:22
225:,
223:21
221:,
219:20
217:,
215:19
213:,
211:18
209:,
207:17
205:,
203:16
201:,
199:15
197:,
195:14
193:,
191:13
189:,
187:12
185:,
183:11
181:,
179:10
177:,
173:,
169:,
165:,
161:,
157:,
153:,
149:,
145:,
141:,
62:;
2346:(
2323:(
2271:(
2245:(
2226:(
2204:(
2182:(
2164:(
2156::
2152:@
2132:(
2117:(
2095:(
2091:—
2025:@
2013:(
1999:(
1939:@
1928:(
1904:(
1896::
1892:@
1880:(
1846:(
1821:(
1799:(
1781:(
1758:(
1744:(
1736:@
1725:(
1640:(
1621:(
1606:(
1540:(
1498:.
1484:(
1480:—
1440:)
1436:(
1423:(
1419:—
1365:.
1343:(
1339:—
1336:.
1260:(
1237:(
1220:(
1194:°
1188:@
1186:«
1178:D
1174:A
1134:°
1128:@
1126:«
1118:D
1114:A
1097:(
1068:(
1034:°
1028:@
1026:«
1018:D
1014:A
972:°
966:@
964:«
956:D
952:A
880:.
637::
605:.
577:.
450:.
418:·
175:9
171:8
167:7
163:6
159:5
155:4
151:3
147:2
143:1
136::
66:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.